FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
And every gimmick hungry yob
Digging gold from rock n roll
Grabs the mic to tell us
he'll die before he's sold
But I believe in this
And it's been tested by research
He who fucks nuns
Will later join the church
User ID: 195
Leading to a more intensive federalism at home and abroad.
We can start by integrating countries like Greenland, Canada, Singapore which are already compatible.
This is a misunderstanding of the objectives of the Trump administration at this time.
The goal of the administration is not to impose a cohesive, functional policy worldview. Their goal is not long term control of the government and direction of policy. That has been judged to be impossible for a variety of reasons. This isn't a takeover, it is a raid, it is material and positional denial. The goal is to spike the cannons so that when the counterattack succeeds, the enemy will no longer be able to use those weapons. This will permanently tilt the board in the direction of preferred policies and against disfavored policies, even after the exposed salient is lost.
This is a particular application of Madman Theory, which Trump has often leaned towards, but I think it is better labeled in this case Unreliable Partner Theory. The goal isn't to extract concessions, as in Madman Theory, but to make it clear that you cannot rely on the United States under any circumstances, because the United States is deeply schizophrenic and unreliable. The rules based international order cannot be altered, but it can be ruined beyond repair. The deep ideological heart of Trump World sees the writing on the wall. A few weeks ago polling showed a 16% lead for Democrats in the mid terms on a generic ballot. Generic ballots aren't real, and it's ten months away, but a 16% loss would be a wipeout, and likely prevent any legislation from getting passed. Republicans, and especially MAGA candidates, have underperformed without Trump on the ballot, and he's not going to run in 2028, or if he tries he's quite likely to be unable to do the job in short order, being an 80 year old man who loves McDonald's and thinks that cardio reduces your lifespan because you only get a certain number of heartbeats before you die. Seeing that they only have a small window, the focus is not on implementing smart, sane, gradual policies that will build things for the future; it is on implementing radical, constantly changing, caleidoscopic policies that make it impossible to rely on the US Government in the future, forcing a decoupling of everything from foreign partners to local industry.
This is visible in the approach to the federal workforce. Can Trump shrink the federal workforce? Maybe, maybe not. But what he can done, what he already has done, is permanently break the understanding that a federal government job was a sinecure for life. The federal government is, for a lawyer or researcher or engineer, no longer a reliable partner. In the future when a Democratic president tries to expand the federal. workforce, they will find fewer takers.
The Trump Administration can remove some illegals in an orderly legal manner, but a later Democratic administration can just let more in. By being cruel and arbitrary, the Trump administration insures that no future illegal migrant, and fewer legal migrants, will feel safe coming to the United States, even after future policy changes.
The Trump administration can force new provisions into NATO requiring higher military spending by European countries, but those provisions already exist and won't be enforced by future administrations. (I've never understood the media theory for why talking about breaking Article 5 is a threat to NATO, while actually violating Article 3 for years is no big deal) But the Trump administration can act in such erratic and confusing ways that European powers will be forced to increase their military spending in order to provide for their own protection.
Viewed in this lens, the NSS and the confusion surrounding it makes a lot of sense. It's designed to scare the Euros straight, because even if these guys are out of power, they might be in power again, and it's doing a bang up job.
Thankfully Iām not that knowledgeable about this entire sleazy subject but as far as I can tell, Britney Spears also had scarce intentions herself of maintaining her good girl image after a while.
I'm reminded of Sam Sheridan's quip in A Fighter's Heart where he noticed that a major risk factor in deaths in the boxing ring was family members in the corner. A fighter's brother, father, uncle was much more likely to keep sending him back out there until he died than was a professional coach.
I'm trying to find data on it but I'm not succeeding quickly. Entry level wages have been bimodal, but the up-or-out nature of big law means that a lot of those highly-paid associates are gone within two to four years, and some for jobs where they (adjusting for inflation) they will never make more than they did early on at biglaw. Surveys report that 20% of associates leave their firms annually, though some are lateral to another firm. And of course a big part of the bimodalism has to do with the strong preference among elite professional degree holders for urban living; too few are willing or able to move to Cleveland, let alone Lancaster or Wyoming, to advance their careers.
But a small percentage of lawyers advancing their careers after failing at earlier prestige games doesn't necessarily mean that the system isn't meritocratic, it might tell us that a small percentage of good lawyers are being "thrown away" by the earlier screening systems.
I can't quantify it easily, but looking around at mid career lawyers, there is a definite path both down and up for lawyers based on talent. There are people I know who made big law and now aren't even practicing, and people I know who are making partner at prominent small town firms and pulling down a decent living now, which will improve considerably when the boomers have the courtesy to die off and free up a lot of work.
