Linky Friday: Friday the Workteenth


Will Truman

Will Truman is the Editor-in-Chief of Ordinary Times. He is also on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

111 Responses

  1. Avatar Marchmaine says:

    I think that if, heaven forbid, something happened to my wife, I’d be more content to be a single dad tha[n] re-enter the arena.

    That would totally work as a persona… good plan. Lots of tinder swipes, I predict.Report

  2. Avatar Marchmaine says:

    [Ln6] I don’t know anything about RLC other than what 3 minutes on their website could tell me… it didn’t appear to me that they weren’t sincere [protestant] Christians and seemingly still in the fold of “mere” Christianity… even if wildly opposed on some prudential and (perhaps) some moral principals. I’d take up that offer and have a candle-light prayer session. Especially if RLC is serious in expressing a certain solidarity in silent dissent.

    Translated into the Catholic world, there are all sorts of “left” leaning groups that “right” leaning Catholics could commune with… Tradinistas, Seamless Garment folks, Spiritual Friends, etc. etc. There are definitely groups that have slipped the bonds of communion and would require other works of charity, fraternity and conversion before solidarity could be recognized…

    But, as I say, I can’t really judge RLC as a good or bad faith actor in Protestant/Baptist circles, and on that account would leave it to the discretion of Liberty. {However, the discretionary powers at Liberty these days seem somewhat deficient… so I’m giving RLC the initial benefit of the doubt}.Report

  3. Avatar J_A says:

    Last link (Pr5) goes to the wrong articleReport

  4. Avatar Jaybird says:

    Pr1: One of the labs I used to support had some absolutely brilliant coders and guys who were hardware technical wizards and they had Young Earth Creationists in there.

    I mean, let’s go back to the 20’s.

    “Scientific reasoning ability does not predict scientific views on eugenics among religious individuals”

    (And I’ve found an excuse to link back to my “How to Argue for Young Earth Creationism” essay so I will do so.)Report

    • Avatar pillsy in reply to Jaybird says:

      I’m not 100% sure that I follow the analogy.

      I don’t find the result of the study terribly surprising, though, since the easiest person to fool is yourself, and being smart usually makes you better at fooling people. So you’re left with the rather common problem that you can’t reason your way out of something you didn’t reason your way into the first place.Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to pillsy says:

        The whole “scientific reasoning ability does not correlate with stuff that we seriously know to be true and only stupid people disagree with” surprise shows up periodically.

        What won’t scientific reasoning ability correlate with tomorrow?Report

        • Avatar pillsy in reply to Jaybird says:

          I’d bet a large sum of money that evolution is not among the things we won’t believe in tomorrow.

          These analogies only take you so far, unless you dismiss the possibility of any sort of objective reality that we can approximately understand through repeated observation.

          Also, eugenics had the property of blending statements about what is with statements about we should do about it. Evolution does not.Report

          • Avatar Jaybird in reply to pillsy says:


            But that doesn’t change how, tomorrow, we’re going to have a huge number of people who don’t believe something and that very not believing in that thing will not correlate with scientific reasoning ability.

            Even though it’s going to be very unfashionable to not believe that thing.Report

            • Avatar pillsy in reply to Jaybird says:

              And sometimes it’s the disbelief that is people following along with their in-group. Committing to unfashionable (dis-)beliefs will often bind you to your subculture more strongly than fashionable ones.Report

    • Avatar Pinky in reply to Jaybird says:

      YEC is a positive theory; eugenics is more normative.

      (Now, the tricky thing is to believe in YEC and eugenics!)Report

  5. Avatar Jaybird says:

    I would like to register a complaint.

    I keep reading this as “Friday the Woketeenth” and now I’m upset that we haven’t had one of those.Report

  6. Avatar Michael Cain says:

    Wk6: Amsel seems to be the local media’s go-to guy on a number of things. He was often quoted about how NYC’s proposed five-cent fee on plastic bags was going to put him out of business.Report

  7. Avatar Richard Hershberger says:

    Pr1: It lost me at this:

    Participants were chosen on the basis of self-identified membership to one of four specific religions: Catholicism, Judaism, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (i.e., Mormonism), or the Southern Baptist Convention (representing one branch of Protestantism).

    Having distinctions more nuanced than “religious” or “not religious” is a splendid idea. But having Southern Baptists stand in for all Protestants? Um…. Not so good.Report

  8. Avatar Richard Hershberger says:

    Da1: The little woman and I are approaching sixteen years of marriage. We will never get divorced. It would be far too much work. As I cheerfully explain to her, we should pick out a nice convent now for her, should I die first. But she need not worry if she goes first. The women will be lining up. The discussion never goes past this, as she is too busy rolling on the floor laughing.Report

  9. Avatar LeeEsq says:

    Ln1: Defining what patriotism is hard though. Many people on my side of the aisle are inherently suspicious of patriotism. Others define themselves as patriotic but see it expressed as an intense pressuring of the country and countrymen to do better. Those on the right see patriotism as a love of country. God, mom, apple pie, and all that.

    Ln2: Why do they need a water park? They can use the money to pay teachers more or by actual educational equipment.

    Ln6: Liberty University remains that most ironically named university in North America. Evangelical Protestants seem to have a firm desire to link Protestant Christianity with far right American politics in the United States.

    Hi1/Hi3: Interesting ways around the law.

    Hi4: Saul talked about the reluctance to offer higher wages and salaries in the past. Even during a worker shortage, corporations seem to resist doing the one thing that will get more people applying for jobs with every fiber of their being. More money in salaries is less money for the board and shareholders. Its the same with on the job training. What seems to be universally desired is fully trained employees willing to work for low wages. For the first time in my life today, I saw a want ad for a contract lawyer where they said, they will be willing to train the right applicant. This is after being a lawyer for over ten years.

