I'm not a comic book or comic book movie person but it's weird to me that this isn't obvious to everyone. People enjoy this stuff because they're entertained by it. Turning it into something percieved as preaching or expressions of piety will eventually start to limit its appeal to converts and those open to conversion.
It reminds me of Christian rock from the 90s. There's something inherently uncool about it, no matter how much the singer sounds like Eddie Vedder
There's the politics aspect and there's the policy aspect. Yes, there is a segment of society that wants to be abusive towards illegal aliens for racist and/or xenophobic reasons or just because they're law and order hardliners. That doesn't change the fact that allowing large levels of totally un-regulated entry, including into the labor market, which is de facto where the Democratic party is going, is good for the country. It's bad policy and its feeding the backlash.
When the Republicans come up with stupid domestic policy around health care or financial regulation I say so. This is stupid policy, and its such stupid policy that few Democrats will even articulate it because they know just how stupid it is. What I'm saying is right in line with what the Obama administration practiced, even if they didn't preach it.
The legacy of the 20th century weighs much more heavily over there. I know the opening of the Stasi archives has had a major impact on how people look at privacy in Germany.
Spot on. It sucks but holding dreamers and similarly situated people hostage, morally complicated as that is, might be the only way to have a chance of breaking the cycle. This is already round 2 after amnesty was given in the 80s without any real enforcement protocol to keep it from happening again.
I think there's a chicken or the egg aspect to that. People who care about these things are wary because our government in particular can't ever seem to stop itself from going all Orwellian. That plus our federal system leaves everything open to competing centers of power with lots of room for corruption and incompetence. I don't think it has to be that way but something about our culture and government seems to make it inevitable.
One of the weird things about visiting other advanced countries is that people don't have quite the level of skepticism towards the state. Some of that is culture, and some of it may be naivete. Maybe I'm way off base, but I think part of it also comes from the administrative state functioning a hech of a lot better than it does here and, at least as far as anyone knows, less proclivity to use every little thing as a backdoor for law enforcement and military intelligence.
On Im1 we can't have it both ways. If we aren't going to have effective enforcement of the law we need to accept that a consequence of that is larger levels of illegal labor.
No love for Baltimore? There's even a couple big hospitals. Granted given demographics it would be hard for a movie set there to credibly avoid issues of race.
To echo @leeesq 's point this seems like a really unnecessary remake. I'm sure I'll see it on cable but your review confirms my suspicions. Sounds like they left in all the violence but took out everything that made the old Bronson flick interesting.
I know what you mean. Mine isn't even 1. I have no idea what I'll tell him between the time he knows what the police are but isn't capable of understanding the above. At least I have some time to think about it.
We're in agreement. I too would find police behavior a lot easier to understand if they were subject to the UCMJ. I'd still disagree in principle but I'd get the logic. Really its sad we even have to have the conversation.
I plan on telling my son that they're like the people who work at the MVA. They've got an important job, and sometimes you might have to work with them for things you need, but always remember they take care of themselves first and foremost. Rely on yourself, not them.
I see where you guys are going but I respectfully dissent. Yes we have a double standard right now where the police get to dress up and talk like they're going into Fallujah but then aren't subject to anything like the accountability of people who actually went into Fallujah. I'd be worried that subjecting them to something like the UCMJ would only further entrench the idea that police are a different breed, and an occupying force. It could help justify the militarization instead of pull it back. And it's not like the 4th Amendment and tort law aren't capable of setting standards. The policy decisions we've made not to can be changed without resorting to a separate standard of conduct. They're supposed to be citizens like everyone else and the law should reflect that.
I think the utilitarian analysis is worth doing, and I largely agree with Chip's perspective that paranoia about crime is totally divorced from reality. However when it comes to individuals I don't think it can end there.
Your chances of being framed up in the criminal justice system for most people is very low. There's also a social cost of giving everyone a lawyer and some due process. But when it's your ass on the docket, you're very glad you have these things.
I have a bark at the moon crazy neighbor who owns the condo below me. He has entered my home once and tried to enter it another time. I've gone through the process, gotten restraining orders, got him convicted of a misdemeanor. I'm not in a position to move, he hasn't done anything to warrant serious jail time, and when we called the police they took over 90 minutes to arrive. One politely explained that my wife didn't use the right buzz words with the 911 operator to get them there faster. I like to think I'm not particularly paranoid about crime. But when she was alone on maternity leave with my son, I was very glad a firearm that she knows how to use was among the measures available.
I'm quite sure that surplus men has some impact on violence in society. I'm just not sure it's the driver and its impact probably varies widely by what type of violence we're talking about. Everything I've ever read on the subject has suggested most criminal violence is driven primarily by poverty.
Not really. And I never said men can't do anything. Just that I'm skeptical that altering this particular variable alone would work out the way predicted, or that there wouldn't be weird unintended consequences.