Even take a small city local DAs office as an example. Dauphin County, where Harrisburg is located, will hire young ADAs out of schools like Dusquesne and Penn State and Weidner with mediocre grades. The entry level wage is low, probably $60-70k these days. The experienced average is like $175k and the DA makes in the $200k range with a lot of local prestige to go with it. The Dauphin County DA went to Widener, started as an ADA thirty years ago, and now is the DA. There's obviously political elements to becoming DA, both office politics and electoral politics, but for the most part the way you become DA is by having at least some degree of talent for law.
None of this is perfect, there's still a ton of early career gatekeeping and prestige games, especially around the highest end jobs. But we're not comparing it to perfection, just to the example offered by OP: research science. If you're a research scientist without a university or industry affiliation, there's not a very comparable way to advance and revive your career.
I would actually say that Law is one of the most meritocratic fields over the long run, in that while the really elite levels are gatekept behind prestigious degrees, you can still put out a shingle and work and build a base of clientele and advance. There are local lawyers pulling down excellent livings in any region of 100,000 people. Where doing physics research requires being hired by one of a handful of institutions in the world, and if you don't meet their criteria or get unlucky early in your career, tant pis.
A good lawyer who gets bad grades at a mediocre law school probably won't reach SCOTUS, he can still end up a trial judge or a partner at a very profitable law firm. A great chemist who misses out on professional and academic opportunities teaches at the high school.
Yes. 2 senators each, plus a rejiggering of the house.
I don't really think anywhere needs more sovereignty than Alabama, so as long as it's made a state I think it's a positive thing to bring it into the union. Good first step to adding Cuba, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, the Philippines, and every Canadian province.
A great man has passed.
We at the Wawa Nationalist Front wish to offer our condolences to our chivalrous foes at Sheetz on the death of Mr Sheetz. We may disagree with Sheetz customers on matters of taste, decorum, basic hygiene, and just how sweet you can make a coffee before it's inedible. But I will forever remember how hilarious I found it that Sheetz was founded and owned by Mr Sheetz, and when you're REALLY drunk at 2am there's nothing like a $6 triple fried app sampler.
You can kill the man, but not the idea.
WSJ, but same difference.
"Spending time with small children is boring and I hate it and would prefer to do as little of it as possible" is a classic scissor statement: some large portion of the people who read it think it is obviously true and no right thinking non-lobotomized person could think otherwise, and some large portion of the people who read it think it is obviously false and no right thinking person with a soul could think it was true.
This is a remarkably good scissor statement, in that I find the people being mean to him insufferable, and even inasmuch as I might find the Sillicon Valley Crypto Guy of it all mockable, I still have an innate rage at people dismissing him as a shitty dad.
So despite knowing that I'm falling for a scissor statement and starting a fight for no reason, I'm going to do it anyway: if you want to call this guy a shitty dad I don't want to hear you bitch about the TFR.
There was a letter to the editor in the WSJ this morning that I took a picture of to remember, from Leah Libresco Sargeant, replying to a prior article by William Galston title "America Needs More Husband Material" about how men need to shape up so they can get wives. Sargeant cites surveys of high school seniors showing that a declining percentage of young people feel that they will be "very good" spouses. The money quote that stuck out to me:
Giving [kids] more lectures on how important marriage is won't do it, they think so highly of the institution that they judge themselves incapable of living up to it.
((She goes on to say kids need more self organized play to develop into marriage material, citing her homeschooled husband's experience running a youth theater company. I should look her up and see what her arguments are outside two paragraphs of newsprint.))
My brother-in-law is a fantastic dad, he spends a ton of time with my niece and nephew, he dedicates himself to them, they are always the number one priority, he values nothing else. My own father, who was a great father to me*, frequently jokes that BiL makes him feel bad about the time he spent with us growing up. Frankly, if I couldn't have kids until I wanted to be a dad the way my BiL is a dad, I will never have kids. I will never want to spend all day with my two year old. If that's the standard for having kids, I will never meet it, and a lot of other people won't either.
If we are trying to convince people to have kids, especially conscientious neurotic high achieving people who we really want to have conscientious high achieving kids, then setting impossible standards will not achieve it.
As to the "this is distasteful and shouldn't be shared" thing, it feels very odd to me, like a blue haired wokie screeching about misogyny because of a bland "women be shopping" joke. Just a massive example of the political correctness commissars telling people what they are and aren't allowed to feel, and what feelings they are and aren't allowed to talk about. "YOU WILL PLAY WITH THE TODDLER, YOU WILL ENJOY IT, PARENTHOOD IS JOY!"
When parenthood was more normalized, bitching about it was too! Don't start the politically correct cycle of gatekeeping who is and isn't allowed to be a parent and how they are allowed to feel about it, it will not increase the number of people having kids one iota.
*Your opinion of the results may differ.
