domain:aerosociety.com
Quantumfreakonomics
1d ago
It's their position that Article 3 and the Judiciary Act of 1789 do not give courts the power to issue nationwide injunctions
From a strict textualist point of view I think this is defensible. The judicial power extends only to “cases and controversies”. There is an implication that any action which contradicts binding judicial precedent is illegal, but technically this is only an implication. The judicial branch doesn’t have authority over an action until it becomes the subject of a case or controversy, i.e. when a specific plaintiff sues over a specific action.
Practically, this creates some hurdles and perverse incentives, so I doubt the court will go for it.
This is interesting. It's well-written in the sense that it flows and sticks the landing, even though I agree with almost everyone who has commented that your behavior (and subsequent dismissal of this woman) were oddly tone-deaf to the way polite society works. And slightly, to my archaic worldview, ungallant. But that point has been made repeatedly--to the point where you invoked Satan no less--so I'll change tack.
In Japan I generally avoid Starbucks because I don't enjoy their simple black coffee, and I am not interested in all the milkshake-type drinks which are considerably more popular, as well as time-consuming to make. Thus I have found myself waiting in line for up to 15 minutes just to have hot beverage poured from urn to cup because the three people in front of me ordered the dessert drinks. Also, although I haven't been to a US convenience store in years, here at least the Family Mart coffee machine grinds the beans as you're standing there, and that's like a minute wait tops. This is a tedious preface to my point that, at least here, Starbucks workers are efficient, on-task, and professional--which is to say very good at customer-facing friendliness. Also often young and pretty (the males and the females). Yet I cannot imagine how I could ask your question without creating a shit storm of awkwardness. Unfortunately awkwardness is routinely expected from foreigners (in a society built around avoiding awkwardness) so anyone brave and reckless enough to interact with a foreigner would probably be unfazed. This wouldn't be a good thing, as they'd probably be equally unfazed if I suddenly took off my shirt in the shop and began applying deodorant to my armpits. "Foreigners, what can you expect?" etc. So I am probably routinely viewed, despite my best efforts, as a relatively tame chimpanzee by many. And chimps can suddenly lose it, as we know.
Your posts sometimes seem exasperated--with people, with the Motte. Because of this (in addition to your username) I have assumed you are drinking booze while posting. But maybe it's something else. General misanthropy? I'm not trying intentionally to be satanic.
IGI-111
God was a dream of good government.
1d ago
I can't think of any apps that have tried this kind of verification
Oh there are some with that kind of verification, but they're usually for rich people.
IGI-111
God was a dream of good government.
1d ago
I don't understand why people are so keen to forget that Korea and Vietnam were both very much in the atomic age. I can understand people in the 50s thinking nukes would be the end of war, but we're surely free of such illusions? At best they're the end of world wars. Maybe.
Being generous you could place the end of mandatory military service and the West's choice to rely on professionals in the 60s, which is less than a century ago and did not result in an end of conscription laws being on the books. If it reverted it wouldn't be the first time something like that happens.
I wouldn't exactly take it for gospel that you'll never be handed a rifle, not when you can lawfully be handed one right now on a whim of "national security".
Corvos
1d ago
Oh, yes. I meant the propensity for idle chat / relationship-forming, and the baseline emotional response to customers.
Corvos
1d ago
One thing to note is that in WW2 people were ultimately forbidden to volunteer (in the British Army, anyway). Relying on patriotism creates big bulges of recruits that are hard to process at the start of the war, after important event etc.
Conscription works much better for any serious war because it allows you to stagger your intake, make sure the impact of losses is spread through the country, and get a wider variety of applicants.
Goodguy
1d ago
Some of NATO's proxies rely on conscription, but I think that NATO itself doesn't, at least as long as it only cares about defense and not taking the offense. I think that nuclear weapons by themselves are already sufficient to guarantee NATO's security, and maintaining an effective nuclear deterrent does not require the labor of so many people that a developed country would ever realistically need to use conscription to get the necessary manpower, as opposed to using less forceful means of recruitment such as money, patriotism, and the mystique of nuclear weapons.
I hate to break it to you, but if you can't get a date now, you weren't getting a date then.
This seems directly contradicted by the various attempts at measuring the frequency of baseline human relationships. My understanding is number of friendships, number of relationships, number of sexual partners, number of marriages, number of young people who've never had sex, age of first sexual relationship and so on are all trending in the same direction, and the trend is not a subtle one. If significantly more people are actually spending their lives alone than previously, it doesn't seem possible to me that this part of your argument stands.