    Wk2: Germany has worker representation on the boards. I think this goes against the American understanding of capitalism though. Corporations were seen as being for the owners above all in the United States. Anything that would threaten this and American interpretations of private property has little chance.Report

    • Avatar Saul Degraw in reply to LeeEsq says:

      Ln2: Why do they need a water park? They can use the money to pay teachers more or by actual educational equipment.

      They don’t want no book-loving intellectuals.Report

      • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to Saul Degraw says:

        They can spend all the money on vocational education and it would still be a better use of money.Report

      • fillyjonk fillyjonk in reply to Saul Degraw says:

        Because competition. Parents and kids want the bells and whistles, and don’t really think about those things costing money or raising tuition. It’s easier to attract students if you have lots of cool fun stuff even if the autoclaves in the science department are broken.Report

    • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to LeeEsq says:

      Wk2: Once a company goes public and has a board of directors, the idea that the corporation is the owner is out the window. Having a labor rep or two on a board makes sense.Report

  10. Avatar LeeEsq says:

    Da1: I’m not a divorced dad. My lack of success in dating is known on this site. I think a big issue with modern romance is that it is based on dating but many people are bad at dating. We have a system that works for the most social, extroverted, and physically attractive people. Everybody else just has to go along. Its why “fake it till you make it” is a big part of dating advice. People who genuinely enjoy dating are in charge and aren’t going to give an inch. The assumption is that people who are having a bad time of it just need to go through hell till the find somebody. The idea that they might end up to bitter to enjoy any eventual success is simply not to be considered. There should be a rebellion of some sort against this awful system.

    Da5: I first encountered this article on LGM. The only explanation I can think of is that the author had an encounter with her husband’s prom date that went badly for the author. The prom date might have done something that pissed off the author.Report

  11. Avatar pillsy says:

    [Da1] I’ve been on my own for about six months (after twelve years of marriage) and I’ve been on one date and it was bad. Really sort of being OK with being single; honestly I’d rather have more, well, friends than I would a girlfriend.

    But it seems it’s even harder to find those than it is to find a date.Report

    • Avatar Richard Hershberger in reply to pillsy says:

      Back in the day, people seem to have instinctively formed social clubs. The bowling league is the archetype, but I think a better example are groups like the Masons and the innumerable Masons knock-offs. You might join a bowling league simply because you like bowling, but you join a lodge for the people. This is not to say the motivation necessarily is pure. The attraction these people hold might be social status rather than winning personalities. But still, it is a group of people who get together to get together.

      We lost this somewhere along the way. Those lodges still exist, but the image I have of them is a bunch of old guys smoking and drinking bad beer. But hobby groups still exist. Also, churches, if that is how you roll. But if not, pick some activity that you enjoy and that lends itself to group participation and join your local archery or lapidary or haberdashery or whatever club.Report

      • Avatar pillsy in reply to Richard Hershberger says:

        I joined a D&D game for that reason, and it helps.

        But it’s only a few people once a week.

        And a long-ass drive.Report

        • fillyjonk fillyjonk in reply to pillsy says:

          “long-ass drive” is a big huge reason why I don’t do more social stuff. There are groups I COULD participate in – but it’s an hour trip, both ways, and when they meet on a Thursday evening and I have classes on Friday? That’s gonna almost always be a “nope.”

          My best friend in the world right now lives about 5 hours away from me. I would do a lot more fun things with her – we have several hobbies in common – but it’s so hard to meet up.Report

      • Avatar Aaron David in reply to Richard Hershberger says:

        Richard is right about this. Many of the old societies, for lack of a better word, were basically the way to make both business contacts and in the process create acquaintances that become friends. I was surprised when my brother joined the Elks, but on reflection, I made total sense. A single guy who works 60-70 hours a week needed a bit of direction in social activities. They provided it. And no smoking, but lots of wives who have sisters and friends…Report

      • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to Richard Hershberger says:

        I think many of those social clubs like the Elks or Masons began to loose luster and seem corny after World War I. By the Counter-Culture, they were definitely coded as uncool and even kind of reactionary. There was an episode of Rumpole of the Bailey where Rumpole had to defend a innocent professor popular with radical students. The professor had an alibi but didn’t want to speak at his trial. It turns out that the professor did not do the crime because the crime occurred when the professor was at meeting of an Elk like social club. Rumpole found somebody at the meeting to testify. The professor was acquitted but lost all respect of his students.

        The decline in social clubs seems linked to suburban sprawl and television. Its easy to dedicate some time during the week to social clubs when they are a short walk or drive from your apartment or house. When they might be an hour or more away and you can watch TV, play video games, or be online at home; going out is hard.

        Since I’ve moved to the Bay Area, I’ve noticed that the partner dance scene is more dispersed. In New York, everything happened in Manhattan with a few dances in the suburbs. The dance scene in the Bay Area stretches from Novato in the north to San Jose in the south and from San Francisco in the West to Danville in the East. It was easier to get on the subway and go into Manhattan for dance than getting in car because driving home late at night isn’t ideal.Report

        • Avatar Jaybird in reply to LeeEsq says:

          The Flintstones had Fred and Barney be members of the Order of Water Buffalo.

          Happy Days had the dad be a member of the Shriners, I think it was.

