Heard any good jokes lately open thread

by

by liberal japonicus

Cooler heads than mine have moved a previous thread to one asking for good jokes. Thread-jacking that we can all get behind. I lift the ones that aren’t insider content (nothing wrong with them, go back to see them if you want) up to the front page and invite more.

From BrettB, bobbyp, NV, Sapient, McManus,and Donald walked into a bar. Countme-in, the bartender, asked, “How could any of you have not seen that bar? Was it set too low for you?”

From Ugh:

Have you seen that new pirate movie? The one that’s rated Arrrr!

From TonyP

World’s shortest joke:

“Beautiful clean coal.”

Have at it.

488 thoughts on “Heard any good jokes lately open thread”

  1. In other situations (e.g. Congress) you would be sure that this is a joke. (Which is my excuse for putting it here. Shameless!) But here’s this from our state senator’s latest newsletter:

    Continuing on last year’s successful slate of bipartisan town halls, Assemblywoman Catharine Baker [R-Dublin] and I [State Senator Steve Glazer, D-Contra Costa] have joined again to share our legislative priorities with residents around the 7th District. In total, we’ve now combined to hold nine town halls, with more to come. I believe we’ve set a good example for civil discourse between members of the two parties, especially in these times of partisan conflict.

    As bad as the national political scene routinely is, it’s nice to say that, at least locally, things are not totally bleak.

  2. In other situations (e.g. Congress) you would be sure that this is a joke. (Which is my excuse for putting it here. Shameless!) But here’s this from our state senator’s latest newsletter:

    Continuing on last year’s successful slate of bipartisan town halls, Assemblywoman Catharine Baker [R-Dublin] and I [State Senator Steve Glazer, D-Contra Costa] have joined again to share our legislative priorities with residents around the 7th District. In total, we’ve now combined to hold nine town halls, with more to come. I believe we’ve set a good example for civil discourse between members of the two parties, especially in these times of partisan conflict.

    As bad as the national political scene routinely is, it’s nice to say that, at least locally, things are not totally bleak.

  9. A paraphrase from Paula Poundstone and “A Prairie Home Companion”:
    What do Winnie the Pooh, Mack the Knife, and Attila the Hun have in common?
    Same middle name.

  10. A paraphrase from Paula Poundstone and “A Prairie Home Companion”:
    What do Winnie the Pooh, Mack the Knife, and Attila the Hun have in common?
    Same middle name.

  11. These put me in mind of an episode of the British police procedural Inspector Lewis “Your Sudden Death Question“. It’s actually a rather good show (available on Amazon Prime, as well as your local library). But the questions (more accurately, the answers) in this one! Arrrrr indeed.

  12. These put me in mind of an episode of the British police procedural Inspector Lewis “Your Sudden Death Question“. It’s actually a rather good show (available on Amazon Prime, as well as your local library). But the questions (more accurately, the answers) in this one! Arrrrr indeed.

  15. In another British police procedural, Wire in the Blood, a neurosurgeon tells the protagonist to name ten words starting with a “p.”
    Protagonist: “psithurism, ptyalism, ptilopus, psychedelic, psionic, phthisis, ptisan, psithurism, phthalocyanine, morning.”
    Neurosurgeon: “Morning doesn’t start with a “p.”
    Protagonist: “Mine does.”
    (Not the exact list of words, but the words recited started with silent p’s.)

  16. In another British police procedural, Wire in the Blood, a neurosurgeon tells the protagonist to name ten words starting with a “p.”
    Protagonist: “psithurism, ptyalism, ptilopus, psychedelic, psionic, phthisis, ptisan, psithurism, phthalocyanine, morning.”
    Neurosurgeon: “Morning doesn’t start with a “p.”
    Protagonist: “Mine does.”
    (Not the exact list of words, but the words recited started with silent p’s.)

  19. This isn’t exactly a joke, but it cracked me up anyhow.
    My kids played Magic: The Gathering with their friends (and sometimes me) when they were growing up in the nineties. My son got exposed to the game again recently when some people who were visiting him wanted to play it. Not long after that, I saw a link (probably on Balloon-Juice) to a Magic take-off called MAGA: the Blathering.
    The title alone made me laugh out loud.