The odds are good but the goods are odd part, though, seems perfectly accurate.
SSCReader
1d ago
It generally corresponds with scale and culture, and is much more the case in
Absolutely it can I agree. But even in a small tea shop in the Cotswolds if you go in, and ask them how the labor relations are between management and staff, after saying you don't want to buy anything, I'm not sure you'll get much of an answer.
SSCReader
1d ago
inhumanity of the fact that two 'normal' people can't talk anymore about current events because of...all the stuff you just said
Setting aside whether she might get fired, it is entirely human not to want to talk to random strangers about things at your job. Being a neighbor is just geographical proximity. Even is she lived next door she may not want to talk to you about anything and that is very human. Especially if she can detect the disdain in which you hold her.
If you want her to act as you think a neighbor should then you need to make an effort to not judge her like:
"almost comically short and fat, like a cube. Her hair was greasy, thin, obviously unwashed, and would've benefited from a cut some months ago. She was curt, bordering on rude, asking what I wanted. When I told her I wasn't necessarily interested in ordering anything, but was very much interested in her thoughts on the 'strike' et al she gave me a stare that made a cow look intelligent."
Is this how you describe the people you want to form a neighborly community with? Is this how you talk about them? Never once in your vent did you speculate that your neighbor maybe overworked and underpaid, that she might be working multiple jobs, that she might have a point in what she did, that perhaps she picked up on your immediate reaction to seeing her. You described her entirely in a negative fashion. You called her a soulless NPC.
Why should she act like a neighbor to you? Did you act like a neighbor to her? You didn't even buy a coffee at the place she works, you went out of entirely selfish reasons and on the very first time you met her, asked her a badly thought through question. You didn't start with small talk about the weather or any of the other socially acceptable ways we have of building rapport.
If you want to have a neighborly community, then you need to start treating people like your friendly neighbors. Not treating them like sources of information to satisfy your curiosity, going into their place of business with no intention of buying anything. You admitted below you should have at least bought something, so that is a start. You skipped over a whole bunch of steps in the making friendly neighbors dance, and then are confused when she doesn't treat you like one.
When a guy moves in next door, he is not automatically your friendly neighbor you can ask possibly difficult questions to, because of geography, you have to build that relationship before you ask "Hey, your employer is having a labor dispute, what is the real skinny on that real quick?" You invite him over for a bbq, you ask if you can help him move in, you lend him your lawnmower, tell him where the best bar is. We have social conventions and rules and structures for a reason. They are crucial in building relationships.
So make up your mind, was she a soulless dumb fat cow? Or was she a neighbor you want to build a real communal relationship with? If she read what you said about her, do you think it is likely to make her want to treat you more like a friendly neighbor or less likely?
Rov_Scam
1d ago
This comment seems to echo the fantasy among some dateless conservatives that if only they were born in some bygone era where women didn't have nearly as many options then they'd surely get a girlfriend almost by default. I hate to break it to you, but if you can't get a date now, you weren't getting a date then. And I suspect that these guys never once consider that they're being just as selective as the women they're criticizing. I grew up in the Mon Valley, an area that's not exactly hot at the moment. If anyone here is seriously interested in getting married to a woman who is young enough to have a lot of children and doesn't mind staying home and not working, DM me and I will be glad to take them to the kind of bar where their chances of meeting an overweight, chain-smoking phlebotomy school dropout who's willing to date them are nearly 100%. Hell, you don't even need a good job; a steady, decent job is more than enough, considering most of the guys these women date are the kind of guys who quit because they got into an argument with their boss. Where I'm from these girls are a dime a dozen.
VinoVeritas
1d ago
That would track with my instinct to not engage breezily. If you are Darwin buddy, hope you’re well
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1d ago
could be wrong, but I seem to recall tagging that user as a darwin alt.
VinoVeritas
1d ago
In the spirit of frank and open discussion, what is your political ideology?
Rov_Scam
1d ago
It isn't a feature of the current era, either, but an excuse guys who can't get dates use to justify why it isn't their fault. Dating apps are easy mode compared to how it used to be. Yeah, you may have a better chance of getting that cute girl to talk to you if you ask her in the real world rather than like her profile on a dating app, but in the real world chances are you aren't going to cross paths. In the real world there isn't a seemingly bottomless well of single women advertising their availability. In the real world you might get a prospect once every couple months maybe she'll go out with you if you ask. I doubt there are many people who had a ton of game pre-app and are now getting nothing but crickets.
