Commenter Archive

My 'Only Fridge' account would be top 8%

p.s. I meant to also say that I'm don't think this is simply a 'Next Election Cycle' timeline.

If all we're doing is 2024 analysis, then I'll concede that point.

So the secular argument against Polygamy is, 'Don't do it because Roy Moore didn't do Polygamy, but did do underage dating and we hate Roy Moore.'

It's a start. Better than some of the arguments so far; but, I'm going to have to say, probably not going to deter folks from future Polygamy. And I'm not sure that future Polygamists will find this argument against their civil rights very compelling.

Fair enough, sometimes the social contagions just go away on their own.

I appreciate the response; however, I find it illustrates a particular problem that comes with these assumptions - which I mention in passing far below - in case you have further thoughts on my partial response.

I'm surprised... the point isn't that someone is going to come up with a model and execute it. I'm not claiming some sort of top-down plan.

It's precisely that Polyamory is not only a thing, but a thing that Brother Burt was keen to point out that while not for him, it's not for him to judge. Why not?

Poly folks are having babies, they are buying property (makes sense, damn boomers hoarding all the wealth!), they are doing life things the point of which right now, you folks seem perfectly keen to say, "whelp, that whole Poly thing really f'd up for you... too bad, should've done the right thing and done Serial Monogamy. Ha Ha."

I'm bemused by all the little 'c' conservatives here tut-tutting the harm that people will experience when they don't have access to the Poly's Health Insurance, or #3 kicks everyone out of the house in her name because they didn't incorporate and were 'in love' when they bought it together (and why should they have to incorporate when marriage does the thing they want off the shelf), or the emotional harm that #2 experiences when the baby for which he'd been the primary caregiver is taken away because biologically it's between #1 and #3. Or, who makes end-of-life decisions? #2 is legally married, but #3 is (legally) just a paramour. The Atlantic think-pieces practically write themselves.

It isn't the Theory that will drive the thing, its the thing that will drive the Theory.

I'm asking for how you say NO to the harm real people who no longer believe in the oppressive institution of marriage will suffer. I'm getting a mix of, 'why would we say no?', and 'of course we'll never have to deal with not saying no'.

There's a weird, it's bad when the Mormons do it, but cool in Berkeley. I don't think we're going to get a Patriarchal LDS model, I think we're going to get an Equity Consent model.

Basically the Secular Argument against seems to be vestigial Christian morality with a dash of It's not happening.

It's all perfectly clear in my comment above, but simplifying:

In HR terms, each marriage would be a qualifying event that would enable you to either a) Consent or b) Exit.

Sure, but I think that's JB's point... the slope is longer and slipperier than simply SSM... SSM is just one point on the way.

These are good questions.

The most likely (initial) scenario will be A marries B and then C. A could be a man or a woman. B could be either and so too C. B & C are married to A and inheritance/separation 'templates' follow that patter - which contra all of us cultural illiterates has long history of law supporting it.

In a consent based society where A & B Consent and C & A consent, If B doesn't object by removing the relationship to A, then consent to C & A can either be implicit or explicit as a matter of law.

It's then no particularly difficult thing to allow the 'option' of B & C -- which in the event that A & B separate, A would have to provide consent for B & C to continue; and, absent that consent, would withdraw from the A & C relationship resulting in either a New configuration where B is married to A and C (but A & C are not) or B & C are married and A exits.

I'm a little suspicious of these, "How could we possibly write laws to divide property" arguments.

I take your point about various financial institutions not wanting to extend benefits from plus one to plus one plus one plus n... but it simply gets priced into the cost of benefits. Like, for example, the cost of Health Insurance has a curve like this: Employee, Employee +1, Family (where Family = infinity).

Shrug... I literally removed SSM as the seed.

I see this as just part of the marriage deconstruction project.

Invade Mexico was an Idea already taken.

Well, I appreciate all the replies. I'll be honest, though, I'm totally underwhelmed. The best answer seems to be basically an Internet Meme:

It's Not Happening <-- we are here . . . . . And it's good. <-- this is where your non-arguments lead. I suspect this is mostly fueled by the Seed Question of SSM and Slipery Slopes where y'all are motivated to make sure that SSM is not implicated. Imagine instead a different seed question that has nothing to do with SSM. Does that change your view?

I think this points to the 'real' slippery slope (and Chip's comment) ... the slope is that we can deconstruct marriage into any contract we want if all we're doing is providing govt. services or protection under the law.

There are incentives to request marriage benefits: Tax reasons, Health Insurance, Inheritance, legal rights/protections, etc.

Heh, I'm not really feeling the 'gazillion years of precedents' argument. I mean, there are actual living residents of the US who have legally contracted multiple-marriages. I have no idea what happens if/when they apply for citizenship.

