HereAndGone
2d ago
Which is a very different thing from liberal social norms!
HereAndGone
2d ago
where he can be the primary breadwinner without needing a second job or for the wife to work full time.
I would like to see that happen, but I'm dubious for a couple of reasons. First, we've set up our economies so that isn't really a runner, anymore. Unionised jobs which did provide good benefits and you could be the single breadwinner became corrupt and atrophied (see the fairly recent example of the longshoremen, for one). Industries collapsed during the 80s and the salvation was to outsource to cheaper labour and resources abroad, and to get more women into the workforce.
Second, a strong male-led household can be one where the man runs them into debt and other problems, or where the ostensible male head is weak and incapable. To work at its best, marriage should be a partnership. "This happens because I say so" can only work where "I say so" is reasonable and not "I've decided to take out loans, mortgage the house, and put all our savings into this sure thing a guy told me about, and if you don't like it, here's a black eye for you".
HereAndGone
2d ago
Women might finally, F-I-N-A-L-L-Y be required to either suffer from economic destitution or make some concessions to men to obtain the support of a good one.
Golly gee, I wonder why those uppity females are not rushing out to marry men who think they should have the right to beat and rape them just like the Good Old Days when the choice was between economic destitution or making concessions regarding marriage.
This is why there was a whole thing about women having careers of their own, so there wouldn't be the risk of economic destitution. This kind of statement is one step away from "and in fact being enslaved was better for the slaves because owners were obliged to feed and shelter them".
You are not going to solve the problem of "why are men and women not getting on? why isn't marriage and children happening?" by telling one side "we want to force you into marriage with someone you would not choose and who can be abusive thereafter, because the alternative is indeed literal starvation and he knows you will be trapped".
Why the hell are you making it "being a whore is better for me than being a wife"? Don't we want women to choose to be wives and mothers, instead of "well if it's sex for meat, then at least let me not be tied to one provider"?
HereAndGone
2d ago
because Millennials are the new boomers
(sigh) GenX erasure never ceases!
HereAndGone
2d ago
I doubt it - the mayor just doesn't have that many powers to ruin something that fast.
Yeah, I think that's the most likely outcome. Come into office on a slate of promises. Some get watered down, because he has to compromise to get them passed. Some get junked, because they were only campaign promises, ha ha did you really think you were going to get a pony for your birthday? And some will go nowhere, because he's butting right up against institutional inertia, 'this is the way we've always done it', entrenched power blocs, and "you gotta find the money to grease the palms somewhere, Zohran, or else nothin' doin'".
Like free bus services. First, that will have to jump through sixteen hoops, on fire, then swandive into a coffee cup just in order to get past everyone who wants it to die or they want too big a slice of the pie for it to work. Second, it will be tried. Thirdly, after ten minutes it will crash and burn and be quietly sidelined.
HereAndGone
2d ago
but empirically it seems to me that Catholicism is far worse at teaching proper catechesis than evangelicals.
Oh, yeah.
But the other problem is a deeper one: Christianity is not about "let's all be charitable and help the needy", it's about "let us love, obey, and serve God" primarily. So we get the conflicts over "sorry, we won't foster children out to gay couples"/"okay you're losing your state funding" and the Little Sisters of the Poor case and the likes of that, and then people finger-wag over "but Jesus said be nice!" as if that was the whole of the Gospel.
So trying to build influence based on "But Christianity will be so nice for the social fabric" is going nowhere. There will be offensive doctrines and practices ("what do you mean you don't ordain women, you bigots?") and it will be either give in on these and be empty buildings kept up as historical and artistic show pieces, but nobody goes to church because spiritual not religious, dude or keep the doctrines and be out of step with the world and keep shedding membership.
HereAndGone
2d ago
Evangelical Protestantism is the youngest tradition of the three and has developed under conditions of American liberalism. It is therefore the most comfortable with liberal norms.