          But then, in 1974, Gary Gygax invented D&D which made these clubs obsolete.Report

          • Avatar Saul Degraw in reply to Jaybird says:

            Fred and Barney and the Happy Days Dad were fictional representatives of older and more socially conformist generations. Rock n’ Roll did make those orgs seem very corny. I think they are very corny.Report

          • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to Jaybird says:

            Somehow, I think there was a big difference between the type of people who joined the Masons and the type of people who played D&D. Like Saul noted, people who tended to join Masons, Odd Fellows, and similar groups tended to be very socially conforming in a Babbit like way. D&D players, especially the first generation, are not socially conforming.

            The groups also become obsolete before D&D appeared by a decade. Baby Boomers of all sorts expressed little interest in these groups even if they were the types that would join in the past. They really just seemed corny to kids raised on rock.Report

            • Avatar Maribou in reply to LeeEsq says:

              I’m pretty sure the groups that took over were the Rotary Club and Speechmasters.

              Both of those have large memberships.Report

              • Avatar Richard Hershberger in reply to Maribou says:

                I think of the Rotary Club as my parents’ generation. Kiwanis, too. I don’t know anyone my age who belongs to either, and I am in my fifties. But perhaps I am just sheltered. I don’t have any sense of Speechmasters apart from a vague awareness that an organization of that name exists.Report

              • Avatar Saul Degraw in reply to Richard Hershberger says:

                I thought it was called Toastmatters. I knew one person who was a member.

                I concur on Rotary Club and Kiwanis and Jaycees.Report

              • Avatar Maribou in reply to Saul Degraw says:

                @saul-degraw Toastmasters – and it’s the same org just uses 2 different names. And for Rotary and Toastmasters/Speechmasters, I know people my own age, or even younger, who are involved both here and back home.

                There’s still an active Kiwanis club where I grew up, again, having members in their early 30s.

                Heck, back in PEI, even the venerable Women’s Institute is still chugging along. Not sure it will be in 30 years, but it’s well-attended right now.

                On some level, in my close *friend* groups (vs friendly acquaintance circles), the thing that has taken over from those things is social sports where parents can participate alongside their kids, and non-parents can participate alongside their friends with kids too. Tae Kwon Do, climbing, etc…. heck, one of my friends even goes to Magic the Gathering tournaments with one of his kids. That even partially explains the renaissance of gaming groups.

                Starting to see the *how* of how today’s parents actually spend more time with kids than they did in the 50s when one parent (usually) stayed home…Report

              • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to Maribou says:

                My last encounter with the Rotary Club was in high school during the 1990s. Every member seemed at least a decade or two older than my parents.Report

              • Avatar Maribou in reply to LeeEsq says:

                @leeesq I know people my age in both, and lots of people my parents’ age (which I think is about your parents’ age and about Richard’s age, or at least somewhere in between, forgive me @richard-hershberger if I’m guessing wrong.) Perhaps relatedly, none of them spend a whole lot of time on the internet. Some of ’em don’t even really have accounts.Report

      • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Richard Hershberger says:

        I’m reading an essay on Patrick Deneen’s “Why Liberalism Failed”, where apparently Deneen makes the case that classical liberalism has led to so great a focus on the individual that we now have become isolated from each other.

        Ironically, wasn’t the main promise of social media to help people connect, through Facebook and online groups?Report

        • Avatar dragonfrog in reply to Chip Daniels says:

          The main promise of social media was delivered in venture capital pitch sessions, to which you and I were not party…Report

          • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to dragonfrog says:

            Hah- no doubt.

            I also remember in the 90s when advocates of the World Wide Web promised that it would be the technology to usher in global freedom and democracy since, as was obvious, no government could possibly control it.
            Rumor superstition and misinformation would be vanquished since anyone could have access to the truth with just a click.Report

      • Avatar Saul Degraw in reply to Richard Hershberger says:

        Organizations like the Masons and the Odd-Fellows always seem extremely cheesy to me. Really cheesy and old-school but not old-school in a good way.Report

        • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Saul Degraw says:

          Well, y’know they had the word Odd right there in the name. Its not like false advertising or anything.Report

        • My only close observation of the Masons was through my father and grandfather, 50 or so years ago. At that time, in that place (small towns in the Prairie and Great Plains states), the Masons were very much a social support network. If a member was sick or injured, the lodge made sure that chores got done: the lawn was mowed, the oil changed, a broken window repaired. In some cases it was done by donated labor/expertise; in others, the lodge paid the bill. If a member lost their job, chances were good that someone in the local lodge knew that a member of the lodge the next town over was looking to hire someone. In the event of a relocation, “member in good standing” was an automatic entry into the social network in the new place.

          My 90-year-old mother lives at the Nebraska Masonic Home, a continuing care facility funded by the Masons in Nebraska for elderly lodge members and their wives who need it. The Masons in most states operate one or more such homes — it’s a surprisingly large network that hardly anyone outside of the Masonic organizations knows about. When I worked for the Colorado legislature elder care was in my portfolio and I learned how to recognize well-run vs poorly-run care facilities; the Nebraska Home is very well run.Report

    • fillyjonk fillyjonk in reply to pillsy says:

      I’ve been out of the dating pool for YEARS (partly because it is distressingly shallow where I live, partly because I work all the time) but some stuff I’ve heard recently makes me not want to get back in.

      To where do I apply to get my seven cats? (the cat-lady starter kit, I have been informed, is seven cats).

      I was at a talk our Title IX coordinator gave, and while there’s perhaps a bit of a generational difference, he talked about how apparently very many 20-something men now think e-mailing a picture of one’s…..dongle….to a prospective date is how you ask her out. Apparently a number of the men do not see how this is a problem. (They have an entire locked closet on campus of printed evidence young women have brought in, in some cases the women in question having been underage when they received the unwanted message)

      I am nearly 50 and I would hope mean of 50 (or close to it) would understand how literal “junk e-mail” could be a problem, but, one never knows. And I’ve been alone for so long I’m not sure I could brain being together with someone, which is kind of sad.

