2017 archive
Plus ca Change? 0
Betsy Biesenbach reviews the year in sexism and offers a disturbing prediction. A snippet (emphasis added):
In the meantime, how many men are afraid for their reputations and their careers? Ironically, women who have resisted unwanted advances have always been just as afraid for theirs. It’s a taste of what women feel every day — with the additional knowledge that their very persons aren’t safe.
In a tangentially related piece, Marty Klein, at Psychology Today Blogs, explores why some persons are so uptight about anything sexual, even when it’s not actually sexual. Here’s a bit:
I argue that the piece is related because it sheds some light on why, when confronted with news of sexual misconduct and harassment, some folks don’t want to hear or believe them. Follow the link to determine whether you think I have a point.
Economic Indicators, It’s Bubblelicious Dept. 0
House-flipping is on the rise again.
In the Court of Gerry Mander 0
In The Roanoke Times, James J. Hentz tries to make sense of some of Chief Justice Roberts’s statements during the oral presentations of the pending suit against gerrymandering and find himself unable to do so. Here’s a bit of his article:
First, for a usually elegant and exceptionally bright jurist this is a confusing statement. If the court in ruling in favor of the Democrats signals a preference for them, would not ruling the other way signal a preference for the Republicans?” He seems to be saying the latter is fine. His statement shows how much creeping partisanship influences the court. Second, how is this statement consistent with a strict constructivist interpretation? I suspect Madison, no friend of political parties, is turning over in his grave.
It’s Amazonian! 0
Michelle Robertson investigates the strange case of the gargantuan gift boxes.
“An Armed Society Is a Polite Society” 0
Be polite while doing that last-minute shopping.
Got to be prepared to protect yourself from Santa’s helpers, I reckon.
Social Engineering 0
At The Nation, Edward Burmila looks at the social assumptions underlaying the Republican tax deform bill. A snippet:
I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing, as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies.
Upon first reading, I knew I had seen this comment somewhere before. It turns out Grassley was channeling the British economist Thomas Malthus in his seminal Essay on the Principle of Population (1798):
The labouring poor, to use a vulgar expression, seem always to live from hand to mouth. Their present wants employ their whole attention, and they seldom think of the future. Even when they have an opportunity of saving they seldom exercise it, but all that is beyond their present necessities goes, generally speaking, to the ale house.
Malthus spoke to a common mindset among the upper classes that the poor were beyond help. Poverty, it was widely believed, was a sign of a weakness, . . .
Via Gin and Tacos.
Sycophants 0
Field pounds the grovel.
Lies and Lying Liars 0
The Booman lands a whopper.
