I'm very skeptical about the success of PUA techniques. They seem designed to work best on people with issues or if a person doesn't have issues, you need to inflict short-term Stockholm Syndrome on an otherwise mentally healthy person. Both of these options are not really that moral. Seducing a person with issues raises some serious concerns about consent. Inflicting short-term Stockholm Syndrome is just a form of mental assault.
I think the idea of celebrity role models is interesting in its own right. Do we expect all celebrities to be role models or just ones that kids are more likely to be exposed to than not like the ones who star in media aimed at kids or athletes? If its only the celebrities whose career is based on catering to children to a certain extent, are those celebrities on a twenty-four/seven sort of guard where they always have to be in role model roll. I suppose the equivalent for ordinary people would be to tell teachers that they can never go to a bar or be seen doing anything less than pristine because their students might see it. Is this right or is it asking too much?
I'm not really that much of a fan of May-December Romances. The appeal of the older partner providing romantic and sexual mentoring to a younger partner regardless of the gender always seemed kind of sketchy to me. However, if it happens I don't think that we should really protest it to much, unless the younger partner is under the age of consent or there is a power dynamic abuse, and just kind of accept. Its not really that nice to make snide comments about couples. Protesting wide age ranges makes as much sense as protesting inter-racial couples, none at all.
Schwyzer always struck me as the grown up version of the college student that takes Women's Study courses and says the ideologically correct thing in order to get laid. One reason why I couldn't get into The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was because the male protagonist came off like that to. That and I found the female protagonist to be a horrible person rather than a tragic hero in many ways. Sometimes she could be outright petty and evil.
Its a very tricky issue. I'd argue that if a non-violent crime causes a certain amount of monetary damage or involves political corruption of some sort than prison might be appropriate.
I'm not going into Churchill worship, he was absolutely ineffective in peacetime for one thing and in a democracy, politicians should be able to be effective in multiple situtions. I just think the quote is witty.
One thing that any reasonable prison must include is the abolishment of private prisons. There are way too many preverse incentives with private prisons as the infamous case in Pennsylvania demonstrated. Prisons must be owned and run by governments and funded through tax dollars in order to prevent said abuses.
I wouldn't go that far but I agree that we jail far too many people. Prison should be for people who commit violent crimes. Putting non-violent criminal in jail, especially if they are very young or old, is cruel and waste of money and resources. Fines, community service, and various programs are better forms of corrections and punishment. Even when jail time is an appropriate punishment, we put people away for way to long. Prison sentences for most crimes need to be dramatically reduced.
The various Scandinavian countries run the best prisons on the planet. They actually make attempts to reform the inmates and rehabilitate them. The problem is that they require a non-vengeful population whose willing to spend the money on doing things right. I don't think we'll ever achieve that in the United States.
No it isn't. Truman was acting within his powers as Commander-in-Chief when he ordered the army desegregated. Since his actions were within the powers granted to him by the Constitution than they were perfectly democratic.
I can live with that. I'm not very sympathetic to the foodies. I kind of agree with their message but the ahistoricism in much of the writing is a real turn off. A lot of foodies imagine a past that never was, when people ate the seasonal bounty of the land. We actually have a good idea what people ate like in the past and and it wasn't the seasonal bounty of the land. It was mainly grains or tubers of some sort and maybe some salt meat, dairy, or vegetables. It was industrial agriculture that led the world of varied diets and increased fruit and vegetable consumption.
I'm still relatively unsure of the difference between a liberal and a progressive. As far as I can tell, a progressive is only liberal that doesn't want to refer to him or herself as such for some reason.
James, I don't think that getting rid of districts would have the effect that you want without really changing how the House seats are distributed. In states that have lots of Representatives, non-district based voting would work. In states with one representative than the state is just a giant district. In states where you have a only a few representatives than things get confusing, especially if you use some form of proportional voting.