      And yes, I think I would fall into the camp of “I really want/need more in-person friends more than I need a literal lover”

      Part of my problem is most of my deeply-held interests either skew v. heavily female (e.g., knitting) or tend to attract people much, much older than I am….so meeting a dude at the Native Plant Society meetings seems unlikely.Report

  12. Avatar Marchmaine says:

    There should be a rebellion of some sort against this awful system.”

    I’ve always been curious when this topic comes up on what your social and familial network looks like; the reason I ask is that there are whole swaths of people who meet and marry who don’t do so in this “awful system” I’m loath to offer advice, but “not dating” and meeting and being with people is oft discussed in our circles (and others outside of our idiosyncratic one too). One of the challenges we have are men who move to “commitment” much too quickly… related in some ways, I suppose, the “tempo” discussed in [Da2]. At any rate, the idea of “dating” and dating total strangers vs. curated near acquaintances? Preposterous. Not much by the way of advice or help… maybe just “hope” in shifting your gaze to other networks?

    {edit: misthreaded… obviously a comment to Lee}Report

    • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to Marchmaine says:

      My family network is close nit but small. It consists of my parents, Saul, and older brother, and niece. My social network is people I know from work, dance, and high school. Many of the people I know from work and high school are married with kids and really only know people who are married with kids or divorced with kids. Neither is really ideal for finding a relationship. Many people I know in relationships seem to have one very lucky, random encounter through online dating or in the real world. Something just clicked and they ended up in a couple. I met by compressing the time line for many of them. They did seem to start from one lucky, random encounter though.

      Dance has a good mix of eligible people but the rules about dating people you meet dance are complicated. In order to avoid mixed signals, which are very possible in dance, they don’t date people in the community. Many women in the dance community really don’t like it when men use it as a dating pool.Report

  13. Avatar Kolohe says:

    Wk5 – a federal job guarantee remains the worst mainstream-ish idea that the left has today.Report

  14. Avatar Saul Degraw says:

    Here is an interesting article about the war between Netflix and Cannes and why it is hard to root for either:

    Against Cannes:

    but France’s protectionist laws, which require a 36-month window between a film’s theatrical opening and its streaming debut, seem like the last gasp of a rapidly dying era. And the manner in which Frémaux handed down the Cannes ban, at the same time as the festival announced it was putting the kibosh on red-carpet selfies, was high-handed and doctrinaire. (In other words, it was French.)

    Against Netflix:

    Take a movie called I Don’t Feel at Home in This World Anymore, a Netflix original that Sarandos cites as proof of the company’s dedication to cinema. The movie, the directorial debut of Blue Ruin and Green Room star Macon Blair, opened the Sundance Film Festival in 2017—Sundance having thus far shown no issues with giving streaming-only releases its biggest of screens. I Don’t Feel … went on to win the festival’s Grand Jury Prize, its highest honor. But when it debuted on Netflix a month later, the silence was deafening. A festival darling had become just one more needle in Netflix’s nigh-infinite haystack. Blair got to make his movie, and star Melanie Lynskey got the role of a lifetime, but a filmmaker’s next project depends on the success of his or her previous one, and Netflix doesn’t share their data even with the people who make their content. So unless Blair wants to make his next movie for Netflix, he’s virtually starting from scratch.


    • Avatar Richard Hershberger in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      I don’t think I buy the argument against Netflix. Yes, they don’t share their data, but this isn’t mere perversity. It is part of the new business model. Complaining about it is very much like Cannes complaining about their release window. Yes, this means that a filmmaker’s next project can no longer depend on the success of the previous one. Why exactly is this a bad thing? There will be a period of adjustment. I expect we will read stories about filmmakers having trouble getting financing because the prospective investors don’t know how well that Netflix project did. But as streaming becomes the new mainstream, this will change. Investors will have to find some other criterion. One might fondly hope that “artistic merit” might find its way into the mix, but I expect that is optimistic.Report

      • Avatar Saul Degraw in reply to Richard Hershberger says:

        What I think is more bad here is that Netflix is not always promoting their new content. I haven’t heard of this movie until this article. It never came across my algorithm even though I watch lots of indie/arthouse stuff.Report

        • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to Saul Degraw says:

          I’m going to side with Netflix over Cannes in this dispute. After the record company’s debacle with handling the Internet, there is no good reason for other media companies to make the same mistake. France likes to protect culture but they really need to bend a bit. Too many media companies keep content for which there is a small but decent enough audience for from the Internet for weird reasons.Report

        • Avatar Maribou in reply to Saul Degraw says:

          @saul-degraw Huh. It came across mine and I watch a lot of hyper-commercial or very silly stuff. (Though a lot of that stuff is either very funny or pretty scary, so I suppose it’s not that weird…)Report

      • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Richard Hershberger says:

        It is also important to note how different Netflix’s model is. That weird ogre/Will Smith movie got destroyed by fans and critics alike yet racked up TONS of streams due to morbid curiosity, hate watching, and/or the fact that the only cost to viewers was time. The best data Netflix could offer would be views/streams (perhaps broken out by demo) but that isn’t simply a different version of box office sales. So, yea, we need to adjust because Netflix is different.Report

  15. Avatar Saul Degraw says:

    Hi4: Sometimes I wonder if business schools teach people to never, ever raise wages no matter what. I’ve seen stories like this since the 2nd Obama term. Employers complain about having enough employees or applications. Any economist would tell you that the employer is offering enough pay and/or opportunity and/or on the job training. Yet the complaints still persist. Is there a network of business professors telling future capitalists of America that those pointy-headed economists are wrong?Report

    • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      Right-leaning economic think tanks like FEE are probably telling business owners that raising wages is wrong because these things should be determined by the market. Never mind that the market is sending loud signals to raise wages because they can’t find people willing to work for the wages offered. Marxists would argue that this is inevitable because of the Iron Law of Wages, capitalists will always seek to get the most work for the least amount of money they need to pay in salaries and wages.Report

      • Avatar Brandon Berg in reply to LeeEsq says:

        Right-leaning economic think tanks like FEE are probably telling business owners that raising wages is wrong because these things should be determined by the market.