Also, are we not already deconstructing the Bureaucratic hurdles? Many services are moving to named persons rather than assumed relative/spouse. It's a consent based change... you get a plus 1 of your choice. Why not plus 2 or plus 3? Sure there's potentially an Economic Argument... but only a**holes make those kind of arguments...

It's kinda weird to say that as long as a small weird minority are the only people who want these things, we're perfectly safe, nay, justified in ignoring it?

Ok. But, I'm pretty confident that once that minority asks, it will be granted. Else, I ask, what's the secular argument that will survive the No?

But what if some fool does want it?

I'd anticipate a different angle where Churches lose their Secular ability to contract Marriages... it's a delegated clerkship that's not required. This is how it's done in Austria, for example.

This doesn't concern me; it probably simplifies things to say there's a concept of Secular Marriage and another one of Religious Marriage. We pretty much have that in Catholic Canon law where you can dissolve your Civil Marriage by whatever means is lawful in the state - but your Canonical Marriage is another matter.

On the slippery slope question the question is this: What is the Secular Argument against Poly? What are the limiting factors (if any), and what makes any of us think it's not coming and already in the process of being normalized?

I've seen some attempts to say it's bad for women, some say it's bad for men, others make differentiations within polygamy as polygyny and polyandry. But I'm not seeing an enduring principle that the State could use to limit the marital contract.

"Biden so far has been building a campaign team that has been more diverse and younger than his 2020 team, signalling a possible acknowledgement that he needs to improve upon his margins with young lack and Hispanic voters."

if (IF) he's bleeding Black and Hispanic voters, seems an open question whether a younger, more diverse team is the answer.

I can see how it might look like a good idea if that's your prior bias... but it implies that Biden/Dems aren't signaling hard enough on Youth and Diversity? IF he's bleeding those voters (I'm agnostic on this, but IF you're playing that game) there's a reasonable chance that the Youth/Diversity game is doing the bleeding. Now, it could be that this is a newer younger smarter crowd that will address that; but it stands to question: is the weakness in that demographic Young Diversity voters bleeding to Team Red? Or will doubling down on that type of message increase (however small) the bleeding? Who's this messaging for? The people already voting for you or the doubters?

I don't think that anyone doubts Biden has good Retail Politics skills - and those can flash at any given moment. But he's lost a step. He's lost a lot of steps. 2020 provided a lot of cover for his team to reduce the workload of the campaign and shield him from the wear & tear. Being President also has benefits in that you don't have to knock down barriers to get coverage... so that will help him too.

I'm sure team Biden is building spreadsheets and power points on the optimal exposure-to-rest analysis; we'll just have to see how it plays or if he can find enough in the tank to continue the illusion for another cycle. But for the opposition, he wouldn't have a chance.

Yeah, I think his instincts are to minimize direct US involvement -- probably more from a Vietnam hang-over and popularity concerns -- but that's good enough for me.

Yeah, not sure what happens if the offensive stalls and/or an enduring stalemate lands -- there will be very strong calls for escalation; I'm not sure he'll be able to stop that... as of now I think he's mostly diverting into better directions; less sanguine he's got the juice (or will) to actually say no.

That's why I challenge the term 'winning' at all... there are objectives and settlements and costs to settling on both sides. The fact that Russia has it's own internal factions demanding a 'win' is indeed part of the dynamic. As you say so above.

I'm not sure either side will 'win'. Maybe? But I'm not seeing it as clear. The 'danger' is that we attach significance to 'winning' that is greater than the cost we're willing to bear; instead we should have a hierarchy of outcomes with more preferable at the top and less preferable at the bottom and seek to maximize the outcome -- which may not look like 'winning' the war.

The irony, so far, is that Biden is doing a pretty good job of executing what would be a realist off-shore balancing strategy for which I give him credit. At some point, hopefully with maximal leverage, Ukraine/Russia will likely negotiate a truce that Biden will back. There's an excellent chance that it won't look like winning, but it would be a very good outcome for the US. (And a very bad outcome, all things considered, for Ukraine).

Or Putin falls out a window, Bernie leaps out of a sealed train car and Russia gets M4A and withdraws from Ukraine. Or something like that. Hard to predict exactly.

Sure; I'd buy that. I could see that potentially bringing a negotiated ceasefire. Absent a total collapse of the Army, I wouldn't see much more than that.

Hard for me to see Russia negotiating Sevastopol/Kerch/Theodosia away... just don't see it. Status quo ante? Sure. Mariupol? The price Ukraine pays for Russia to 'save face'?

Just want to make sure that we're all clearly calling that 'victory' as we evaluate operations and goals.