  20. This isn’t exactly a joke, but it cracked me up anyhow.
    My kids played Magic: The Gathering with their friends (and sometimes me) when they were growing up in the nineties. My son got exposed to the game again recently when some people who were visiting him wanted to play it. Not long after that, I saw a link (probably on Balloon-Juice) to a Magic take-off called MAGA: the Blathering.
    The title alone made me laugh out loud.

  27. sapient, yes – that is a lovely piece, thank you.
    cleek, that’s an excellent joke – I can’t remember where I recently read about its first IRL iteration by Sidney Morgenbesser, it might even have been here, but I remember loving the wit, and the quickness of his reaction.

  28. sapient, yes – that is a lovely piece, thank you.
    cleek, that’s an excellent joke – I can’t remember where I recently read about its first IRL iteration by Sidney Morgenbesser, it might even have been here, but I remember loving the wit, and the quickness of his reaction.

  29. What’s a pirates favorite letter?
    Arrr?
    Most people think so, but actually their first love is the C

  30. What’s a pirates favorite letter?
    Arrr?
    Most people think so, but actually their first love is the C

  33. cleek, that’s an excellent joke – I can’t remember where I recently read about its first IRL iteration by Sidney Morgenbesser
    i recently read it in “Origin Of The Specious“, a book about some of English’s more ridiculous rules.

  34. cleek, that’s an excellent joke – I can’t remember where I recently read about its first IRL iteration by Sidney Morgenbesser
    i recently read it in “Origin Of The Specious“, a book about some of English’s more ridiculous rules.

  37. Since pirates seem to be one of the themes:
    A crew member comes rushing up to the pirate captain.
    Pirate: We’ve spotted a navy ship on the horizon! We think they plan to attack us.
    Captain: Don’t worry. We can fight them off. Bring me my red shirt!
    Pirate: Why do you want your red shirt?
    Captain: If I get wounded I don’t want the men to see it. I want them to fight on.
    The pirates fight off the navy ship. A few days later the same pirate approaches the captain.
    Pirate: We’ve spotted two navy ships on the horizon! We think they plan to attack us.
    Captain: Don’t worry. We can fight them off. Bring me my red shirt!
    Pirate: OK.
    The pirates fight off the ships. A week later the pirate approaches the captain again.
    Pirate: We’ve spotted five navy ships on the horizon! We think they plan to attack us.
    Captain: How many ships did you say?
    Pirate: Five.
    Captain: Bring me my brown pants!

  38. Since pirates seem to be one of the themes:
    A crew member comes rushing up to the pirate captain.
    Pirate: We’ve spotted a navy ship on the horizon! We think they plan to attack us.
    Captain: Don’t worry. We can fight them off. Bring me my red shirt!
    Pirate: Why do you want your red shirt?
    Captain: If I get wounded I don’t want the men to see it. I want them to fight on.
    The pirates fight off the navy ship. A few days later the same pirate approaches the captain.
    Pirate: We’ve spotted two navy ships on the horizon! We think they plan to attack us.
    Captain: Don’t worry. We can fight them off. Bring me my red shirt!
    Pirate: OK.
    The pirates fight off the ships. A week later the pirate approaches the captain again.
    Pirate: We’ve spotted five navy ships on the horizon! We think they plan to attack us.
    Captain: How many ships did you say?
    Pirate: Five.
    Captain: Bring me my brown pants!

  39. [Note: this works better verbally when you can throw on a thick Irish accent for the priest and parishioner]
    An Irish Catholic Priest in a small town is worried that there seems to be a plethora of ghost sightings among his flock. To knock this very un-biblical event down he calls his flock together after a Sunday morning sermon, planning to prove to a member of the congregation that claims to have seen the ghost that he/she has seen no such things After everyone is settled he asks:
    “Now, show of hands, who among you have seen a ghost around here lately?” and about 2/3 of the parishioners raise their hands. Hmmm, he thinks, too many to pick from, so he asks “Okay, who of you have seen a ghost and spoken to a ghost?” That leaves 10 hands up, still too numerous. So he asks “Alright, who has seen a ghost, spoken to a ghost, and had sexual relations with a ghost?”
    That leaves only a single hand standing, and the Priest says “You sir, you have seen a ghost, spoken to a ghost, and had sexual relations with a ghost?”
    And the parishioner says, “fnck me, I thought you said goat!”