        To be clear, what you really mean here is that you don’t like the FEE, and not (censored – maribou) that you actually think this is true, correct?Report

        • @brandon-berg Unless you are secretly part of the FEE, I’m going to say that was an unnecessarily personal response. See the censoring above if you want clarification on which part was overly personal. (TBH I still think the comment as I left it is too personally focused – making claims about what someone else feels/means – but I tried to leave it at “vaguely irritating to maribou” levels rather than just take it out entirely, given that you usually do not do this.)Report

          • Avatar Brandon Berg in reply to Maribou, Moderator says:

            This makes it worse. Your editing of my comment and follow-up response imply that I said something significantly worse than what I actually said.Report

          • Avatar Brandon Berg in reply to Maribou, Moderator says:

            TBH I still think the comment as I left it is too personally focused – making claims about what someone else feels/means

            Suppose I were to say, “I bet the Center for American Progress is going around telling people to quit their jobs and go on welfare.” To actually believe that, I would have to have a facile, cartoonish view of what the CAP is all about. I don’t think it would be out of line for someone to say to me, “Come on, that’s ridiculous! You don’t really believe that, do you?”Report

            • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Brandon Berg says:

              If you actually did say such ridiculous things and had such a facile, cartoonish view we would have to start calling you The Gipper.Report

            • Avatar Maribou, Moderator in reply to Brandon Berg says:


              I don’t think it would be out of line for someone to say to me, “Come on, that’s ridiculous! You don’t really believe that, do you?”

              Yeah, I don’t have a problem with that exact phrasing either. But that’s not how you phrased it, as you’ve made clear. And I think the original phrasing was more demeaning than you think it is.

              It’s not a huge deal, I’m not threatening you with anything – I saw it as a one-off – and the way I addressed it was exactly how I address anything that is (to me) this clear-cut. I would think that the complete lack of any further action, even a warning of one, would make it pretty clear to folks that it wasn’t some utterly out there major attack on LeeEsq.

              If you don’t want to seem ruder than you are, just don’t say rude stuff to other people, man. Then I will go back to leaving your usually perfectly reasonable comments alone.Report

        • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to Brandon Berg says:

          Some of what FEE promotes is worthwhile or at least interesting. The rest of it I find to be propaganda.Report

          • Avatar Brandon Berg in reply to LeeEsq says:

            I get that you’re not a big fan. But employers raising wages in response to changes in supply and demand is the mechanism by which these things are determined by the market. You’re basically saying that people writing for FEE a) don’t understand extremely basic labor economics, and/or b) want to fish over workers just for the sake of fishing over workers.

            Like I (tried to) say, I don’t think your understanding of the opposition is so poor that you actually believe this. I think you were probably just venting. And that’s okay. We all have days like that. But if you really do believe that, could you explain the evidence and thought process that led you to conclude that yes, this is a totally reasonable supposition to make about the FEE’s official position on raising wages in response to difficulty hiring?Report

      • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to LeeEsq says:

        Actually, the article addresses this. The fed guy thinks that businesses are stuck believing that they won’t experience a local inflation to offset the increase in wages. So you’d need to show that the FEE or other such orgs are arguing that inflation won’t happen.Report

  16. Avatar LeeEsq says:

    During the 19th and early 20th centuries, intellectuals sought to understand the new phenomenon in society with books like Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of the Crowds by Charles Mackay and Gustave Le Bon’s The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind. Cracked is making me wish that we had such an intellectual to handle modern fandom and the internet.Report

  17. Avatar Kazzy says:

    Da1: I’m a single dad but in a pretty serious relationship at this point. Still, re-entering single life was weird. I had been “out of the game” so to speak for about a decade and things changed dramatically in that time. I was last single just after college, when the main way of meeting people seemed to be getting drunk in a bar or party. That doesn’t fly so well in your mid-30s. Add in smartphones, dating apps, and everything that’s changed since 2006 and, welp, YIKES!

    Then layer in children. As I began looking around, I quickly realized I need to either focus on single moms around my age or older because that would minimize the need for lifestyle translation (e.g., “No, I’m not refusing to go out to Taco Tuesdays with you because I hate your friends. I’m refusing to go to Taco Tuesdays with you because I have small children with me every Tuesday and they have a bedtime.”) -OR- just bounce around casually with probably younger-ish women not really looking to settle down. Maybe that was shortsighted or somehow indicative of some blindspots or walls I was putting up, but it was where my head was at.

    Fortunately, I fairly quickly found someone (former colleague going through a similar situation) who is a mom herself and about 7 years my senior so we can laugh at the young people and their apps together.Report

    • Avatar Aaron David in reply to Kazzy says:

      A lot of guys I knew that hit their 30’s and were still dating started to actively look for single mothers, not in a creepy way, but in an “I really like children and know that the pool of wonderful people opens up when I start looking at things in a different light” kinda way. It seems to have worked wonders for all involved. I know that when I was dating and a single father, I would by necessity be very upfront about it, and the few times that things started to go a bit further relationship-wise, I would be upfront about things that I needed from the other person to ensure that I never came anywhere close to having issues with my ex.Report

      • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Aaron David says:

        Have you seen/read “About a Boy”? (#bookwasbetter). A funny take on dating single moms.

