There is grousing that Breitbart and the Christian Broadcasting Network are the only conservative non-cable outlets to have scored an interview with the president in his first 100 days.
“Why do they keep running to Bloomberg or The Washington Post or New York Times? Why not one of us? We can handle it, and the people that read those places aren’t the ones that sent Trump to the Oval Office. If you want a dialogue with the American voters that sent him there, this is how you do it.”
The Trump SoHo Hotel and Condominium in Manhattan is an upscale 46-story property owned by a Los Angeles investment group, the CIM Group, through one of its real estate funds. (Read the most recent amendment to the Trump SoHo’s offering plan: tmsnrt.rs/2q3HJH8)
The possible problem for Trump lies in the fact that state- and city-run pension funds have invested in the CIM fund and pay it a few million dollars in quarterly fees to manage their investments in its portfolio, which includes the Trump SoHo, according to state investment records.
What exactly a given place needs to do to deal with those realities — how to improve the quality of K-12 schools, increase college graduation rates, attract new businesses, and so forth — is contentious.
But there’s simply no realistic regional development strategy that’s based on indulging nostalgia.
To improve, places need to change. Indeed, they probably need to accelerate the pace of change. And not everyone is going to like it.
.. governing France is well-nigh impossible. In spite of its leftist postures, this is a very conservative culture, as in nothing new should ever be done.
Every significant reform finds strong opposition at one end or the other of the political spectrum. François de Closets, the great journalist and author, summarized presidential predicament in two felicitously titled books: Toujours plus! (Always More!)—that is, no taking anything away, always adding spending and entitlements—and Le Divorce Français, (The French Divorce)—the people against its elites, the elites against the people.
Because Trump’s style is so confusing, audiences have to pay closer attention to make sense of his words. And this focus means listeners are more likely to be persuaded, just as you’re more likely to be convinced by a lecturer if you pay close attention rather than let her words drift over you.
It’s not foolproof, of course—listeners can still use their judgment to evaluate a speech—but it does give an advantage. After all, says Richard Wilson, “If you’re listening to someone more intensely, then you’re more likely to be persuaded by that than if you’re not listening to them.”
a very basic question remains unanswered: Why are there two such initiatives?
By any measure, the objectives of both OAI (Office of American Innovation) and the OMB (Office of Management and Budget) “reorganization” directive are related, if not entirely intertwined.
But they are not obviously in synch. And that could create both confusion and redundancy.
Then there is the question of the budget. Agencies are developing their reorganization plans mostly after the President’s 2018 budget proposal has been essentially completed. Reorganization plans, based on careful evidence-based evaluations, represent the logical foundation for the next budget.
But if the budget is not aligned with the plans, how can even the most worthy reorganization be executed?