or else you have a chomskyite view of russia as soviet union which you fondly remember as a noble altruistic project that was sadly misunderstood by the ungrateful eastern europeans
My most pro-Russia friend is also a Chomskyite former-Leftist who has found himself realigned as a Trumpist right winger, and I've always found the consistent position on Russia informative even if he denies it's relevant. This faction was anti-US Imperialism (pro-communist) in the 1980s and are anti-US Imperalism (anti-WEF/neoliberal Communism) now, with Russia as the noble bulwark against The West. I have to say that Putin's narrative building in this regard has been very shrewd. He's known which buttons to push.
Sisters Brothers was fantastic.
I also loved Sisters Brothers as well as A Prophet. This is not to the same standard.
No, I'm honestly just emotionally over it all.
This is OK. Just stop paying attention to politics. It will make little difference to your life beyond the improvement of shaking off the stress.
Almost any claim that X disaster will happen if you don't vote for Y is garbage. Most people just keep working, living, loving and tune out politics.
Here's a fun example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cane_toads_in_Australia
Or "a" Somali flag rather than "the" Somali flag: https://www.sportskeeda.com/pop-culture/news-the-united-states-losing-identity-new-minnesota-state-flag-s-resemblance-jubaland-somalia-sparks-controversy-online
The fear of being too pro Israel isn't so much about votes as a first order effect
It is about votes if you need to win Michigan.
Where I think a lot of other solutions fail is that they are only aimed at 1 type of homeless person and there is no coordination with the services that address the other types of homeless people. In my model, there is coordination so that misidentifications of type can be transferred to the appropriate wing within the all-encompassing system.
It also, importantly, removes all of the homeless individuals from mainstream society until they are fit to rejoin it. For the Cat-1s, it would be voluntary, but presumably if they are genuinely Cat-1 this is exactly the absent support that they are looking for.
Putting them in these communities would harm them a great deal
Not if it's designed to let the Cat-1s live a facsimile of normal life but with the support system they lack on the outside. AIUI, the primary problem Cat-1s experience is a loop of helplessness: without a home, they can't find work; without work they can't find a home. You need a city-like environment in which they can operate freely with support long enough to get back on their feet and/or develop work skills if they lack them. They would not be incarcerated like or with the more dysfunctional levels. They would live amongst the professionals who operate the carcereal parts of the system.
I don't think you can retroactively prosecute anyone for something that wasn't a crime at the time they committed it, right? I can't pass a law today making posting on The Motte illegal and then charge you for posting yesterday.
Also, in this decision reversing Chevron, don't they explicitly say something like "This doesn't make all previous decisions that relied on Chevron reversible." At least there should be some general protection against these kinds of cascades of retroactive illegality.
Further, I would add that I don't think anyone could argue that -- generally -- an admin agency acting under Chevron was committing crimes by interpreting the laws as directed; rather they were operating under an error and without malice.
Thanks. I'll take a look. This sounds like another one of those data dumps that tries to impress by volume but which really contains very little actionable information. But the mere presence of it with the suggestion that it's important convinces motivated bystanders who never scrutinize it themselves. You would think that if there were damning evidence inside, someone would already be highlighting it, specifically.
If Trump were really sloppy as you allege, prosecutors would have been able to find more serious charges to bring against him.
Not necessarily. As we can see in this case, it can be really hard to create the semi-coherent appearance of a case out of a bunch of nonsense and make it just opaque enough to pay off. If a guy is racking up hundreds of little process violations because HDGAF about process, the trick is to turn those into a felony in one of the jurisdictions jaded enough to convict without ever questioning the premises. It's probably easier to charge and convict a smooth operator who is knowingly committing crimes because once you catch them in act with intent, you have your smoking gun. If someone is carelessly racking up violations by just not caring, it's going to be really hard to prove an intent that never existed.
This is crazy! Why would Trump go out of his way to do things the illegal way if it were already legal?
Part of the problem with this whole thing is assigning intent to a guy who seems to wing it on instinct and never really bothers to do due dilligence to make sure he's doing things the proper way -- and who hires shitty, sleazy lawyers who are also incompetent at covering the legal bases. Trump is sloppy. Contrary to the memes, he's barely playing 1-D Chess. He follows the straight line from his desires to his ego. It's entirely possible given his apparent modus operandi that no one thought to check if there were any legal issues with anything related to the FEC or any other set of regulations, and "legal services" was written on the checks because Cohen was a lawyer, making anything he does "legal services."
I don't doubt that Trump is guilty of hundreds (if not more) of compliance violations, because he generally holds all rules and official processes in contempt. Felony convictions for details he likely never bothered to consider or understand seems harsh; but it does make a good case for why political parties should screen their candidates with a more serious sense of purpose.