        But there is a level of clarity needed for a dating parent. Especially if you have primary-ish custody like I do (putting me more on par with most single moms than dads).Report

        • Avatar Aaron David in reply to Kazzy says:

          I have read it @kazzy a long time ago. I remember it being funny/sad. He isn’t a bad writer; if you havn’t, check out his other books.Report

      • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to Aaron David says:

        It presents a challenge for us men actively not looking for single mothers. Jumping into “instant family, just add daddy” is not appealing. There seems to be a sneer against men unwilling to date single mothers. Said men are perceived is slacking their responsibilities.Report

        • Avatar Burt Likko in reply to LeeEsq says:

          I found myself becoming more and more willing to date a single mom because the more I looked around at the dating pool, the more I realized the overwhelmingly likeliest alternative to dating a single mom was celibacy.Report

          • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Burt Likko says:

            I know a guy who has lost his wife and can date fit, never married, attractive, highly educated women in their 30’s (he’s older).

            His experience has been there’s a damn good reason someone like that has never married, it may take a year to figure out, but it’s there.Report

          • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to Burt Likko says:

            Considering that my romantic experience is nill besides one really meh relationship and a lot of disappointment, it feels like getting pushed into the deep end. I guess dating single mothers wouldn’t be bad if there was some type of compromise like “in exchange for dating a single mother who has less time to spend with you than a woman without kids, you don’t have to fulfill these traditional masculine dating roles your not good at and don’t like.” Somehow, I think that isn’t the case though. I’ll be required to provide normalcy while being denied normalcy.Report

    • Avatar Burt Likko in reply to Kazzy says:

      I’m beginning a parallel experience to @kazzy’s now, though in my case the direction of the age differential is reversed. Reading the linked article was a relief in many ways: mostly by accident and circumstance, I’ve basically followed the bulk of these rules. The dating apps are utterly soul-crushing and I’m grateful I got an introduction the old-fashioned way: through mutual friends.

      I’d add to the article: things are going to move more slowly than they did in your 20’s and your first stint at singlehood. I think the article hints at this reality with the “get comfortable with being by yourself” and “remember you and she are both full adulting so there’s going to be scheduling issues” but what it really comes down to is “take it easy, don’t rush things.” In my situation, while there is obviously mutual interest, I would hesitate to call this woman a “girlfriend” at the moment. That’s on the table, and neither of us face any particular competition for the other’s romantic intentions from third parties, but we simply haven’t had enough in-person-together-alone time for that to be an appropriate word.

      And I’m guessing that a lot of divorced middle-aged* folks are having similar experiences.

      * You’re not quite middle-aged yet, @kazzy, but it’s coming and when it gets there we can pool our resources to buy reading glasses in bulk for the discount, and our respective women companions can tease us mercilessly about it until they need to read something themselves. For now, enjoy your knees.Report

      • Avatar Aaron David in reply to Burt Likko says:

        “Mutual friends” is perfect, what everyone should shoot for.

        I am glad to hear things working out for you @burt-likko, couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.Report

  18. Avatar Marchmaine says:

    US to strike Syria.

    Good news, there’s your case for impeaching Trump… unauthorized use of military force… and an unauthorized act of war to go along with the unauthorized military presence in Syria.

    Have at it.Report

    • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Marchmaine says:

      “Routine Courtesy Bombing”.Report

    • Haven’t presidents been doing that at least since Eisenhower? I’m not saying it shouldn’t be an impeachable offense, but I don’t think a president’s foreign wars are likely to be a successful case for an impeachment.Report

      • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to gabriel conroy says:

        All presidents since Eisenhower have been able to do this, but Trump clearly can’t be allowed to.

        Then Trump will spin this so the Democrats look like they’re in favor of gassing civilians.Report

        • Avatar greginak in reply to Dark Matter says:

          All prez since E having been doing this kind of thing. They shouldn’t be though. The congress, both parties, should have to authorize military action. This isn’t any more impeachable for Trump then any other recent prez.Report

      • Avatar Marchmaine in reply to gabriel conroy says:


        Maybe the Bay of Pigs, Libya 1986, and Panama 1989? Those are somewhat comparable as unilateral attacks on sovereign nations without proper authorization.

        *BoP was technically a CIA covert action… so it never happened.
        *Libya 1986 retaliation was “in defense” of troops killed in Germany…
        *Panama was “justified” as defense of US Assets (Canal and Troops)… and Panama technically declared war on the US… which plausibly gives the CiC authorization without recourse to congress.

        Post 2002… pretty much carte blanche.

        And no… the Chemical Weapons Convention does not provide for military action and even if it did… it would go through the Executive Council and (likely) the UN after the Fact Finding mission is complete… which it is not.

        Which is why the Executive usurpation of war powers needs reining in. Ironically, I doubt congress would refuse him this… but we must still insist he (and all future Presidents) ask.Report

        • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Marchmaine says:

          Post 2002… pretty much carte blanche.

          If memory serves, both Bushes did it right in terms of getting permission, (the AUMF being a blank check is a different problem).

          Congress isn’t a useful body for action unless we have months to consult and talk about it. This military action will be over and done in probably hours, long before they could have a chance to get involved.

          it would go through the Executive Council and (likely) the UN after the Fact Finding mission is complete

          They’ll find Syria did it, Russia was warning the rebels would gas themselves before the attack and will now claim some other gremlin did it, then they’ll veto anything useful.