  40. [Note: this works better verbally when you can throw on a thick Irish accent for the priest and parishioner]
    An Irish Catholic Priest in a small town is worried that there seems to be a plethora of ghost sightings among his flock. To knock this very un-biblical event down he calls his flock together after a Sunday morning sermon, planning to prove to a member of the congregation that claims to have seen the ghost that he/she has seen no such things After everyone is settled he asks:
    “Now, show of hands, who among you have seen a ghost around here lately?” and about 2/3 of the parishioners raise their hands. Hmmm, he thinks, too many to pick from, so he asks “Okay, who of you have seen a ghost and spoken to a ghost?” That leaves 10 hands up, still too numerous. So he asks “Alright, who has seen a ghost, spoken to a ghost, and had sexual relations with a ghost?”
    That leaves only a single hand standing, and the Priest says “You sir, you have seen a ghost, spoken to a ghost, and had sexual relations with a ghost?”
    And the parishioner says, “fnck me, I thought you said goat!”

  45. the top-rated comment at Breitbart assures me that the Flynn story is completely “FAKE NEWS”, because Lou Dobbs says so.
    so, i guess that means it can only have one leg, at most.

  46. the top-rated comment at Breitbart assures me that the Flynn story is completely “FAKE NEWS”, because Lou Dobbs says so.
    so, i guess that means it can only have one leg, at most.

  47. Flynn appears to have hired quite a serious lawyer, one with no ties to the current WH crew it seems, and one who is a partner at the same firm as former Obama AG Eric Holder and former Senator John Kyl.
    All of which is to say, based solely on choice of lawyer and law firm (which is a DC institution and is not going to sully itself diving into the fever swamp just to earn some fees), there seems to be some there there

  48. Flynn appears to have hired quite a serious lawyer, one with no ties to the current WH crew it seems, and one who is a partner at the same firm as former Obama AG Eric Holder and former Senator John Kyl.
    All of which is to say, based solely on choice of lawyer and law firm (which is a DC institution and is not going to sully itself diving into the fever swamp just to earn some fees), there seems to be some there there

  49. “When you are given immunity, that means you have probably committed a crime,” Flynn said during an interview with MSNBC commentator Chuck Todd.

    Business Insider

    You can’t make this stuff up, it’s rip and read.

  50. “When you are given immunity, that means you have probably committed a crime,” Flynn said during an interview with MSNBC commentator Chuck Todd.

    Business Insider

    You can’t make this stuff up, it’s rip and read.

  51. Flynn appears to have hired quite a serious lawyer, one with no ties to the current WH crew it seems
    Sounds like Flynn wanted to be sure he had someone competent — for whatever reason. Which would make avoiding any ties to the current White House crew very high priority.

  52. Flynn appears to have hired quite a serious lawyer, one with no ties to the current WH crew it seems
    Sounds like Flynn wanted to be sure he had someone competent — for whatever reason. Which would make avoiding any ties to the current White House crew very high priority.

  53. LJ, just popping in here to say I would have responded– at length– to your last comment, but the thread is closed. Which actually is fine. But it was weird to see that Moynihan comment raised– I looked it up way back and I thought it was awful in context. Moynihan later partly redeemed himself. But focusing on that? Um no, an alleged injustice to Moynihan is not the central thing I learned. This in microcosm is what is weird about Chomsky debates. I learned from Chomsky that the US assisted in the mass murder of 100,000 or more people under five Presidents of both parties. Others learn that Chomsky was unfair to Moynihan. Virtually every discussion I have ever seen about Noam online turns into something like this. I feel like a member of a different species sometimes.
    Nevis wrote the definitive book on East Timot, imo.

  54. LJ, just popping in here to say I would have responded– at length– to your last comment, but the thread is closed. Which actually is fine. But it was weird to see that Moynihan comment raised– I looked it up way back and I thought it was awful in context. Moynihan later partly redeemed himself. But focusing on that? Um no, an alleged injustice to Moynihan is not the central thing I learned. This in microcosm is what is weird about Chomsky debates. I learned from Chomsky that the US assisted in the mass murder of 100,000 or more people under five Presidents of both parties. Others learn that Chomsky was unfair to Moynihan. Virtually every discussion I have ever seen about Noam online turns into something like this. I feel like a member of a different species sometimes.
    Nevis wrote the definitive book on East Timot, imo.