We homeschool our kid but this might be fraying our nerves too much.
The public schools here are generally terrible, and the private schools are either religious or hippie-woo garbage that I don't want to waste time at.
There are a handful of Immersion schools, however. Spanish, Japanese and Chinese.
We're white but my thinking is
- Chinese Immersion School will be full of kids of more upwardly mobile Chinese immigrants
- Their children will be better behaved and not a toxic/criminal influence on my kids, the way median white kids in my community would be
- Their children will be smarter and be a positive influence on my kids
- The school will probably have better academics and not that much on the liberal arts/woo shit because of the Chinese parents
- The rest of the white kids there are sent there because their parents all know this too
- To the extent that learning foreign languages is useful, Chinese is probably the least useless one out of the rest of those
Yes this is racist. But also... accurate? Thoughts?
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
1d ago
Playboy Was Never a Magazine, It Was a Breast Certification Organization
A Lot of Companies Aren’t What You Think They Are
Thesis: Playboy magazine has been iconic virtually from the first issue. But for almost all of its history, the Magazine was something between a loss-leader, a marketing expense, and a cherished tradition. While the magazine was occasionally profitable throughout its life, Playboy made most of its money from other ventures over the decades; running night clubs, casinos, television shows and networks, and selling branded retail merchandise. The iconic titty-mag was core to their branding, the product they were selling in the clubs, casinos, television shows was, in a sense, drawn from the imagination created by their magazine. The waitresses in the clubs were pretty young women who were implied to be hot enough to be in the magazine, even if the vast majority of them never appeared in the magazine, when you talked to them you were passing into the fantasy world of the centerfold, talking to a certified Playmate. Playboy magazine’s path to profit wasn’t selling subscriptions, it was setting the organization as a prestige knower of what made a hot woman hot, which it then as an organization certified and sold. The certification of a woman as Playmate Quality was irresistible to both male customers, and to female employees, and formed the basis for Playboy’s empire, and to the degenerate remnant of marketing that exists today.
My wife and I recently watched two separate docu-series on Hugh Hefner. [American Playboy], which was produced by Hef and his family as promotion for the company, and took a positive and mostly soft-focus view of the story of Hefner and Playboy; and Secrets of Playboy, a multi-part hit piece designed to undermine the Playboy legend and dredge up every grudge every woman has ever had against Playboy and Hefner from the first issue to last week. Neither was particularly journalistically rigorous, and our natural skepticism lead us both to come out of each series with the opposite of the directorial intent. After Hefner’s self-aggrandizing autobiopic, I found myself thinking that there was probably a lot of bad stuff he was sweeping under the rug, and that Bobbie Arnstein was probably smuggling drugs for Hef. When I turned to the angry-women’s-greatest-hits, I found myself defending Hef in my mind, because the charges leveled became increasingly absurd, I half expected to have girls talking about how Jimmy Hoffa got drunk at the mansion and that was the last time they ever saw him, or that Lee Harvey Oswald was often seen going upstairs with Hef. They threw the kitchen sink at him, but somehow never actually got Hef doing anything all that bad. He was always a step removed, someone else was asking on Hef’s behalf but Hef himself said no anyway, Hef was close friends with a guy who was a creep, bad things happened at a friend’s house that was built in imitation of the mansion. But anyway, this story isn’t about any of that, rather what fascinated me were all the things they agreed on about Playboy.
Growing up, I was aware of Playboy the magazine. I arrived just at the end of the golden age of magazines, and of porno mags in particular. A couple kids I knew had old Playboys, and they featured prominently in older media, but they were rapidly being outmoded by internet porn (and blogs, for everything other than the tits). Despite the decline of the magazine, Hugh Hefner remained a media icon in the early 2000s. The Girls Next Door was one of the early hit reality shows, my wife and many of her friends remember watching it when it aired. Sex and the City, Curb Your Enthusiasm, and Entourage all featured Hef in prominent cameos during Playboy Mansion themed episodes where the gang all winds up at one of Hefner’s parties. He was a cultural eminence grise, one of those figures you were just aware was important, and had made all this money selling softcore porn magazines. Playboy magazine seemed iconic, the Playmates seemed hot, even though I never stole one or looked at one in earnest, only as a vintage curiosity more recently as a middle aged man.