          Just like the last… 50(?) or so times Syria has gassed people, and just like the last dozen(??) times we’ve tried to get the UN to even talk about Assad.

          The situation was seriously outside the influence of the rule of law long before we stepped outside the rule of law.Report

        • I’m not sure I can dispute much of that. And I’m not sure exactly how much we disagree, because like you, I also believe presidential war powers also need reining in but that Congress won’t do it.

          Perhaps we disagree on whether “a president’s foreign wars are likely to be a successful case for an impeachment”? When I said that, I meant “successful” as in “likely to happen,” not as in “wouldn’t be a good thing or a justifiable thing.”Report

          • Avatar Marchmaine in reply to gabriel conroy says:

            @gabriel-conroy Well, yes, you are correct that it is not *simply* an impeachable event… there are a few more dance-steps between this and impeachment. The main point would be Congress scrutinizing all military actions, demanding cessation by 60-days (Yemen), and/or authorizing ongoing actions explicitly.

            So Congress’s steps in the dance would be
            1. Properly re(define) Military Action
            1.a. Perhaps distinguish between pre-emptive defense and unprovoked acts of war?
            2. Insist on ending or authorizing
            3. Assess whether War Powers act of a free 60-days is still good policy
            4. When 60-days are up and no AUMF is forthcoming, if hostilities continue, impeach.

            The problem arising from Tonkin and the War Powers act is still the 60-day freebie… that needs reining in else it is a defacto power to declare war. 60-days in DPRK is point of no return time.

            But… there’s no ending the imperial presidency without the dance and the threat of impeaching. It concerns me that people yap about “authoritarianism” and twitter nonsense, and yet, the one area where the President can be authoritarian is with Foreign Policy… unless Congress does its duty.

            Now, contra contra, getting an AUMF from congress (esp. Republican congress) is about as hard as indicting the proverbial ham sandwich… but that’s the dance that needs calling… heck you can even get Alex Jones onboard in between fits of tears.Report

            • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Marchmaine says:

              4. When 60-days are up and no AUMF is forthcoming, if hostilities continue, impeach.

              For what grounds? The Commander in Chief is the President, not Congress, and for good reason.

              If Congress wants to end hostilities they can “simply” defund it, and that’s hard enough. Impeaching Trump for not being willing to let Syrian children be gassed sounds unrealistically hard for members of the GOP. Impeaching Obama while he was popular for attacking terrorists in Yemen sounds even harder for the Dems.

              If we lower the bar and constantly impeach Presidents for serving as Commander and Chief then we’re going to end up with a large number of “Ford” style unelected vice Presidents becoming unelected Presidents…

              …and this technique will instantly be weaponized by the political class for use against their political enemies.

              But… there’s no ending the imperial presidency without the dance and the threat of impeaching.

              The problem with the imperial presidency isn’t that he can take the army out for a spin and kill people. IMHO that hasn’t been much of a problem because he gets push back from the public and Congress (etc) and we haven’t seen much in terms of abusing this privilege. The army gets used after rule of law and diplomacy have failed.

              The problem with the imperial presidency is he can effectively make law. Obama’s “Dreamers” program is an excellent example, but I’d also lump in there the EPA deciding they have the authority to deal with Global Warming Gases (GWG).

              Even ignoring that the authors of the clean air act are still alive and willing to say this wasn’t even close to what they had in mind; If GWG is treated as a pollutant then the EPA’s mandate is to shut down all economic activity and harshly regulate large concentrations of humans. And I’m sure we can think of other examples which, taken to their natural conclusion, give the State (meaning the President) the authority to do basically anything.

              And if the law means anything depending on the whim of the President, then it means nothing.Report

              • Avatar Marchmaine in reply to Dark Matter says:

                “For what grounds? ”

                Waging war without the consent of congress. Impeaching is a purely political act; being commander in chief engaged in war that congress has not declared is the definition of sufficient grounds.

                It has nothing to do with weaponizing the impeachment process… the Executive usurping Congressional power is precisely what impeachment is for.

                The CiC can ask for Authorization or a Declaration of War or cease hostilities… he’s completely in control his destiny with regards compliance.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Marchmaine says:

                Waging war without the consent of congress.

                Every act of the army isn’t “war”.

                I think there is no case short of an unpopular number of American bodies coming home or the army committing mass murder of civilians.Report

              • Avatar Marchmaine in reply to Dark Matter says:

                Most acts of the army aren’t war… especially in peace.

                But you cannot possibly have a negative definition of the “Act of War” such that nothing is war until such time that the number of dead becomes “unpopular” or the Army commits mass murder.

                That’s just plain incoherent.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Marchmaine says:

                I meant a level of violence which spurs Congress to oppose the President. Call it “impeachable” War, or even “end spending” War.

                And unfortunately, all of this scales with the size/power/money of the Country.

                Dealing with what we’d now consider a handful of Pirates used to be such a big deal Congress needed to be consulted and it would take years to handle; Now it’s “slow news day” if that and the actual violence takes minutes.Report

              • Avatar Marchmaine in reply to Dark Matter says:

                Well, I’m glad you clarified because speaking of pirates they were like “Dude, love where your head is at, but yo(ho) those rules are a little vague, not even guidelines…could we tighten them up a bit?”

                But look, if your preferred policy is purely discretionary military adventurism until such time that congress thinks maybe otherwise, I won’t try to change your mind; I will note that you do, however, have to change the constitution.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Marchmaine says:

                if your preferred policy is purely discretionary military adventurism until such time that congress thinks maybe otherwise, I won’t try to change your mind; I will note that you do, however, have to change the constitution.