Really I thought we were just throwing out hypotheticals.
The former outcome is well worth considering. Without corresponding cultural changes I could see male violence becoming worse. This is especially so if the result is more to fight over and fewer men to keep other men in check. You could also see a decrease in male on male violence but an increase in other kinds.
Or maybe we'd all just be feeling the peace and love with plenty of women around and no need for any kind of insecurities or showboating. Seems way too easy to me though.
My suspicion is it would trade certain problems for others. Maybe one set of problems would be obviously preferable to the other but who knows.
I'd be curious as to whether or not there'd be a point where women start to fill the violence gap, or if over time average female testosterone levels rose.
@saul-degraw I think what @stillwater is saying is true, but I don't think it's a liberal versus conservative dispute in the paradigm the NYT or most of the MSM operates in. Understanding it means grappling with the PPACA as the doomed half measure it was, and the broader implications that has about our system. That is disturbing territory for the NYT.
It's a hard problem to solve when the only viable solution is to create smarter consumers of information. Social media makes it easier for people who know better to send something out to thousands of others before reflecting.
Granted I maintain that the Glenn Greenwalds of the world are fundamentally right about this being a problem of the media's own creation.
Noted on the degree in question. And I agree, art inspired by experience isn't unheard of, but then neither is artistic license. I've never said she should be silenced.
Like I said, no one knows what happened. She used the accusation to support her master thesis in performance art which included several publicity stunts. The fame (or notoriety depending on your perspective) didn't just happen on its own/by chance. She actively sought it out and there's been related litigation.
Reasonable people can disagree about what to make of her. It's not like there hasn't been plenty of reporting. If you haven't followed the story (which, correct me if I'm wrong but as best I can tell you haven't) I'm going to bow out.
No one knows for sure what really happened but I think the hypothetical 'for some reason' is pretty obvious in her case. She's become an activist-celebrity profiled in well-respected publications, got her foot in the door in the alternative/performance art world, and got to hobnob with Kirsten Gillibrand at the 2015 state of the union address. Columbia ended up settling with the accused.
On “Morning Ed: Art & Entertainment {2018.03.14.W}”
I don't get it either. It wasn't part of the Catholic culture I was raised in, not that there weren't plenty of other weird aspects to it.
"
I'm not a comic book or comic book movie person but it's weird to me that this isn't obvious to everyone. People enjoy this stuff because they're entertained by it. Turning it into something percieved as preaching or expressions of piety will eventually start to limit its appeal to converts and those open to conversion.
It reminds me of Christian rock from the 90s. There's something inherently uncool about it, no matter how much the singer sounds like Eddie Vedder
On “Morning Ed: Immigration {2018.03.12.M}”
There's the politics aspect and there's the policy aspect. Yes, there is a segment of society that wants to be abusive towards illegal aliens for racist and/or xenophobic reasons or just because they're law and order hardliners. That doesn't change the fact that allowing large levels of totally un-regulated entry, including into the labor market, which is de facto where the Democratic party is going, is good for the country. It's bad policy and its feeding the backlash.
When the Republicans come up with stupid domestic policy around health care or financial regulation I say so. This is stupid policy, and its such stupid policy that few Democrats will even articulate it because they know just how stupid it is. What I'm saying is right in line with what the Obama administration practiced, even if they didn't preach it.
"
The legacy of the 20th century weighs much more heavily over there. I know the opening of the Stasi archives has had a major impact on how people look at privacy in Germany.
"
Spot on. It sucks but holding dreamers and similarly situated people hostage, morally complicated as that is, might be the only way to have a chance of breaking the cycle. This is already round 2 after amnesty was given in the 80s without any real enforcement protocol to keep it from happening again.
"
I think there's a chicken or the egg aspect to that. People who care about these things are wary because our government in particular can't ever seem to stop itself from going all Orwellian. That plus our federal system leaves everything open to competing centers of power with lots of room for corruption and incompetence. I don't think it has to be that way but something about our culture and government seems to make it inevitable.
One of the weird things about visiting other advanced countries is that people don't have quite the level of skepticism towards the state. Some of that is culture, and some of it may be naivete. Maybe I'm way off base, but I think part of it also comes from the administrative state functioning a hech of a lot better than it does here and, at least as far as anyone knows, less proclivity to use every little thing as a backdoor for law enforcement and military intelligence.
"
On Im1 we can't have it both ways. If we aren't going to have effective enforcement of the law we need to accept that a consequence of that is larger levels of illegal labor.
On “On Sympathies”
No love for Baltimore? There's even a couple big hospitals. Granted given demographics it would be hard for a movie set there to credibly avoid issues of race.
To echo @leeesq 's point this seems like a really unnecessary remake. I'm sure I'll see it on cable but your review confirms my suspicions. Sounds like they left in all the violence but took out everything that made the old Bronson flick interesting.
