I dunno about that. The populist answer to these issues isn't the one I agree with but I understand the parts of the appeal that don't involve attacks on civil liberties (i.e. let's stay out of these conflicts, and especially in Europe, let's stop importing culturally hostile people from backwards, war torn places).
Those level headed centrists didn't exactly create Islamist extremism but it's a monster they've been feeding raw meat to for the last 35 years or more. Until they reckon with what theyve done they have no sympathy from me.
If she wins I predict disintegration of the EU. They can get along without the British who were never fully committed to anything beyond lowering trade barriers. Loss of France (and I think that would follow) makes the entire project look like German imperialism.
I actually strongly disagree with your implicit conclusion that you can take poor on poor violence out of the equation. Most homicides in the US would probably fall into the poor on poor violence category, and a hugely disproportionate number of those homicides are black on black. Meanwhile, despite high profile incidents like Charleston, SC, race based vigilante type murders have become rare.
This isnt to say there arent plenty of differences, but like Brazil we have economically excluded, historically oppressed racial minorities concentrated in blighted and impoverished areas where they commit violence against each other at rates that much of the country would never tolerate, all while violence in general reaches historical lows. The fact that the Brazilians permit that to continue show that they really aren't that different from us, where it arguably counts the most.
There was an article several years ago which posited that from a socio-economic perspective, the US is really much more like Latin America, even if we've become richer and have closer cultural connections to Western Europe (struggling to locate it but will share if I find it). I think it was instructive on this issue.
I took several history courses on South America in college. From what we studied the racial situation in places like Brazil is different but I'd be hesitant to call it less violent. It might be fair to characterize it as more stratified though.
One of the things you also have to keep in mind is that there were far fewer slaves in the British colonies in North America than in Brazil and the Caribbean where the entire enterprise was basically a giant sugar cane plantation. That combined with the relatively sparse and diffuse population was more conducive to African slaves and their descendants being treated as a distinct group in the area that would become the US.
I thought this was a good piece. Watching my wife go through pregnancy has made my views on abortion much more complicated. On the one hand I get why people would want to prohibit it in a way I never quite understood before. I could never imagine doing anything or wanting to terminate her pregnancy and I regularly worry something out of my control would cause that to happen. On the other I've also developed a much better appreciation for the physical labor of carrying a child and women's medical needs more broadly. I get why you wouldn't want far away legislators, bureaucrats, and law enforcement involved in personal decisions. I certainly wouldn't want them there.
I think the best practice in a world of imperfect options is to remain pro choice on public policy grounds, but support efforts to minimize unplanned pregnancies, including making contraception widely available.
That part of in house actually isn't so bad. Everywhere I've been has had a tacit acceptance that Legal is different. You go through the same motions as everyone else but it isn't what you're judged on.
The parts I struggle with have more to do with the human interactions. There are good business people and I actually find them a pleasure to work with. They take legal advice seriously, their risks are calculated, and you can really learn from them as much as they do from you. Unfortunately these people are few and far between. Most of your interactions are with big egos, bullshit artists, lousy salesmen, mindless box checkers, and people whose primary objective is to fly under the radar. You spend more time navigating personalities and trying to interpret nonsensical, vaguely positive corporate speak than doing actual legal work.
Granted this is just part of being a lawyer. I had plenty of stupid experiences when I was hanging out with Sean the weed dealer instead of Bob from Business Development.
The inane culture satirized in Office Space still holds pretty true though even that's gotten worse. Office Space predates Enron so doesn't include the massive CYA bureaucracy, trainings, and and enforced cultural norms/focus on 'optics' that have followed. Also even though Wall Street has done well since 2008 the world is still precarious for a lot of people whereas Office Space came out during boom times. Now you'd need to throw a lot more paranoia and buck passing into the mix (among plenty of other things).
A former colleague of mine and I referred to the company we worked for as Initech. Office Space is actually kind of gentle compared to the reality of white collar corporate America.
This is exactly right. It isn't MST3K that killed middle tier films, it's the international market. Character driven movies, especially comedies with any level of sophistication are the hardest to translate. The overhead on movies is huge if you're going to use A list actors. Studios produce films most likely to get a big return, which in practice means something that's going to do well in China.