I was vaguely aware that once there had been Playboy Clubs*, night clubs where the waitresses dressed up like bunnies, featured in Mad Men most recently. But what I never realized until watching the competing docu-series, was that the Clubs were the core of Playboy’s business almost from the start. Hefner was a marketing genius much moreso than he was an editorial genius. While he obsessively built his magazine, personally approving layouts and choices of material, he started expanding the brand nearly immediately. The magazine was launched as a mildly profitable periodical by the famous photos of Marilyn Monroe** in 1953, and by 1959 Hefner had moved to a late night variety show Playboy’s Penthouse featuring Hef and various guests and various beautiful women implied to be (and sometimes being) the women featured in the magazine (dressed, at the time). In 1960, the first Playboy Club would open in Chicago and rapidly chained across the nation and world. The Playboy Clubs were member’s only night clubs, where guests could enjoy drinks and entertainment (the first club opening featured a teenage Aretha Franklin), while being served by beautiful waitresses in the famous Playboy Bunny outfits.
What made the clubs so popular and profitable, was the slippery equivalence of the Playboy playmate (a woman who appeared in the magazine as a model) and the Playboy Club bunnies (the waitresses at the clubs), and Hef’s legendary Playboy Mansion with the Playboy Club itself. Playmates often appeared, and sometimes worked, at the clubs. And bunnies occasionally found their way up the ladder into the magazine. For the most part, the girls serving you drinks in the clubs were not the girls who appeared in the magazine. But, it felt that way. The bunnies were screened rigorously for appearance, and when Gloria Steinem went undercover as a bunny she reported that they had to maintain a certain weight and bust size or face termination. But of course breastaurants have come and gone throughout the past hundred years, what made the Playboy Clubs special was the idea that these weren’t just hot waitresses, they were waitresses hot enough to be employed by Playboy, they were waitresses who occupied the fantasy space of the centerfolds.
And in turn, the club itself became the mythical sexual Shangri-La of the Playboy Mansion, Hef’s playground for him and his famous and lascivious friends. Just as Playmates from the magazine occasionally found their way into the clubs, and waitresses occasionally worked their way into the magazine; the famous guests at the Mansion often hung out at the clubs, and big spenders at the clubs or especially the casinos might eventually earn an invite to the Mansion.
Tim Allen talks about this in an oddly poignant passage discussing the first time he saw a Playboy centerfold as a boomer child, which has stuck with me since reading his comedian memoir at the beach in 2004, where he talks about how he has never been the same age as the Centerfold Girl: first he was a young teen and the Centerfold was like his friend's older sister or a younger teacher, then suddenly one day they were the age of a younger sister or a new employee or eventually (gulp) a daughter. There was a never a moment where the fantasy crossed over into reality, where he felt like a direct peer to the Centerfold Girl.
What Playboy sold, at its peak of clubs and Casinos, was that liminality between Fantasy and Reality. Hooters and the Tilted Kilt, for all the endowments they had, never had that. A Playboy club, or a Playboy Reality Show, or Playboy merchandise, offered a thin place between fantasy and reality. A moment where you might just break through the veil, and enter your fantasy, if things went just right. When you could suddenly become a peer of the Playmates and of Hef, if only for a moment.
I realize this might be a complete piece of trivia, but it kind of fascinated me when I realized it.
*My dad, coincidentally, had a Playboy Club membership key card. My wife uses it to fold letters for her office, she says the metal card is the perfect tool for the job and she uses it every day.
**The provenance of this photograph is itself interesting: Marilyn didn’t pose for Playboy, she did a nude photoshoot for some calendar before she ever hit it big, which Hef then bought from the original publisher and splashed across the country.
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
1d ago
Ahh ok I see. Yeah thanks for this! I like to think I'm a good fit for marriage, but the tail risks definitely keep me awake at night. It sucks.
Chrisprattalpharaptr
Ave Imperaptor
1d ago
overestimated the US mainly because I did not account for the immense capacity for self-sabotage.
I'll wager that if we're still here in 3-5 years, you'll be saying the same thing about underestimating the Chinese capacity for self-sabotage. The United States isn't going to collapse in the next 5-10 year timeframe, and if we lose to China, it will be a long and drawn-out process. Not some knockout punch engineered by whatever the CCP department of foreign affairs is called.
I think they have enough talented people to do this, it's just those people have lost in internal politics.
Did those talented people lose in the 2000s during the GWOT era? Or in the 90s when we let American companies migrate to China en masse? When have these Mycroftian prodigies ever won in internal politics, what decisions did they make with said influence and where's the golden era in American foreign and domestic policy mediated by these people?