  57. hi Donald, apologies for closing the comments, I didn’t mean to get in the last comment and turn the mic off, it was just that I thought that for other reasons it would be a good place to stop. I honestly was just offering that as an example of the kind of argumentation that I have problems with. I could have given you something that explains why Chomsky’s discussion of recursion is fatally flawed, but you aren’t a linguist, so you probably wouldn’t understand or care why Chomsky arguments are so disingenuous.
    And the quote is not a question of whether Chomsky was being unfair to Moynihan (it’s not like Moynihan is around and needs to be defended), it’s whether Chomsky is arguing in a way that brings about meaningful results. If rhetoric is always trumped by body counts, there is no reason to talk about Chomsky’s rhetoric, but I think that the way arguments are deployed is actually something that is important and has an impact.
    I’m also more than a bit interested in East Timor because I’m involved in a group that has been trying to organize English teaching workshops there, though medical problems have made it difficult for me to get more involved. What happened there (which happened exactly the same distance in time from us as WWII was from that event) is important to know, and discuss, but if you don’t acknowledge the context of the times (The US withdrawing from Vietnam and trying to maintain an anti-communist bulwark, with the Soviet Union seeking to organize and expand its influence in SE Asia, while the Indonesians argued that to not allow them to annex East Timor was a redux of colonialism (which is why they were supported by the Non-Aligned movement), Australia’s recognition of East Timor as a Indonesian province which was quickly followed by Australian companies getting access to the resources there) I don’t think we are learning what we need to know.
    I think there is a lot of room for discussion about this, and I’d welcome it. But if it is deployed to shut down discussion of Chomsky’s rhetoric, I don’t it really gets anything done. imho

  58. hi Donald, apologies for closing the comments, I didn’t mean to get in the last comment and turn the mic off, it was just that I thought that for other reasons it would be a good place to stop. I honestly was just offering that as an example of the kind of argumentation that I have problems with. I could have given you something that explains why Chomsky’s discussion of recursion is fatally flawed, but you aren’t a linguist, so you probably wouldn’t understand or care why Chomsky arguments are so disingenuous.
    And the quote is not a question of whether Chomsky was being unfair to Moynihan (it’s not like Moynihan is around and needs to be defended), it’s whether Chomsky is arguing in a way that brings about meaningful results. If rhetoric is always trumped by body counts, there is no reason to talk about Chomsky’s rhetoric, but I think that the way arguments are deployed is actually something that is important and has an impact.
    I’m also more than a bit interested in East Timor because I’m involved in a group that has been trying to organize English teaching workshops there, though medical problems have made it difficult for me to get more involved. What happened there (which happened exactly the same distance in time from us as WWII was from that event) is important to know, and discuss, but if you don’t acknowledge the context of the times (The US withdrawing from Vietnam and trying to maintain an anti-communist bulwark, with the Soviet Union seeking to organize and expand its influence in SE Asia, while the Indonesians argued that to not allow them to annex East Timor was a redux of colonialism (which is why they were supported by the Non-Aligned movement), Australia’s recognition of East Timor as a Indonesian province which was quickly followed by Australian companies getting access to the resources there) I don’t think we are learning what we need to know.
    I think there is a lot of room for discussion about this, and I’d welcome it. But if it is deployed to shut down discussion of Chomsky’s rhetoric, I don’t it really gets anything done. imho

  61. A playboy TV game show hosts run on the family-values and religious right ticket.
    He wins!
    /rimshot

  62. A playboy TV game show hosts run on the family-values and religious right ticket.
    He wins!
    /rimshot

  65. I can’t tell if we’re living in a good spy novel, a bad spy novel, a farce dramedy spy novel with a heart and a surprise ending, some bad political drama knock-off modeled on Game of Thrones only with white-nationalist self-fellating soulless idiots-but-think-they’re-geniuses sh1theads in charge of the Iron Throne instead of the Lanisters, or what:
    at a minimum [NSC senior director for intelligence programs] Cohen-Watnick was using his access to highly classified information to mount a political pushback campaign against the various Trump/Russia probes and quite likely breaking the law to do so.
    But Bart Gellman, who has a very granular understanding of the modalities and rules tied to handling this kind of material, suggests an additional possibility: that Cohen-Watnick et al. had this material because they were using their privileged access to the nation’s top secrets to keep tabs on the FBI’s investigation of Trump and his top associates.
    But hey, only more than 1,300 days until the end of his term.