Well... if we're going to get blasphemous I thought Mike was the better host. Something about the dumb but affable Midwesterner was perfect. Joel always seemed like he was too smart to end up in such an absurd situation to begin with.
My wife and I watched the first episode last night (I too was lucky enough to marry a fan) and we enjoyed it a lot. My main worry was that I wouldn't like Jonah but he plays it perfectly. In retrospect I was scared they'd make it snarky and mean spirited. To me one of the great things about MST3K is you can tell that under all the mockery there's a certain appreciation for the noble failure in the films they watch.
I think it's the opposite. From my view it's the folks insisting on the Title IX witch-hunts and viewing all sex through the lens of truthy, social justice shibbeloths that are trying to impose a rigid framework.
Basketball has been the big loser in attempts to create football super conferences and the college playoff. I miss the old ACC and even was ok with the ACC and a couple new friends we had into the mid to late aughts. I've found it harder to root for my Terps when I don't really know who to hate.
I'll admit I'm skeptical about the reboot but I'll give it a chance. Letting it stay a weird cult show that people vaguely remember from the days before cable matured feels more right to me. Still, who am I to deny a new generation their riffage?
My favorite episode is actually from the Mike Nelson era, that being the Final Sacrifice. Rowsdower....
People want quality but I'm not sure what people feel they deserve has to do with it. The cost disease is better attributed to a combination of the fact that these are essential goods/services which also happen to be tough to quantify for individual purchasers. Adverse outcomes set the stage for intervention by the state. Sometimes the state is good at it, sometimes it's inept.
What about if your property is part of a massive transit infrastructure supported by a complex web of public and private entities and interests, which operates not only for your profit but with the public good and the national economy in mind? You don't think there might be some other interests that need to be accommodated?
Obviously United has ownership and an interest in it's jet but I think there's a bit more in play here.
I don't disagree. I have all kinds of social democratic instincts when it comes to spreading risk equitably across society and ensuring that people's fates aren't left to amoral systems too complex for most to navigate intelligently. Of course those instincts are often in direct tension with experience of how our state actually operates in practice (i.e. violently, arbitrarily, and with disregard for civil liberties). There's no easy answer.
I hate to be all lawyerly in response but I'm not sure I agree. Rules of evidence are in theory supposed to make policy judgments about what is and isn't relevant for the finder of fact. If we're failing somewhere then there's a discussion to be had at the legislative and/or judicial level about changing what gets in.
From a cultural standpoint I don't entirely disagree with you, but I think you're missing the counter narrative. That other side that's out there (from the police for example, or college activists) is that people in particular positions or circumstances don't have agency or accountability for their own actions. The way I see it, these arguments aren't about victim blaming. They're about who does and who does not have agency, and making the person without agency the winner. There are a million reasons this happens but I think a big one is political gridlock and failure to set sound public policy in any number of issues. One of the results is that instead of incentivizing logical or consistent outcomes we have moral debates about victim blaming, who really is the victim, victim culture, etc. It's why you'll get plenty of people claiming, for example, that the police are the real victim, or that the big corporation is the victim, instead of talking about who is best placed to address a problem, and how policy and incentives might be improved in light of that information.
Now we can also talk about the pros and cons of the adversarial system but I know which I prefer if it's ever my ass on the line...
I'm not going to speak for Davidly but the plausible alternative theory is that what we saw resulted from use or destruction of a rebel chemical weapon, not a false flag. That doesn't mean Assad forces didn't in fact drop chemical weapons out of a jet as the Trump administration is asserting. What doesn't make sense to me is the rush to accept this narrative as fact, particularly in light of past intelligence failures on these types of issues. Doesn't mean it's wrong, but does mean skepticism is warranted.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Le Président de la France”
I dunno about that. The populist answer to these issues isn't the one I agree with but I understand the parts of the appeal that don't involve attacks on civil liberties (i.e. let's stay out of these conflicts, and especially in Europe, let's stop importing culturally hostile people from backwards, war torn places).
Those level headed centrists didn't exactly create Islamist extremism but it's a monster they've been feeding raw meat to for the last 35 years or more. Until they reckon with what theyve done they have no sympathy from me.
