gulliver
gulliver's JournalWho gets to decide for kids?
It's obviously agreed that kids can't just do whatever they want. Your toddler doesn't have the right to toddle out the door and play in the traffic. If you stop them and plop them in a playpen, you're not kidnapping and unlawfully restraining them. Indeed, if you didn't stop them and plop them in a playpen (or something), you, as a parent, would end up plopped in a playpen.
So, it's almost certainly agreed by sufficient numbers of people that parents have wide authority over their kids under democratic, one-person-one-vote rules. Where is the line drawn? That's a matter for the democracy. I believe in it.
As a parent, I would be completely against the idea that an institution of any kind would presume to keep anything whatsoever about my child to itself. That's just not what I would call cooperation between the institution and the parent. It shows a lack of trust in parents that I don't think is in any way fair or in the best interest of the child. Unfortunately, there are unusual circumstances where it might be wise, but those, as always, need to be case-by-case. Rules are for the usual case. Well-administered, discretionary accommodations for the unusual.
But let's see what the democracy makes of it.
And, of course, on edit: These yahoos speaking for God and apologizing for slavery are pretty ridiculous.
I tend to agree with these rock stars on this issue
They show cooperation with and compassion for the predicament of someone who so feels they can't live with their physical sex that they must change it. I would guess that many, probably most Democrats feel exactly as these three men do. I'd be interested in an authoritative poll or to hear the opinion of someone with data and (democratic) standing to speak for any of the interested stakeholders. (Or to offer their opinion as an individual.)
Parents, teachers, doctors, preachers, scout leaders, etc., have traditionally been given a lot of leeway and authority when it comes to screwing up the lives of children. (And oh how they've exercised it.) We could all probably think of one or two mistakes our parents made with us and mistakes we made with our kids. One or two.
Parents, teachers, doctors, preachers, scout leaders, etc., have traditionally been given a lot of leeway and authority when it comes to keeping the lives of children from being screwed up. (And oh how they've exercised it.) We could all probably think of one or two good things our parents did and things we did with our kids that were good. One or two.
A couple of questions currently help me clarify the issue for myself. I remember being a kid, and I know that particular kid extremely well.
1) Do I wish someone had asked me as a kid whether I wanted to be a boy or girl? My answer, No. Unless "current me" could be there to make sure the someone who asked the question seemed like a Solomon/Einstein type and not a run-of-the-mill whoever.
2) Do I wish someone had assured me it's possible for me to become a boy or girl and that it is within my own decision-making power and within the ability of the current technology of medical science to make that change? My answer would be Yes, if there were complete reliability. Unfortunately, I know of no such assurance of complete reliability. So my answer, based on currently available information, would be No.
Do I think adults should be allowed to make the decision to undergo treatments offered by the medical industry intended to make people feel better about themselves and their lives? Well, yes, of course. We are where we are in terms of technology and trust in industries for good products and services. Let the buyer beware. Then, buy a medical course of treatment if you wish or save your money...for cigarettes or a motorcycle.
Men, we like you, Buddies!
I think a lot of times you have to tell people things directly. That's especially important if there is ambiguous "subtext."
I don't think it's silly to think that a lot of working- and middle-class men simply need to hear that the Dem Party likes them. Or at least they need to hear it more often. We can't let some J-random, off-the-wall someone talk about "toxic masculinity," for example, and then be silent with the obvious, necessary, counterbalancing, "but most Dems think that's dumb and ignore the people who say it." If we don't say that, out loud, we leave the all-important "Dem personality subtext" to whoever self-elects themselves to be a rude loudmouth.
We could get droves of men, good, solid people, back to voting for bread-and-butter issues with the Dems with a fairly simple appeal, imo. "Tell him about it!" (Apologies to Mr. Billy Joel.)
I challenged my grocery store's decision to charge me for groceries (gofund me)
It's a nightmare. Please help!!!
I went to the store to buy some Panko to make onion rings. On my way out, when I got to the door, some guy from the store asks me if I "paid for that Panko."
So, naturally, I said, "No," and kept walking.
And the guy's all, "Well, you're supposed to pay." And I'm all, "I actually own the Panko. I happen to believe that. Now be off, swine."
And he's all, "I don't appreciate that language, Sir," and "Are you nuts, Sir?" Etc.
So naturally, I walked out with my Panko. It's mine. I believe that. In my heart. So, yeah, that means I can do anything I want.
Anyhoo, I get to my car and up pulls this corrupt "police car." The "cop" is like, "Did you pay for those groceries, Sir?" And I'm like, "What this? I own this." And the cop is like, "Well, did you pay for it? With money?" And I'm like, "I don't have to pay for something I own. Did the Democrat Party send you?" And the "cop" is like, "Can I have your identification please?"
IKR, WTF?
So here I am now on my phone. Could someone please, please set up a gofundme for me? I need to fight this charge.
Keeping fringe ideas at a volume commensurate with their representation
There's a great article in the Atlantic now: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/08/donald-trump-constitutionally-prohibited-presidency/675048/?utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_content=true-anthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.
The argument is great. Trump's not eligible to run for President at all, thanks to the 14th Amendment. The United States didn't want Confederate, insurrectionist jerks running for President, so they put that in the 14th Amendment. Sucks to be Trump.
But here's the thing. The article points out that well-respected legal scholars have concluded that Trump is right in the sweet spot of exactly the kind of dirtball the 14th Amendment was designed to protect the nation from. Great. But what are the poor lost Trumpies going to say? "Well, legal scholars are woke now, so who cares what they think?"