Is it?

Also, what's the victory condition? Removal of all Russian Troops (all ethnic Russians?) from1994 territorial borders? Reversion to 2014 borders? Compromise on Luhansk or Donetsk but not Crimea or vice versa?

What is Ukraine's manpower situation? Neutral reports I'm seeing are less sanguine on long-term offensive capabilities. There's still hope of an 'interdiction' position in the south that makes Crimea difficult to hold, but even if we're not expecting a breakthrough they might not be able to push that far by winter's onset.

What is China's modernization project for Russia looking like? Stalemate seems an acceptable outcome to China... not sure what 'winning' does to their calculations.

Nothing I'm seeing from sober military appraisals suggests that Ukraine is 'winning'. Ukraine is fighting, the US policy of support is helping; fighting can lead to victory, it can also lead to defeat. Perhaps there will be a breakthrough in the south, perhaps Russia will counter in the North. Possibly the proxy war expands on either side if conditions favoring 'victory' for either begin to loom.

Heh, funny, but yes... I mean, no, not that, but yes.

Hey, there's no need to bring the Pope into this...
[that's a Peronist joke for an audience of one]

But I digress. Sure, it's like running against an incumbent president; that's a tough nut to crack in any circumstance; though, this nut already has some cracks, so not impossible.

But, that's my point... if you're running a campaign against an incumbent the 'swim lanes' at the lowest level are Incumbent, Incumbent Adjacent, Incumbent by Necessity, and Never Incumbent.

The answer will be: Incumbent.

If you're campaigning into this, you have to break the swim lanes. Remember, there wasn't a Trump Lane until Trump invented it. Now... I've said a thousand times (before and after) that it was political malpractice not to adapt to Trump's 'Policy' positions that created his lane. And part of me suspects that everyone on the stage is owned by their donors who want the party, but not the changed policies. By their standard, Trump 1 was a pretty good payoff -- because he delivered on the Old Party goals and didn't do anything that earned him his Swim Lane. That's a crack that's exploitable. But I don't think any of these Republican Retreads even see the crack.

Trump further confounds things because he's willing to flip-flop on policies or hold incoherent policy positions... or, in 2020 actually abolish the Party Platform entirely. But that's both the challenge and the Oppty.

If I'm RDS or Haley or Scott, what's the collection of 'popular' policies I can take from Trump and box him into running on his record of 'Tax Cuts for Billionaires' and set yourself up as 'Trustworthy' on these Six Things. [Will their donors fund them? Maybe not -- but that's worth the 4th estate sussing out]

I'll fully admit that modern politics does *not* favor a [detailed] Policy Oriented approach -- too easy to pick-apart the details -- which is why I'm not saying they need to go 9-9-9 or M4A ... but rather, what's the *story* on the priorities and deliverables are you getting by going with Haley that you *wouldn't* get in going with Trump? Other than Not-being-Trump, it's not coming through.

If I were a Republican who didn't want Trump, I'd help them form winnable narratives.

Thanks, I worked through it; it seems a decent breakdown of the debate from a Republican perspective, but 'Lane Theory' is horse race theory with one level of abstraction. And his lanes aren't really taxonomically useful as far as policy and campaign direction go. 'Trump' and 'Trump Adjacent', don't tell us as much as he thinks they do... not when it comes to policy and message.

I guess the thing that would be helpful for me, a non-Republican non-Primary voter, would be less horse-race reporting and more taxonomy reporting.

It would require someone who really understands Republican politics and Republican Policy preferences in addition to parsing the Primary rhetoric into some sort of hypothesis on what, say, Niki Haley is positioning... and, to what extent and which parts of that seem to resonate, and which seem to fall flat -- and to which segments of the electorate.

Douthat (contra North) is good at this in general, but I don't think he has the stomach for trying to parse the daily gibberish of Republican primary utterances. But 'someone' should. Ideally someone paid, and not just a friendly contributor to a group blog. :-)

So, I'm accusing myself of the bad taste of writing a comment on the column I wish someone had written, rather than what is written. No offence.

Ultimately, horserace analysis without taxonomy analysis is kinda beneficial to politicians like Trump who are 'momentum' candidates and thrive on attention, but wither on analysis. Now, I *also* maybe even *primarily* blame the candidates themselves who seem averse to staking out a theme/direction/reason for their candidacy merely hoping to inherit the 'brand' if/when Trump implodes. It's a (slightly) different type of the Political Malpractice we saw in 2016, but malpractice it remains.

My wife is from MN, we courted in MN, and can confirm that the MN State fair is probably the best State fair.

Everyone I know from MN has at least one MN State fair escapade story. I, however, don't... so feel like I'm missing something in my life.