"
If she wins I predict disintegration of the EU. They can get along without the British who were never fully committed to anything beyond lowering trade barriers. Loss of France (and I think that would follow) makes the entire project look like German imperialism.
"
Good and interesting read. And now we have another Islamist attack to throw into the mix.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/21/europe/paris-police-shooting-champs-elysees/
On “Morning Ed: World {2017.04.19.W}”
I actually strongly disagree with your implicit conclusion that you can take poor on poor violence out of the equation. Most homicides in the US would probably fall into the poor on poor violence category, and a hugely disproportionate number of those homicides are black on black. Meanwhile, despite high profile incidents like Charleston, SC, race based vigilante type murders have become rare.
This isnt to say there arent plenty of differences, but like Brazil we have economically excluded, historically oppressed racial minorities concentrated in blighted and impoverished areas where they commit violence against each other at rates that much of the country would never tolerate, all while violence in general reaches historical lows. The fact that the Brazilians permit that to continue show that they really aren't that different from us, where it arguably counts the most.
There was an article several years ago which posited that from a socio-economic perspective, the US is really much more like Latin America, even if we've become richer and have closer cultural connections to Western Europe (struggling to locate it but will share if I find it). I think it was instructive on this issue.
"
I took several history courses on South America in college. From what we studied the racial situation in places like Brazil is different but I'd be hesitant to call it less violent. It might be fair to characterize it as more stratified though.
"
One of the things you also have to keep in mind is that there were far fewer slaves in the British colonies in North America than in Brazil and the Caribbean where the entire enterprise was basically a giant sugar cane plantation. That combined with the relatively sparse and diffuse population was more conducive to African slaves and their descendants being treated as a distinct group in the area that would become the US.
On “The Tomiknockers”
I thought this was a good piece. Watching my wife go through pregnancy has made my views on abortion much more complicated. On the one hand I get why people would want to prohibit it in a way I never quite understood before. I could never imagine doing anything or wanting to terminate her pregnancy and I regularly worry something out of my control would cause that to happen. On the other I've also developed a much better appreciation for the physical labor of carrying a child and women's medical needs more broadly. I get why you wouldn't want far away legislators, bureaucrats, and law enforcement involved in personal decisions. I certainly wouldn't want them there.
I think the best practice in a world of imperfect options is to remain pro choice on public policy grounds, but support efforts to minimize unplanned pregnancies, including making contraception widely available.
On “Morning Ed: Society {2017.04.18.T}”
That part of in house actually isn't so bad. Everywhere I've been has had a tacit acceptance that Legal is different. You go through the same motions as everyone else but it isn't what you're judged on.
The parts I struggle with have more to do with the human interactions. There are good business people and I actually find them a pleasure to work with. They take legal advice seriously, their risks are calculated, and you can really learn from them as much as they do from you. Unfortunately these people are few and far between. Most of your interactions are with big egos, bullshit artists, lousy salesmen, mindless box checkers, and people whose primary objective is to fly under the radar. You spend more time navigating personalities and trying to interpret nonsensical, vaguely positive corporate speak than doing actual legal work.
Granted this is just part of being a lawyer. I had plenty of stupid experiences when I was hanging out with Sean the weed dealer instead of Bob from Business Development.
"
The inane culture satirized in Office Space still holds pretty true though even that's gotten worse. Office Space predates Enron so doesn't include the massive CYA bureaucracy, trainings, and and enforced cultural norms/focus on 'optics' that have followed. Also even though Wall Street has done well since 2008 the world is still precarious for a lot of people whereas Office Space came out during boom times. Now you'd need to throw a lot more paranoia and buck passing into the mix (among plenty of other things).
"
A former colleague of mine and I referred to the company we worked for as Initech. Office Space is actually kind of gentle compared to the reality of white collar corporate America.
On “In The Not-Too-Distant Future…”
This is exactly right. It isn't MST3K that killed middle tier films, it's the international market. Character driven movies, especially comedies with any level of sophistication are the hardest to translate. The overhead on movies is huge if you're going to use A list actors. Studios produce films most likely to get a big return, which in practice means something that's going to do well in China.
On “Morning Ed: War {2017.04.17.M}”
It's really too bad they made that idiotic Bruce Willis movie that took the name and scrapped the story.