On “The Duty To Protect”
I know what you mean. Mine isn't even 1. I have no idea what I'll tell him between the time he knows what the police are but isn't capable of understanding the above. At least I have some time to think about it.
"
We're in agreement. I too would find police behavior a lot easier to understand if they were subject to the UCMJ. I'd still disagree in principle but I'd get the logic. Really its sad we even have to have the conversation.
"
I plan on telling my son that they're like the people who work at the MVA. They've got an important job, and sometimes you might have to work with them for things you need, but always remember they take care of themselves first and foremost. Rely on yourself, not them.
"
I see where you guys are going but I respectfully dissent. Yes we have a double standard right now where the police get to dress up and talk like they're going into Fallujah but then aren't subject to anything like the accountability of people who actually went into Fallujah. I'd be worried that subjecting them to something like the UCMJ would only further entrench the idea that police are a different breed, and an occupying force. It could help justify the militarization instead of pull it back. And it's not like the 4th Amendment and tort law aren't capable of setting standards. The policy decisions we've made not to can be changed without resorting to a separate standard of conduct. They're supposed to be citizens like everyone else and the law should reflect that.
"
I think the utilitarian analysis is worth doing, and I largely agree with Chip's perspective that paranoia about crime is totally divorced from reality. However when it comes to individuals I don't think it can end there.
Your chances of being framed up in the criminal justice system for most people is very low. There's also a social cost of giving everyone a lawyer and some due process. But when it's your ass on the docket, you're very glad you have these things.
I have a bark at the moon crazy neighbor who owns the condo below me. He has entered my home once and tried to enter it another time. I've gone through the process, gotten restraining orders, got him convicted of a misdemeanor. I'm not in a position to move, he hasn't done anything to warrant serious jail time, and when we called the police they took over 90 minutes to arrive. One politely explained that my wife didn't use the right buzz words with the 911 operator to get them there faster. I like to think I'm not particularly paranoid about crime. But when she was alone on maternity leave with my son, I was very glad a firearm that she knows how to use was among the measures available.
On “Morning Ed: Law & Order {2018.03.07.W}”
I'm quite sure that surplus men has some impact on violence in society. I'm just not sure it's the driver and its impact probably varies widely by what type of violence we're talking about. Everything I've ever read on the subject has suggested most criminal violence is driven primarily by poverty.
"
Not really. And I never said men can't do anything. Just that I'm skeptical that altering this particular variable alone would work out the way predicted, or that there wouldn't be weird unintended consequences.
Really I thought we were just throwing out hypotheticals.
"
The former outcome is well worth considering. Without corresponding cultural changes I could see male violence becoming worse. This is especially so if the result is more to fight over and fewer men to keep other men in check. You could also see a decrease in male on male violence but an increase in other kinds.
Or maybe we'd all just be feeling the peace and love with plenty of women around and no need for any kind of insecurities or showboating. Seems way too easy to me though.
"
My suspicion is it would trade certain problems for others. Maybe one set of problems would be obviously preferable to the other but who knows.
I'd be curious as to whether or not there'd be a point where women start to fill the violence gap, or if over time average female testosterone levels rose.
"
He probably also made outrageous claims like he invented the question mark.
On “There’s a Strike On”
@saul-degraw I think what @stillwater is saying is true, but I don't think it's a liberal versus conservative dispute in the paradigm the NYT or most of the MSM operates in. Understanding it means grappling with the PPACA as the doomed half measure it was, and the broader implications that has about our system. That is disturbing territory for the NYT.
On “Morning Ed: Media {2018.03.04.Su}”
It's a hard problem to solve when the only viable solution is to create smarter consumers of information. Social media makes it easier for people who know better to send something out to thousands of others before reflecting.
Granted I maintain that the Glenn Greenwalds of the world are fundamentally right about this being a problem of the media's own creation.
On “Morning Ed: Society {2018.02.26.M}”
Noted on the degree in question. And I agree, art inspired by experience isn't unheard of, but then neither is artistic license. I've never said she should be silenced.
"
Like I said, no one knows what happened. She used the accusation to support her master thesis in performance art which included several publicity stunts. The fame (or notoriety depending on your perspective) didn't just happen on its own/by chance. She actively sought it out and there's been related litigation.
Reasonable people can disagree about what to make of her. It's not like there hasn't been plenty of reporting. If you haven't followed the story (which, correct me if I'm wrong but as best I can tell you haven't) I'm going to bow out.
"
No one knows for sure what really happened but I think the hypothetical 'for some reason' is pretty obvious in her case. She's become an activist-celebrity profiled in well-respected publications, got her foot in the door in the alternative/performance art world, and got to hobnob with Kirsten Gillibrand at the 2015 state of the union address. Columbia ended up settling with the accused.
"
That makes two of us.
"
I was being sarcastic.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.