tl;dr The author visited a university with one of the two copies of a wallpaper sample book. Its danger stems from the arsenic dyes used at the time. The article then relays the history of arsenic dyes and how we came to notice (1847-ish) their effects (akin to lead paint or asbestos).
Arguably Arsenic is more dangerous than lead paid or asbestos, because its much more readily absorbed than either, an unlike asbestos, you needn't disturb it, just be in the room with it.
Oh yes, it's the arsenic wallpapers which made people grow tired of a party which handed over campaign funds during the primaries choosing their president.
I felt like making a point that there were some valid reasons to vote for Trump. And I decided to point to the recently exposed handing over of funds during the primaries as an example of such a reason.
> This victory fund agreement, however, had been signed in August 2015, just four months after Hillary announced her candidacy and nearly a year before she officially had the nomination.
> I had gone department by department, investigating individual conduct for evidence of skewed decisions, and I was happy to see that I had found none. Then I found this agreement.
> The funding arrangement with HFA and the victory fund agreement was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical. If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party’s integrity.
Populism happened before. When we went from an agrarian society to industrialized, we got a civil war, about 45 years of populism (1890~2035), and WWI. Now we are facing an equal if not larger economic dislocation. People are rightly afraid.
11 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 40.5 ms ] thread> This victory fund agreement, however, had been signed in August 2015, just four months after Hillary announced her candidacy and nearly a year before she officially had the nomination.
> I had gone department by department, investigating individual conduct for evidence of skewed decisions, and I was happy to see that I had found none. Then I found this agreement.
> The funding arrangement with HFA and the victory fund agreement was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical. If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party’s integrity.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-b...