I also think that multiple parties work better in parliamentary system where the executive power is more closely aligned with the legislature. In our system, a multiple parties would either increase deadlock by making legislative compromise even harder or turn the House into a rubber stamp because nobody can agree and just differs to the Presidency.
I'm not really talking about idealism, so much as words have meaning. A representative democracy thats functionally controlled by the minority political party is not a representative democracy. Its a kind of oligarchy.
I'd argue that in a republican or democratic system, gerrymandering is not how politics are supposed to work. If the minority rigs the game so they win even when they do not get the majority of votes than you aren't really dealing with functioning representative government. The people aren't getting to choose you represent them.
Or bluntly, the Swiss system doesn't seem fairly market oriented. Its actually further to the left of the PPACA since the insurance companies are much more regulated under the Swiss system.
This is the Swiss healthcare system. It seems to be a fairly typical Bismarckian system. Everybody has to purchase health insurance, every health insurance company has to offer the same basic services and has to register with the government. Insurance companies can not earn profit from mandated services but only for supplementary services. The only difference between the Swiss system and other Bismarckian systems is that the Swiss system involves co-pay.
This. The GOP's problem isn't that its turning off liberals but thats its scarring a lot of people who don't consider themselves liberal. Many apolitical, non-political, moderate, and even conservative people are increasingly finding the GOP as not offering any practical solution for the problems facing society. The GOP is never going to attract people but they need to get more than conservatives to vote for them.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “The Pick-Up Apologist: Kickstarter, Reddit, The Awl, and The Real Problem With Seduction Culture”
I'm very skeptical about the success of PUA techniques. They seem designed to work best on people with issues or if a person doesn't have issues, you need to inflict short-term Stockholm Syndrome on an otherwise mentally healthy person. Both of these options are not really that moral. Seducing a person with issues raises some serious concerns about consent. Inflicting short-term Stockholm Syndrome is just a form of mental assault.
On “Survey Says? BZZZZZZZ!”
I think the idea of celebrity role models is interesting in its own right. Do we expect all celebrities to be role models or just ones that kids are more likely to be exposed to than not like the ones who star in media aimed at kids or athletes? If its only the celebrities whose career is based on catering to children to a certain extent, are those celebrities on a twenty-four/seven sort of guard where they always have to be in role model roll. I suppose the equivalent for ordinary people would be to tell teachers that they can never go to a bar or be seen doing anything less than pristine because their students might see it. Is this right or is it asking too much?
On “The Myth of a Man”
I'm not really that much of a fan of May-December Romances. The appeal of the older partner providing romantic and sexual mentoring to a younger partner regardless of the gender always seemed kind of sketchy to me. However, if it happens I don't think that we should really protest it to much, unless the younger partner is under the age of consent or there is a power dynamic abuse, and just kind of accept. Its not really that nice to make snide comments about couples. Protesting wide age ranges makes as much sense as protesting inter-racial couples, none at all.
"
Schwyzer always struck me as the grown up version of the college student that takes Women's Study courses and says the ideologically correct thing in order to get laid. One reason why I couldn't get into The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was because the male protagonist came off like that to. That and I found the female protagonist to be a horrible person rather than a tragic hero in many ways. Sometimes she could be outright petty and evil.
On “Just Read It”
Its a very tricky issue. I'd argue that if a non-violent crime causes a certain amount of monetary damage or involves political corruption of some sort than prison might be appropriate.
On “Rand Paul: Not Aristotle”
I'm not going into Churchill worship, he was absolutely ineffective in peacetime for one thing and in a democracy, politicians should be able to be effective in multiple situtions. I just think the quote is witty.
On “Just Read It”
One thing that any reasonable prison must include is the abolishment of private prisons. There are way too many preverse incentives with private prisons as the infamous case in Pennsylvania demonstrated. Prisons must be owned and run by governments and funded through tax dollars in order to prevent said abuses.
