@CriticalDuty's banner p

CriticalDuty


				

				

				
4 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 02:24:10 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 368

CriticalDuty


				
				
				

				
4 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 02:24:10 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 368

Verified Email

Late last year I posted a comment here asking how I could convince my girlfriend to start eating more. Now, I'm posting an update.

Frankly I was annoyed by some of the replies to my previous post that said I should "enjoy my slim girlfriend", or that implied that I was making more of a problem out of it than it actually was. She actually lost more weight and now weighs 98 lbs. It took several months of patient intervention for me to convince her that yes, I do actually want her to gain weight, and yes, I absolutely would still think she was pretty if she weighed 120 lbs. Recently she finally caved and went to her doctor for a formal medical opinion, and he backed me up on this by telling her that she was at risk of osteoporosis and anemia if she didn't change her diet and gain weight. My cause has also seen some support from her older sister, a very intelligent woman whom she trusts a lot, telling her that she needs to start eating more red meat. So in theory, at least, I've been able to convince her that her ordinary diet and habits aren't healthy or sustainable.

The problem, at least as I see it, is that even with this realization it's been hard for her to break her habits. We go out to brunch and she still eats her little vegan salads. I tell her she should add some chicken or other protein to the salads and she declines. She still consults the app on her phone that counts all her calories for the day. It's hard for me to figure out what the line is between pushing her to be healthier for her own sake, and being outright controlling over her lifestyle. Do I just put my foot down and confront her, pushing her to be serious about her health?

I'm not a progressive and I wouldn't call myself a feminist either, but Sheridan also frequently has some of the worst written female characters around. The women were easily the worst part of "Landman", a show that is only watchable thanks to the Herculean efforts of Billy Bob Thornton.

Yes. The migrants you see milling around aimlessly in the public squares of London, Berlin, Rome etc. are largely poor, sporadically criminal, disorganized and disconnected. Their numbers will not stop a sufficiently determined Western state. What will stop that state is the lack of political will. There's plenty of capacity, but in a democratic state that capacity is always going to be subject to the whims of elected officials who all have their reasons not to use it.

It's the courts that have the final say, and the courts have said it's not valid without further Congressional action, which is why the Archivist said she can't legally publish the amendment. I imagine that if she tried publishing it herself, the ensuing litigation would just end in the courts referring to their prior decisions and striking down her action.

I doubt there's going to be much of a legal battle. Laurence Tribe believes it's the law of the land, but Laurence Tribe believes a lot of stupid things - the more likely outcome is that the first plaintiffs who try to enforce it inevitably get slapped down by the courts, and this fades away to nothing.