                Let’s go over military adventures have we had where we have NOT gotten Congressional approval.

                Panama invasion? This is the clearest example of “invading a country without Congress sign-off” that I can think of, but it’s also a weird one because we had a court order to arrest a foreign leader, and we had bipartisan Congressional approval before/during/after. Getting a fully signed off Declaration of War before would have made the invasion more difficult so that’s why it was skipped, maybe that’s not a good reason but the public approved 84%.

                Grenada? This is where the scale issue comes up, it was a curb stomp mismatch done in hours. Various Pirates maybe, but they’re non-state actors and also a curb stomp so I’m not sure who cares.

                Syria? ISIS used to be called Al Qaeda and Bush got the AUMF which covers that. Yemen? (Ditto).

                There’s been a few times we’ve served as air force for someone else (Libyan Civil War, Yugoslavian Civil War), but I think both of those were a UN/Nato thing where we didn’t have boots on the ground… (although admittedly I thought at the time Obama should get Congress to approve Libya).

                Am I missing something catastrophic? You’re arguing there are impeachable military things going on (or have gone on), so what do you want Congress to do with any/all of these?Report

              • Avatar Marchmaine in reply to Dark Matter says:

                With regards your other point about EO’s and Signing Statements the remedy is slightly different in that Congress can amend the law to vitiate any EO/Signing Statement. But sure, at some point if the Executive continues to escalate the showdown with congress, that too could become impeachable.

                Like the War Powers act, there’s a dance that needs dancing where Congress curbs Executive privilege by asserting its proper role and oversight.

                That congress finds lawmaking difficult and foreign policy unpopular is not a good reason to expand the President’s powers.Report

      • Avatar Kolohe in reply to gabriel conroy says:

        gabriel conroy: Haven’t presidents been doing that at least since Eisenhower?

        Presidents have been doing that since John Adams (pdf).Report

        • Avatar Marchmaine in reply to Kolohe says:

          I suppose it depends on what it is… if *it* is getting authorization from Congress to pursue military action abroad, then yes.

          From the paper:

          1798-1800 (Adams) Undeclared Naval War with France. This contest included land actions, such as that in the Dominican Republic, city of Puerto Plata, where marines captured a French privateer under the guns of the forts. Congress authorized military action through a series of statutes.

          1801-1805 (Jefferson) Tripoli. The First Barbary War included the USS George Washington and Philadelphia affairs and the Eaton expedition, during which a few marines landed with United States Agent William Eaton to raise a force against Tripoli in an effort to free the crew of the Philadelphia. Tripoli declared war on the United States on May 10, 1801, and although Congress authorized U.S. military action by statute, they never voted on a formal declaration of war.Report

  19. Avatar Dark Matter says:

    [Ln3] Translation: It’s not about the money… maybe.

    I wonder how much there is to the narrative that there can be a huge difference between “money given to the school per student” and “money which makes it into the classroom”?

    [Hi1] I’ve interviewed people, the (disability) issue hasn’t come up. I can’t tell if there’s a filter upstream or it’s just the normal age of the people.

    Or maybe everyone is in the closet unless they have no choice.Report

    • I think it’s pretty reasonable to say that poor kids cost more to teach and therefore we need to spend even more on poorer kids instead of richer. I actually think this is true. Even with less money, rich schools are spending money on water slides!

      But that’s not what is being said. What’s being said is that poor schools get less money, worth the implication of that’s why they aren’t preforming well. That’s not really true. More funding (well spent) may be the solution, but less funding doesn’t look like it’s the problem.Report

  20. WK5 [federal jobs guarantee]: The first link (Why Democrats Should Embrace the guarantee) refers to something that I think is really unhelpful in these types of discussions [bold added by me]:

    To explore the possibility of Democrats’ running on a guaranteed-job plan, we asked the respected data analytics firm Civis Analytics to not only poll guaranteed jobs, but poll it in the way that would be most likely to gain opposition from voters. They asked respondents: “Democrats in congress are proposing a bill which would guarantee a job to every American adult, with the government providing jobs for people who can’t find employment in the private sector. This would be paid for by a 5 percent income tax increase on those making over $200,000 per year. Would you be for or against this policy?”….


    The results of the Civis polling were nothing short of stunning, showing large net support for a job guarantee:….

    The support is hardly “stunning” when the cost for the program falls only on those making $200,000 or more. This is the same BS we heard when Obama ran in 2008 (except I believe the amount was $250,000). I strongly suspect that any program that has hope of adequate funding will have to get money from those making less than $200,000.

    I say that while being undecided about jobs guarantees in the first place. (I also haven’t read or thought about it much, so there’s too little I know.Report

  21. Ln1 [teaching patriotism]:

    That was a really good article, but of course, I’ll focus on the small part I didn’t like to the exclusion of what I did:

    patriotic histories have a way of reminding us of what there is to celebrate in the American past—as when…James McPherson points out that, in fact, the Cause—be it preservation of the Union or hostility to slavery—really did matter to many Union soldiers.

    My problem isn’t really with McPherson’s argument.* It’s what would have happened if McPherson’s study found something different? Or what if someone someone else studies the Civil War and comes to credible, different conclusion? Maybe the “usable past” won’t be as usable as the would-be patriotic teacher (or whoever wants it to be “usable” in any way).

    But to be fair to the author, he goes out of his way to point out we shouldn’t hide the bad things about US history. I think he would say that if Mc

    *I read “Why They Fought” and I buy the argument. But it’s also the type of argument that one study isn’t going to prove by itself.Report