"
I wouldn't go that far but I agree that we jail far too many people. Prison should be for people who commit violent crimes. Putting non-violent criminal in jail, especially if they are very young or old, is cruel and waste of money and resources. Fines, community service, and various programs are better forms of corrections and punishment. Even when jail time is an appropriate punishment, we put people away for way to long. Prison sentences for most crimes need to be dramatically reduced.
The various Scandinavian countries run the best prisons on the planet. They actually make attempts to reform the inmates and rehabilitate them. The problem is that they require a non-vengeful population whose willing to spend the money on doing things right. I don't think we'll ever achieve that in the United States.
On “Rand Paul: Not Aristotle”
I prefer Churchill's version, "democracy isn't the best form of government, its the worse form of government save all others tried."
On “Pundit Math: Russell Brand is Smarter than Three Cable News Anchors Combined”
Do you have any evidence for your first accusation?
On “Rand Paul: Not Aristotle”
No it isn't. Truman was acting within his powers as Commander-in-Chief when he ordered the army desegregated. Since his actions were within the powers granted to him by the Constitution than they were perfectly democratic.
On “Pundit Math: Russell Brand is Smarter than Three Cable News Anchors Combined”
This is a much more intelligent explanation than mine.
"
This is a much more intelligent explanation than mine.
"
Even well-educated people can drink the kool-aid if their pay check depends on it.
"
Even well-educated people can drink the kool-aid if their pay check depends on it.
On “The Apocalyptic Bobby Jindal”
I can live with that. I'm not very sympathetic to the foodies. I kind of agree with their message but the ahistoricism in much of the writing is a real turn off. A lot of foodies imagine a past that never was, when people ate the seasonal bounty of the land. We actually have a good idea what people ate like in the past and and it wasn't the seasonal bounty of the land. It was mainly grains or tubers of some sort and maybe some salt meat, dairy, or vegetables. It was industrial agriculture that led the world of varied diets and increased fruit and vegetable consumption.
"
Isn't Obama basically a geek who hides it very well in public? The man read Conan comics as a kid.
"
Isn't Obama basically a geek who hides it very well in public? The man read Conan comics as a kid.
"
And collectively say ouch.
"
I'm still relatively unsure of the difference between a liberal and a progressive. As far as I can tell, a progressive is only liberal that doesn't want to refer to him or herself as such for some reason.
"
James, I don't think that getting rid of districts would have the effect that you want without really changing how the House seats are distributed. In states that have lots of Representatives, non-district based voting would work. In states with one representative than the state is just a giant district. In states where you have a only a few representatives than things get confusing, especially if you use some form of proportional voting.
I also think that multiple parties work better in parliamentary system where the executive power is more closely aligned with the legislature. In our system, a multiple parties would either increase deadlock by making legislative compromise even harder or turn the House into a rubber stamp because nobody can agree and just differs to the Presidency.
I'm not really talking about idealism, so much as words have meaning. A representative democracy thats functionally controlled by the minority political party is not a representative democracy. Its a kind of oligarchy.
"
I'd argue that in a republican or democratic system, gerrymandering is not how politics are supposed to work. If the minority rigs the game so they win even when they do not get the majority of votes than you aren't really dealing with functioning representative government. The people aren't getting to choose you represent them.
"
Or bluntly, the Swiss system doesn't seem fairly market oriented. Its actually further to the left of the PPACA since the insurance companies are much more regulated under the Swiss system.
"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland
This is the Swiss healthcare system. It seems to be a fairly typical Bismarckian system. Everybody has to purchase health insurance, every health insurance company has to offer the same basic services and has to register with the government. Insurance companies can not earn profit from mandated services but only for supplementary services. The only difference between the Swiss system and other Bismarckian systems is that the Swiss system involves co-pay.
"
This. The GOP's problem isn't that its turning off liberals but thats its scarring a lot of people who don't consider themselves liberal. Many apolitical, non-political, moderate, and even conservative people are increasingly finding the GOP as not offering any practical solution for the problems facing society. The GOP is never going to attract people but they need to get more than conservatives to vote for them.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.