Yes, absolutely. The average person isn't going to go to their priest frequently for such guidance and help, but only a minority of people need to go to a therapist either.
Why do you assume the next man up will be marginally preferable to Maduro?
No, I just woke up in the morning hoping we weren't going to spend $3,000,000,000,000.00 killing ten thousand brown people again.
That doesn't really point to Cuba being "allowed" to exist peacefully in opposition to the United States.
The reason Cuba has been "allowed" to exist for so long is not out of some reasoned exception to the Monroe Doctrine, it is simply because the Castro regime has historically been competent and popular enough that overthrowing it has not been practical.
In Venezuela, Chavez poked the United States more than Maduro ever did, but he was a competent strongman and so he lived to die of cancer in power.
Yet it is still subject to an incredibly harsh embargo. Long after similar "communist" regimes and direct Russian allies that killed relatives of mine have become major trading partners. That doesn't really fit with "allowed."
How is Cuba an allowed exception? Cuba is still embargoed, despite being no worse than Vietnam.
It's not at all clear why Big Oil would want venezuelan oil on the market at a time when prices are too low for shale. If anything a war for oil conspiracy would rely on taking oil production offline to raise prices.
Praying on this one.
However fun or not-fun the original story was or wasn't, this exchange is comedy GOLD.
Do you believe in therapists?
No. Much better off with a priest.
I never watched Heroes when it was on the air.
I think anthologies work in niches, and I'd like to see them done more. American Horror story is on season 1,000,000 or something, and Nero Wolfe was great for the 18 people who watched it on A&E back in the day. But yeah, there's such a different mindset out there that people just want to see their faves on camera over and over. With production costs presumably dropping in the future, we're all going to have to get better at deciding what stories are canon and which aren't.
What I really miss is episodic tv! Law and Order, you never learned shit about Jerry Orbach, Benjamin Bratt, Sam Waterston or Jessie Martin across decades of murders. Every plot was self contained, you never needed to know what happened in yesterday's episode to watch tonight's, every night's another murder. There was no overarching plot or character development. Suddenly everything needs to build to something.
I haven't watched Season 5, I stopped watching midway through Season 3 when I just lost interest and no longer felt like it was going anywhere, and it seemed to run out of steam by the end of Season 2. Season 1 was brilliant, and artistically they should have stuck with the original plan and made the series an anthology with each season running as a different story set in a different place in a different decade. Cash wise, I probably can't argue with what they did, though, the public screams for slop. The show was basically always going to turn to shit once season 2 was put into the works, there was no way to maintain quality.
Season 1 is brilliant because it interweaves three scifi/horror movie genres simultaneously, the kids are doing ET while the teens are doing a slasher film and Joyce is doing a poltergeist movie. They can't know about each other until the end, because if they did, the parents would quite obviously stop the kids from participating. To do otherwise is to ruin the vibe, because at that point the kids aren't normal kids anymore. I can kind of accept that "one big adventure" gets swept under the rug for both the kids and the deep state abandons the project and they go back to more or less normal as the easiest way forward. You can't do that for five years in a row, it just doesn't make sense. At some point the parents are going to move away, or the deep state arrests everyone in the family or send their kid to military school etc to keep them out of danger.
Simultaneously, there's some genuinely good expectation-subverting storytelling in the slasher plot. Nancy, Johnathan, and Steve are framed as the good girl, the maligned nerdy creep with a heart of gold, and the rich jerk/jock. The classic way this plot works is that the girl starts out with the jerk/jock and then realizes that the creep has a heart of gold, and when the creep acts with heroism in the face of the supernatural danger he gets the girl. Season 1 does a great job subverting our expectations: in the climactic fight, it's Steve who shows up out of nowhere and proves that he has the heart of gold and courage to spare, and afterward he buys Johnathan a camera to replace the one he broke. This is genuinely feminist film-making: Nancy isn't a prize to be won by being right about the monster, she isn't obligated to get with Johnathan because he's proven himself, Steve isn't jealous of their friendship and bond, and Johnathan is happy with that status. This is good storytelling!
So of course they have to fuck it up, and get Nancy and Johnathan together, and turn Steve into the butt monkey over seasons 2 and 3. They don't even do the feminist girlpower slop right!
When I was about Will's age my dad once told me he hoped I was gay because I'd never be strong enough to attract a woman. We were working on some home project and I kept fucking it up and he kept yelling at me and finally he snapped and really gave it to me. And my dad is pretty nice and loving and not at all like Lonnie!
Being called queer != Being queer. Especially not before 2010 or so.
Like yeah it's in the "text" that someone called him queer but it's not conclusive that he is queer.
- Prev
- Next

Pink no, but that was Taylor's whole thing. Kinda still is.
More options
Context Copy link