  66. I can’t tell if we’re living in a good spy novel, a bad spy novel, a farce dramedy spy novel with a heart and a surprise ending, some bad political drama knock-off modeled on Game of Thrones only with white-nationalist self-fellating soulless idiots-but-think-they’re-geniuses sh1theads in charge of the Iron Throne instead of the Lanisters, or what:
    at a minimum [NSC senior director for intelligence programs] Cohen-Watnick was using his access to highly classified information to mount a political pushback campaign against the various Trump/Russia probes and quite likely breaking the law to do so.
    But Bart Gellman, who has a very granular understanding of the modalities and rules tied to handling this kind of material, suggests an additional possibility: that Cohen-Watnick et al. had this material because they were using their privileged access to the nation’s top secrets to keep tabs on the FBI’s investigation of Trump and his top associates.
    But hey, only more than 1,300 days until the end of his term.

  73. i think this is the part where someone from the conservative side is supposed to jump up and tell us how Obama was ‘lawless’.

  74. i think this is the part where someone from the conservative side is supposed to jump up and tell us how Obama was ‘lawless’.

  75. Freaking pod people, I swear.
    If there’s no reason (or very, very few reasons) to have dinner with someone of the opposite sex who isn’t your wife or some other family member, what are the reasons for having dinner with someone of the same sex who isn’t your wife or some other family member?
    I mean, why are these unrelated and unmarried people having dinner together? What the hell is that about?

  76. Freaking pod people, I swear.
    If there’s no reason (or very, very few reasons) to have dinner with someone of the opposite sex who isn’t your wife or some other family member, what are the reasons for having dinner with someone of the same sex who isn’t your wife or some other family member?
    I mean, why are these unrelated and unmarried people having dinner together? What the hell is that about?

  77. Seriously.
    It’s this kind of sh1t that makes me view modern US-based public Christianity as 75% misogyny and fear/repression of female sexuality.

  78. Seriously.
    It’s this kind of sh1t that makes me view modern US-based public Christianity as 75% misogyny and fear/repression of female sexuality.

  81. Well, some of it might be an age-related thing.
    I can remember, back in my youth, my high school counselor saying, “You may think it’s silly. But I never have a female student in my office with the door closed. Because if that little girl gets mad, and rips her [own] dress and screams, you have absolutely no defense.” Pence might be old enough to have been taught that lesson when he was young, too.
    I agree that it’s over the top in today’s world. But I think I can see where he might be coming from.

  82. Well, some of it might be an age-related thing.
    I can remember, back in my youth, my high school counselor saying, “You may think it’s silly. But I never have a female student in my office with the door closed. Because if that little girl gets mad, and rips her [own] dress and screams, you have absolutely no defense.” Pence might be old enough to have been taught that lesson when he was young, too.
    I agree that it’s over the top in today’s world. But I think I can see where he might be coming from.

  83. That’s a horribly misapplied lesson – and of course nothing stops boys/men from doing the same thing.

  84. That’s a horribly misapplied lesson – and of course nothing stops boys/men from doing the same thing.

  85. it’s cute how Pence can be so rigidly fundamentalist about something like this but still work for the pussy grabbing, daughter-lusting, serial adulterer.

  86. it’s cute how Pence can be so rigidly fundamentalist about something like this but still work for the pussy grabbing, daughter-lusting, serial adulterer.

  87. I agree that it’s over the top in today’s world. But I think I can see where he might be coming from.
    I don’t think it’s over the top for a high school counselor who is meeting with lots of teenagers all the time.
    It’s insane for the VP. Does he think Susan Collins or Nikki Haley are going to accuse him of attempting rape?

  88. I agree that it’s over the top in today’s world. But I think I can see where he might be coming from.
    I don’t think it’s over the top for a high school counselor who is meeting with lots of teenagers all the time.
    It’s insane for the VP. Does he think Susan Collins or Nikki Haley are going to accuse him of attempting rape?

  89. “I can remember, back in my youth, my high school counselor saying, “You may think it’s silly. But I never have a female student in my office with the door closed. Because if that little girl gets mad, and rips her [own] dress and screams, you have absolutely no defense.” Pence might be old enough to have been taught that lesson when he was young, too. ”
    Over the top my ass. We now have glass offices almost exclusively, I never had a meeting one on one with a woman with the door closed in a room without one. That is, after the first time that sexual harassment charges were levelled at me with no basis other than I pissed a woman off with a reprimand she clearly deserved. I also avoid(ed) any situation where I would be alone with a woman that was clearly outside the workplace unless business dictated it.
    Anyone who thinks that is not good practice, for male or female executives, is blithely uninformed.