My point is that SJ is not a voice actor, and isn’t doing a specific “character” or something the way that Fran Drescher or Gilbert Gotfried are.
Her voice is generic.
Really? She was hired for the movie Her because of her voice. She came in to replace another actress (Samantha Morton) because her voice didn't work. SJ might not be primarily a voice actor, but her voice is distinctive enough to be considered an upgrade from Morton's voice.
I trust you have quotes, at least, from teachers who claim they encourage children to explore transness for the sake of it not going extinct?
No. It was a hypothetical starting with "What if..."
Don't you think that the liberal fetishization of minorities as ideals who are somehow superior to the normies is a real phenomenon?
A world in which men can fuck boys and don’t want to is such a perversion, too. Which is to say not at all. Pederasty and teen sex drive are far from the “focused drive” you’re lionizing.
I think somewhere deep down in the human subconscious M/F sex is understood as the most essentially (pro-)creative act, mirroring in kind other forms of great human achievement. Any other kind of sex (that carries no risk of impregnation) is anti-creative or a nullification of creativity (sort of like the black nothingness in The Neverending Story).
Well, maybe location matters. I'm in Oregon, part of the "left coast," to be sure. And the 1980s -- when I was in high school -- and through the 1990s there was a massive influx of Californians looking to escape the results of hard-left politics while recreating them somewhere else. I imagine the American South was quite different.
The Republicans never even held the Federal House in the 1980's. While Reagan himself was immensely popular, his downballot effects were muted, especially after 1984.
Conservative/Liberal lines were not as correlated with GOP/Dem lines during the Reagan era, although that was around when the re-sorting began. It seemed to take root finally in the late 1990s, as pro-life Democrats became rarer and rarer, Old South Dems were dying, and the liberal Northeastern Republicans were retiring or switching parties.
How do you do toilet training with your kids if genitals mean sex and a taboo with regards to children?
Presumably one would not employ a real or photographed demo penis during toilet training. I think keeping the kid's focus on their own penis is good enough. Thankfully, in the Elmo book/video that was popular when my kids were learning how to become civilized, Elmo was not hanging dong.
Besides, how does the statue with a penis become okay at 10 but not at 6 years old? They are still very much kids right?
If we can agree that older kids are better at contextualization than younger kids, I think that answers your question. Anyway, these questions are irrelevant.
but it's not the kind of progress that would satisfy anyone rioting in Seattle in 2000.
Not a metric I would put any stock into.
Another issue I take with the moralists is that there is seemingly no plausible metric that would satisfy them. There's a lot of talk about being "on the right side of history" but very little interest in the long arc of history. Progress is never enough nor fast enough, the work is never done. Once you let their nose inside any tent they will ruin it with relentless reform until it no longer resembles what they once were trying to protect.
Also, and slightly tangentially, I think the idea that working class men don't give a shit about anything to do with social issues or foreign affairs and just want to drink beer and watch football is a little outdated (or rather has never really been accurate).
Even if not true generally, it does tend to be true while they are watching football.
If his team had cooperated—and I still don’t understand why they didn’t
It supports my prior that Trump is a reflection of the same mix of corruption/ignorance/incompetence as other politicians of his standing, but is far far worse at (or has no interest in) playing the game. He has no veneer of respectability that acts as a buffer for others. He exposes himself, even if the others are just the same underneath.
It demonstrated that although Asians had higher rates of poverty in NYC, compared to even African Americans, their crime rate remained the lowest of the various ethnicities studied.
What's the argument for why Asians are such an outlier?
Is it possible that low-income Asians tend to live in insular mostly low-income Asian communities and that whatever crime does occur inside the insular ethnic community gets handled within that community and isn't reported to the data collectors?
Can you briefly expand upon why? I only vaguely know who he is. I've seen him in TV a few times as a talking head but that's it.
If you want the self-serving Hollywood version of Dershowitz, there's a pretty good movie of one of his books, Reversal of Fortune, in which Dershowitz (played very well by Ron Silver) defends Claus Von Bulow (Jeremy Irons, who won an Oscar for it), an aristocrat charged with attempted murder.
Conclusion B: Therefore, we must be all-inclusive with respect to immutable characteristics in friendship and dating.
Isn't the whole idea of the new gender paradigm that gender is mutable? Are they feigning that gender is immutable in order to smuggle in the notion that one shouldn't discriminate against those for whom gender is mutable?
Sure, but if it happened in the way you speculate, it's what would be reported. However, I doubt anyone can simply walk up and ring the Pelolsi's doorbell (in the middle of the night). Unless the Pelosi's themselves don't take seriously all of her public hand-wringing about right-wing violence, they surely have active measures in place to protect themselves from it, right?
More options
Context Copy link