Manipulating the world is made much easier when you own major causal factors of that world. It doesn't take 200 IQ, though intelligence helps not to manipulate yourself into the ditch. All of great power politics is such manipulation. Suppressing competitors, strengthening allies, capturing international institutions
Like what, the financial system that proved utterly incapable of regime change in Iran or hindering Russia's ability to wage war? Toothless institutions like the UN, WHO or WTO?
networks of high-agency people, not by vague sentiment of the electorate. Sorry, that's just what we can observe happening.
Sure, the electorate isn't writing policy, nor should they.
That being said, the ability of anyone to influence systems this complex is limited, and related to how well we actually understand them. We designed computers from the ground up, and you can drill all the way down to machine code and circuit diagrams if you like. Mastery over the system makes you a 10x software engineer, or whatever the 10x hardware engineer is called. Diagnosing and fixing problems in a car or aircraft is eminently doable because we designed and understand all the parts ourselves.
On the other hand, reading all the economics textbooks in the world won't give you mastery over the stock market any more than learning fluid dynamics will help you understand the weather well enough to predict it perfectly. Biology PhDs can't even make basic predictions about how the system they've studied their entire career will behave in response to a given perturbation. And this is only partially due to the fact that they aren't very bright or talented in general, but more due to how complex and inscrutable biology is - at least to humans as we are now.
You bring up Russia and Ukraine - in March 2022, was there anyone (including what we can guess the US state department thought at the time!) who confidently predicted the outcome would be >= 3 year grinding war with little movement on the front, dominated by drone warfare? I saw plenty of takes that Russia was about to curbstomp Ukraine, then after the initial offensive failed, plenty of takes that Russia was about to collapse due to American sanctions, all of which turned out to be bullshit. If you can't predict that, I don't believe you when you say that Russia was capable of winning the war if they had just done it rationally, or that you or anyone could have figured out what to do differently in the leadup to reach a significantly different outcome. The outcome hinged on decisions made by thousands, if not millions of people - their morale, equipment, education, talent, weather, luck. If some South African entrepreneur had listened to all the people telling him not to build a rocket company, and the Ukrainian military never had access to starlink, would we be looking at a vastly different map? If Obama had pushed NATO to seriously stockpile arms and could provide Ukraine the materiel (shells, tanks, drones, whatever) to prosecute the war properly, ditto?
Yes. It's a stupid trade war and it's highly likely that no Tsinghua graduate will be so stupid. That aside, China has an official policy of not pursuing global hegemony. This certainly has no teeth, but Americans don't even have an equivalent toothless commitment.
I hope we don't see the future that proves you wrong. If Americans were truly hegemonic and held that as their goal, the world would look very different.
I think there are situations where nationwide injunctions make sense, both legally and as a matter of judicial economy, and situations where they don't. Steve Vladeck has an article discussing this in the context of the Alien Enemies Act litigation. Whether you can sue as part of a class, what process is due, whether the proclamation is even valid, are questions that currently have a range of answers across several different circuits. What is the benefit of doing litigation like this, where lots of people are similarly situated with respect to the core legal issues? I think in cases where there is a facial challenge to a government policy it makes all the sense in the world for a nationwide injunction to be an available tool. If there is no set of circumstances where a policy would be constitutional, that shouldn't have to be litigated separately in 90+ cases spanning every district (or possible defendant) in the country. On the other hand, when challenges are more as-applied I think the question is trickier. That seems like a case more ripe for class certification and litigation, for similarly factually situated plaintiffs.
I guess I tend to agree more with Professor Frost that I'd rather err on the side of enjoining the government from carrying out a constitutional policy than permitting them to carry out an unconstitutional one.
ETA:
I'm working my way through the oral argument transcript from this morning and the government's position seems... incredible? It's their position that Article 3 and the Judiciary Act of 1789 do not give courts the power to issue nationwide injunctions, including the Supreme Court of the United States. Their view is any broad based relief must come via class action. Which brings me to kind of an odd question. Can persons not yet born be part of a class action? Otherwise it would seem the government's position is every new babe must file their own lawsuit (class or individual) to vindicate their rights or else risk the government being able to violate them.
the_others
1d ago
I predict that, contrary to the usual pattern, a dating app which vetted the applicants on basic questions(stable and full time employment, criminal record, etc) would have more women than men, at least if it wasn’t just a matchmaking service.