Define your liberal norms, first! I agree that Evangelicalism has caved in on things like divorce and contraception, while abortion is a wavering standard. But what I've seen of the splits (as an outsider) is that the mainlines have indeed gone very much to the liberal side and are being shaped by, rather than shaping, the Zeitgeist. However, when it happens to the various Evangelical churches and non-denominational churches, they tend to either go "prosperity Gospel" megachurch where there's a thin veneer of Christianity over secular values (like the liberal mainliners) or they try and knuckle down to conservative theological principles, which may or may not adhere (see the struggles within the Southern Baptist Convention over trying to address perceived flaws and problems).
So it does depend what you mean by liberal values, and if you mean that the Evangelicals can influence wider society more easily since they are "most comfortable with liberal norms", or if they will go the same way as the mainlines, becoming more and more liberal in line with social changes while becoming less and less influential as religious institutions.
HereAndGone
5d ago
I'm also not sure that Kamala's ego can be discounted from political factors. She's made some poor political decisions in the past and 'it's my turn now' is a known failure mode for prominent democrats.
I was wondering why the heck she was making remarks about possibly running again. Someone with sense would realise that VP was as high as she is going to get, and that the only reason she got the job is Jim Clyburn and the black caucus demanding quid pro quo for supporting Biden, that it was owed to them to give a black woman the job.
But she may be vain enough to believe all the cope about "greatest candidate ever, sexism and racism and MAGA to blame" and think that the party and the nation are breathlessly waiting for her to announce she'll run again. Hence the dig at Newsom.
What the heck she thinks she's doing re: Buttigieg I honestly have no idea. This far into her book, she's all "oh my great pal Pete" but then she gives an interview about "couldn't possibly pick him for anything, way too gay". That's just begging him to refuse to take her calls in future: "Sorry, Kamala, wouldn't want to get my gay cooties all over your shiny campaign". If she's trying to distance herself, however clumsily, from the LGBT2SQIA+ stuff now that wokeness is on the wane, then okay "Pete too gay" but it's a terrible way to go about it.
HereAndGone
5d ago
Your standard implies that it's not possible to give a gun to someone else temporarily at all.
I don't mean to be saying that. There will of course be situations where you need someone else to hold the gun for you. But the difference is "This one person definitely has it and definitely it is secure" and not "well it could be anywhere".
"Well it could be anywhere" is not going to play well if some twelve year old gets their hands on it and shoots their friend while showing it off. "Yeah I was so careless that I got a kid killed, but that does not mean I should not be able to have as many guns as I want, that's my Constitutional right!"
Yeah, it's your Constitutional right. You are also an idiot, and it's dangerous to let idiots have guns, Constitution or no.
Yeah, if he did endorse her, then this is Kamala getting her retaliation in first. She really is planning to run herself, or at least queer the pitch for Newsom. I am now fascinated to know what behind-the-scenes dust-up in California Democratic politics is behind this rivalry. Maybe she was thinking of running for governor herself previously but Newsom out-manoeuvred her there (he did manage to get Biden to throw support behind him during the recall election, which might have been when Kamala got squished, if indeed she was thinking that was her chance; it looks pretty clear they were only willing to let no-hopers* go forward so Newsom would not be seriously challenged).
*E.g. "Kevin Paffrath, YouTuber Real estate broker UFOlogist Opioid Vendor Landlord". UFOlogist? Well, it is California!
Okay, that was 2021, she was VP. Can a sitting VP resign and run for a different office, or is that a no-no? Was she maybe bummed out that, if she had known there would be a recall in 2021, she would have waited for that instead?
Interestingly enough, it recently came out that Obama had agreed with Pelosi not to endorse Kamala too soon, as they were hoping for a mini primary.