That's why idea representation needs to be commensurate with its democratic consent. It's not, "everyone gets to be believed and respected." It's everyone gets their say, and everyone gets their listen. And everyone gets their judgment of what they heard. It's all of those at once.
It's not whoever is most passionate gets the mic. Anyone who wants the mic is probably a fool. The burden is on them to prove otherwise. And no, crying and raging isn't proof. It has its place, but it's usually more like disproof, more like backfire, more like self-owning.
Put the people at the mic who are wise and correctly and proportionately represent the consent and preference of the majority on a one-person-one-vote basis. Then, all folks will start to respect people such as legal scholars again. And other institutions too.
The way to de-Trumpify is to take away his support
Trump is just a symptom. If we want to get back to equality, comity (even some unity), national health care, reproductive rights, climate progress, sensible gun laws, working class values, we need to prioritize those things. We need to get back the white working class (and all working class), add to our suburban support, especially among males, and appeal to moderate or slightly conservative minority groups.
Trump is a response to Democrats not making a habit of keeping our equanimity and remembering who we are. We have all the good positions. We just need to make sure they are front and center. The boring, normal, and sensible need to be front and center. The wild, fun, dumb, "anger tail-spin" stuff, the dying on every dumb "angels on the head of a pin" hill, etc., needs to be given its proper level of attention and attenuation (based on priorities driven by one-person-one-vote rights).
How we keep getting election nailbiters
I keep wondering how our side doesn't just win every time. I think I have a model. We start with a core of platform positions that just plain make sense and everyone is for. If we just stuck with those positions and put competent, focused people on them, we would simply dominate every election. But what happens?
We fail to control ourselves. That forces the election to control us. And elections are won by winning 50.0000001% of the vote. That number is the limiting constraint the two-party, winner-take-all system gravitates toward. We take our good ideas that would have, say, 85% support and then allow opportunists, fools, and propagandists to, basically, do dumb and crazy stuff to cost us votes.
Thanks to a lack of self-control on our part, the 85% support drops to 84%, then 83%. Eventually it reaches 50.0000001%. Then and only then does the only natural control take effect, elections. We lose, or we win in a squeaker that lets elections be stolen or ignored.
Loss "teaches us a hard lesson." We go easy on some of the inputs of dumbness/craziness that lost for us. The 50.0000001% goes back up to 51%, then 52%. There's now 2% in the budget! So, of course, the dumb, crazy, and propaganda input rate increases accordingly. The number goes back down to 51%, then 50.0000001%. And so on.
It's an equilibrium, in other words.
How do we get out of it? Control ourselves. Don't let the election be the only thing that controls our image. When a sale is made, stop talking. When we're dug into a hole, stop digging.
Another thing we can do is change the voting system, of course, and go to one of the various forms of instant run-off.
Voting for Trump would be voting for a kind of revolution
I'm not sure what kind. Our only serious vulnerability is "wokeness," that wonderful gizmo term that has been such a joy to everyone since it emerged. I doubt the vast majority of Dems seriously support or even care about the things the right defines as "wokeness." So, I'm hoping we can make our argument simple and commonsense. Less, "Ten angels fit on the head of a pin, and I'll die on that hill!" stuff. More, "Let's get national healthcare, abortion rights, legalized pot, free education, climate jobs, sensible gun control."
The poor rainbow gets used everywhere.
Newton figured out what it was scientifically. Before that it was a promise from God, a pointer to a pot of gold, etc.
Everyone love's rainbows, so of course, every conceptual framework that can be mapped to a spectrum or a set of distinct subsets wants to glom onto it as an analogy. Try it. The set of the days of the week is like a rainbow...
It was about racial and ethnic subsets back in Jesse Jackson's time on the main stage. Now I guess it's about a whole bunch of gender- and sex-related things, at least to a lot of people. Then it gets put in a flag. I'm not fond of flags except the U.S. one. Not really fond of any symbol that can be shown to people in front of other people. The time-honored misuse of that kind of symbol is to make sure the symbol's "volunteer cops" know who's saluting the symbol—and who's not.
Ah well, it's not a bad song by a couple of really cool people. I imagine it was misunderstood by a lot of folks to be a "rainbow national anthem," that you have to stand for or else. I don't see anything wrong with the song, but remember, it's not what the singer sings but what the audience hears.
Somewhere Over the Rainbow was good too.
Obstacles to getting tuition to be free and loans forgiven
It really should be a no-brainer that people should want motivated people to make themselves more useful through training. The arguments against that seem to fall into a few categories:
1. Skilled trades aren't covered enough
2. Money going to waste on college administration fees
3. Money going to politically incendiary fields of study
4. People should pay for things of value, including education
It seems to me that 1 and 4 are easy. Just make sure funding goes to pay for skilled trades training, apprenticeship, and so forth. And make sure people know that trained people end up paying higher taxes, in effect paying for the "free" training that way.
Item 2 is also easy, because I doubt a majority supports administrative fat in an organization.
Item 3 is a tough one probably, and might require a lot of negotiation, imo. However, I don't think we should let the obvious (and huge) benefits of free universal training be held up while that negotiation is done. Just set aside the politically incendiary fields and work to get majority support for how to fund them, perhaps through some kind of "discretionary" portion of grants to students. E.g., the student gets 5% politically discretionary money. They can use it to take a course in anything legal.
On edit: I think our Dems have a majority for student loan forgiveness already, and the recent Supreme Court decision is another big problem for Republicanists. However, I'd much rather see the Dems have, say, 95% support than 52% on the issue. And I'd like to see the concept expanded to universal free training, even paid training where you are paid to take the training.
Profile Information
Gender: MaleMember since: 2001
Number of posts: 13,280