If true, this sounds like a business opportunity, and not a particularly obscure one at that. Dating apps are basically all trying to figure out ways to get more women to use them, but I can't think of any apps that have tried this kind of verification. The closest I can think of are things like "The League", which requires users to submit an application (which consists of your Facebook and LinkedIn accounts, apparently?) and have it approved by the company before they can use the app, which is much different in that presumably they're not evaluating "basic questions".
Corvos
1d ago
For sure it sounds like she could have dealt with it more gracefully. I doubt that Starbucks is getting the best and brightest.
I also think it's the case for whatever reason that Americans seem to be much accepting about paring all relationships back to pure economics. I'm not sure why. Possibly because it's worked well so far. But I'm reminded of the way that in Japan falling below a certain level of politeness is just totally unacceptable no matter what, as is stuff like raising prices beyond the socially accepted level.
It's also bizarre to suddenly give life advice in the middle of an argument with someone over the Internet. Clearly you told him to do that as part of the argument, not because you have a habit of giving random advice to strangers.
Direct question before anything else- are you confusing different posters and posts?
Are you confusing this sub-thread response to Pasha's perception of ethics courses to Pasha's top-level comment about cheating, where my only direct response was a non-sequitur that noted from the start I was merely going off of the same article that I'd been intended an effort-post on? This is a completely different thread-chain. That thread had no argument with Pasha, and Pasha did not even respond to my post on that. He did have a later reply over what 'modern' means in na different context that I did not respond to (because I felt it was fair and valid).
Or are you perhaps confusing the Dean quoted by Pasha here to be referring to me, the user who goes by Dean, and not the Dean of the AvocadoPanic's post that he was replying to, an academic title? I.E., the Dean of a school?
Like, I would be charmed if after all these years someone publicly guessed why I've had this username for nearly a decade. And if this is a general misunderstanding due to the nature of different subthreads, that would clarify a lot.
But if you are not confused about what response chain you are in, there are three problems with your claim of clarity.
First, I have not had an exchange with Pasha on the subject of ethics classes. I have not opined on the merits or demerits of Pasha's position on ethic classes. Pasha has not responded to my post on alternatives to ethic classes. The only exchanges on my recommendation have been with not-Pasha one, and not-Pasha two (that's you).
Second, there is no dispute/argument between Pasha's position that I quoted, and my response to it. I agree with Pasha's claim that he has "never been exposed to an ethics class that wasn’t total non-sense taught by dimwit professors." I certainly have no reason to doubt his account or perception.
Third, 'giving random advice to strangers' is what a substantial proportion of my posts on The Motte are. I am, if anything, notorious for unsolicited, loquacious, and sometimes unwanted advice on random subjects of debatable utility to the individual.
These are, admittedly, often advice on how to understand current events, history, or governmental affairs. But I have also been known to offer advice on things to listen to during workouts or car drives, family-friendly media recommendations, limits on the use of historical metaphors, and even writing advice that I don't follow enough myself.
Trying to cut down on loquaciousness is what ironically has led to this exchange. Giving examples of how studying ethics could be useful could itself be perceived as patronizing/implying that Pasha did not understand that utility argument.
MathWizard
Good things are good
1d ago
The courts should do their jobs and not do someone else's job. There's no contradiction here. It's not about the total magnitude of their power, as if there's some number that should be summed up over all the things they do and try to make sure the sums line up, it's about jurisdiction. The role of the judiciary is to interpret the law as written and intended, and apply it to individual cases, which are frequently weird and contain many facts and details that might make them edge cases or involve multiple laws that need to be combined together.
If the law doesn't say a thing and an activist judge pretends that it does by inventing new definitions for words that clearly were not what those words meant when the law was written, then they are legislating their own new laws, not actually judging. If judges go to some agency run by unelected non-judges and asks them to interpret the law for them, then those people are the judges, and the elected judges are not actually judging. They're supposed to judge, not legislate, not outsource.
I’m interested in your view on how the quality of men and women has gone down, and as a treat, why. If I were to give a description, I’d say that the lowered quality was literally that they weren’t interested in making things work, rather than separate elements. That sort of intentional, serious attitude towards life is basically what you want out of a partner as table stakes, right? That they’ll have the hard fights with you and want to get through them instead of taking them out on you, that they’ll commit materially sooner rather than later, that they’ll stick with you if things aren’t breezy. Obviously material concerns matter too, but people (in my circle, maybe unrepresentative) make plenty if they’re even slightly dedicated. What’s your take?
More options
Context Copy link