I'm still only on chapter/day three of Kamala's book (too busy at the moment plus it's not riveting prose) and it's amazing how even this early in the book, it's clear she wanted the job - who the hell lets their brother-in-law make plans for if suppose just say maybe somehow someday you need to replace the boss? and forget all her coy 'oh I didn't want to dwell on it', she never said 'drop it, Tony, this is not how things are done' - and how she didn't need or want no stinkin' primary; it was gonna be her or nobody (there's also the slightest of hints that Obama, as you say, wasn't 300% on board the Coconut Queen Express):
[My brother-in-law Tony West] is also an astute political thinker, working on campaigns since he was a teenager, first for Representative Norm Mineta, then for Michael Dukakis, John Kerry, and Barack Obama. A year earlier, he had started what he called the “Red File.” With a president in his eighties, he suggested, it would be malpractice on my part to be unprepared if, God forbid, something should happen. In such a traumatic moment, it would be prudent to have a plan for the first twenty-four to forty-eight hours, so people don’t have to make a lot of decisions in the pressure of a crisis. He had thought through the first twenty-five calls I would need to make to world leaders, the first twenty-five to political colleagues, when to make my first statement, and what the rules of transition are. I didn’t want to dwell on such an eventuality: I left it in his hands.
As the pressure for Joe to drop out had mounted, he’d pulled out the Red File and started adding to it. I did not want to be a part of any such discussions, so while Tony was in town for the family weekend, he’d gathered four members of my core team, without me, for a meeting in the pool house*. Tony had opened the meeting saying, “Let’s assume he’s dropping out tomorrow.”
...I knew I had everything I needed to do this. With Joe’s endorsement and more name recognition than anyone else who might challenge, I had the strongest case. I’d also proven in the midterms that I could help flip seats. I had appeal for moderates and independents.
I also had a powerful personal contact list. On the road for the past four years, touring college campuses to build youth support and, more recently, on my tour for reproductive rights, I’d made a point of inviting local elected leaders to my events. Later, I’d have a moment with them, take a picture, have a brief chat. I would meet fifty to a hundred people a day in this way, and I had made it a point to follow up and keep those connections alive. During the delegate selection process, I’d pressed to include people who were my enthusiastic supporters, not just Joe’s—people I’d known for years. I don’t think too many people grasped the strength of the relationships I’d forged. This was not going to be a coronation. It would be the result of years of work.
...I went from call to call with the clarity that comes when stakes are high, stress is through the roof, and there’s zero ambiguity. Some people I called would offer me support and then ask, “What do you think the process should be?”
If they thought I was down with a mini primary or some other half-baked procedure, I was quick to disabuse them. How much more time would it have taken to pull that off? I could imagine the chaos of even trying to decide how to do it, much less actually doing it, as precious days slipped away.
“This is the process. If anyone wants to challenge me, they’re welcome to jump in. But I intend to earn the support of the majority of the delegates and I’m doing it right now.”
I have to laugh about her brother-in-law working for Dukakis, Kerry and Obama campaigns; two out of three that went nowhere is not a great omen for her campaign!
*Given the allegations of how she ran her staff as VP, no way four 'core team members' are gonna have any meetings behind her back if they don't want to be ex-team members. They knew that tacitly, if not explicitly, she's just fine with succession planning and having her brother-in-law draw up a road map for when she is coronated. This is some deniability bullshit in action: "no way I had anything to do with it, I knew nothing, it was all my family members and then suddenly out of nowhere it all became relevant due to circumstances beyond our control". Simultaneously "I was loyal and not scheming behind Joe's back" and "nevertheless, I too was sadly aware of his decline and preparing for the stepping down" so she can appease all sides.
HereAndGone
6d ago
Yeah, but you are also supposed to keep your gun(s) securely. "I gave it to my cousin to keep it safe" is one thing. "Where it is right now I have no idea" is another. In the midst of this maybe my cousin-maybe in storage-maybe my sister, what if the gun went missing? What if it turns up in the possession of criminals who use it to do crime?
Guns are not just harmless collectible objects like funkopops, they are for shooting. If you own something dangerous (be that a gun or a dog) you are supposed to be a responsible owner keeping other people safe by keeping control of what you own. "Man, I get so mad I might shoot my wife so I handed it off to someone else" is not, I submit, the same level as "I have this gun for personal safety/home defence/I like going to the range and shooting guns". Cops and judges want to take the gun away in the second case, protest it and I won't object. Cops and judges think maybe you're not the greatest guy to have guns around in the first case? That's not persecution.
HereAndGone
6d ago
See Kevin McAleer and the British Army 😁
Funny, I could have sworn I heard something - ah well, must have imagined it!
More options
Context Copy link