On “In The Not-Too-Distant Future…”
Well... if we're going to get blasphemous I thought Mike was the better host. Something about the dumb but affable Midwesterner was perfect. Joel always seemed like he was too smart to end up in such an absurd situation to begin with.
"
My wife and I watched the first episode last night (I too was lucky enough to marry a fan) and we enjoyed it a lot. My main worry was that I wouldn't like Jonah but he plays it perfectly. In retrospect I was scared they'd make it snarky and mean spirited. To me one of the great things about MST3K is you can tell that under all the mockery there's a certain appreciation for the noble failure in the films they watch.
On “Linky Friday: Sex, Sin, & Science”
I think it's the opposite. From my view it's the folks insisting on the Title IX witch-hunts and viewing all sex through the lens of truthy, social justice shibbeloths that are trying to impose a rigid framework.
"
Seems to me like she is a voice of sanity.
"
Basketball has been the big loser in attempts to create football super conferences and the college playoff. I miss the old ACC and even was ok with the ACC and a couple new friends we had into the mid to late aughts. I've found it harder to root for my Terps when I don't really know who to hate.
On “In The Not-Too-Distant Future…”
I'll admit I'm skeptical about the reboot but I'll give it a chance. Letting it stay a weird cult show that people vaguely remember from the days before cable matured feels more right to me. Still, who am I to deny a new generation their riffage?
My favorite episode is actually from the Mike Nelson era, that being the Final Sacrifice. Rowsdower....
On “BBC: Doctors can withdraw baby’s life support”
People want quality but I'm not sure what people feel they deserve has to do with it. The cost disease is better attributed to a combination of the fact that these are essential goods/services which also happen to be tough to quantify for individual purchasers. Adverse outcomes set the stage for intervention by the state. Sometimes the state is good at it, sometimes it's inept.
On “Not Everything Is About How Terrible America Is”
What about if your property is part of a massive transit infrastructure supported by a complex web of public and private entities and interests, which operates not only for your profit but with the public good and the national economy in mind? You don't think there might be some other interests that need to be accommodated?
Obviously United has ownership and an interest in it's jet but I think there's a bit more in play here.
"
I don't disagree. I have all kinds of social democratic instincts when it comes to spreading risk equitably across society and ensuring that people's fates aren't left to amoral systems too complex for most to navigate intelligently. Of course those instincts are often in direct tension with experience of how our state actually operates in practice (i.e. violently, arbitrarily, and with disregard for civil liberties). There's no easy answer.
"
I hate to be all lawyerly in response but I'm not sure I agree. Rules of evidence are in theory supposed to make policy judgments about what is and isn't relevant for the finder of fact. If we're failing somewhere then there's a discussion to be had at the legislative and/or judicial level about changing what gets in.
From a cultural standpoint I don't entirely disagree with you, but I think you're missing the counter narrative. That other side that's out there (from the police for example, or college activists) is that people in particular positions or circumstances don't have agency or accountability for their own actions. The way I see it, these arguments aren't about victim blaming. They're about who does and who does not have agency, and making the person without agency the winner. There are a million reasons this happens but I think a big one is political gridlock and failure to set sound public policy in any number of issues. One of the results is that instead of incentivizing logical or consistent outcomes we have moral debates about victim blaming, who really is the victim, victim culture, etc. It's why you'll get plenty of people claiming, for example, that the police are the real victim, or that the big corporation is the victim, instead of talking about who is best placed to address a problem, and how policy and incentives might be improved in light of that information.
Now we can also talk about the pros and cons of the adversarial system but I know which I prefer if it's ever my ass on the line...
"
It's the Milo Minderbinder approach.
On “Morning Ed: Law & Order {2017.04.10.M}”
Wow.
On “A Confession of Bias”
I'm not going to speak for Davidly but the plausible alternative theory is that what we saw resulted from use or destruction of a rebel chemical weapon, not a false flag. That doesn't mean Assad forces didn't in fact drop chemical weapons out of a jet as the Trump administration is asserting. What doesn't make sense to me is the rush to accept this narrative as fact, particularly in light of past intelligence failures on these types of issues. Doesn't mean it's wrong, but does mean skepticism is warranted.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.