  90. “I can remember, back in my youth, my high school counselor saying, “You may think it’s silly. But I never have a female student in my office with the door closed. Because if that little girl gets mad, and rips her [own] dress and screams, you have absolutely no defense.” Pence might be old enough to have been taught that lesson when he was young, too. ”
    Over the top my ass. We now have glass offices almost exclusively, I never had a meeting one on one with a woman with the door closed in a room without one. That is, after the first time that sexual harassment charges were levelled at me with no basis other than I pissed a woman off with a reprimand she clearly deserved. I also avoid(ed) any situation where I would be alone with a woman that was clearly outside the workplace unless business dictated it.
    Anyone who thinks that is not good practice, for male or female executives, is blithely uninformed.

  91. But it’s okay to meet one on one with a male with the door closed or alone outside the workplace with a male….why?

  92. But it’s okay to meet one on one with a male with the door closed or alone outside the workplace with a male….why?

  93. nobody in my building has glass offices – good ol sheetrock for us. and i’ve had plenty of one-on-ones with women behind closed doors.
    it never occurred to me that i needed a chaperone. i’d probably get a letter from HR if i did.

  94. nobody in my building has glass offices – good ol sheetrock for us. and i’ve had plenty of one-on-ones with women behind closed doors.
    it never occurred to me that i needed a chaperone. i’d probably get a letter from HR if i did.

  95. it’s cute how Pence can be so rigidly fundamentalist about something like this but still work for the pussy grabbing, daughter-lusting, serial adulterer.
    Frankly, I’m surprised by who acts surprised by this. It’s pretty much par for the course when someone decides to put pragmatism and lesser-evilism above ideological purity. I’d say it’s cuter for someone who claims at great length and volume that lesser-evilism doesn’t represent betraying your principles to turn and point to this while waggling their eyebrows as suggestively as possible when it’s the other party lesser-eviling.

  96. it’s cute how Pence can be so rigidly fundamentalist about something like this but still work for the pussy grabbing, daughter-lusting, serial adulterer.
    Frankly, I’m surprised by who acts surprised by this. It’s pretty much par for the course when someone decides to put pragmatism and lesser-evilism above ideological purity. I’d say it’s cuter for someone who claims at great length and volume that lesser-evilism doesn’t represent betraying your principles to turn and point to this while waggling their eyebrows as suggestively as possible when it’s the other party lesser-eviling.

  99. Letting the Democrats win, thus filling SCOTUS with left-leaning jurists and the USC with godless hippy-commie nonsense; and/or leaving the evangelical bloc without an advocate at the highest levels of government.

  100. Letting the Democrats win, thus filling SCOTUS with left-leaning jurists and the USC with godless hippy-commie nonsense; and/or leaving the evangelical bloc without an advocate at the highest levels of government.

  101. “But it’s okay to meet one on one with a male with the door closed or alone outside the workplace with a male….why?”
    Culturally you are not suspect, thus not subject to as much liability risk.
    And despite there being lots of small businesses not that way, in the 90’s and going forward, particularly in large companies, almost every office was provided a door with a window and most new office space design preferred glass offices. These were changes driven by HR and insurance companies.

  102. “But it’s okay to meet one on one with a male with the door closed or alone outside the workplace with a male….why?”
    Culturally you are not suspect, thus not subject to as much liability risk.
    And despite there being lots of small businesses not that way, in the 90’s and going forward, particularly in large companies, almost every office was provided a door with a window and most new office space design preferred glass offices. These were changes driven by HR and insurance companies.

  103. Culturally you are not suspect, thus not subject to as much liability risk.
    But “culturally” women are?

  104. Culturally you are not suspect, thus not subject to as much liability risk.
    But “culturally” women are?

  105. Culturally, if a female subordinate, or even a peer, complains about harassment, given opportunity is proven then you end up trying to prove the negative.
    That same after work drink or dinner with a male is not considered opportunity, culturally so the liability risk is significantly less.
    That risk has been increasing for women as they have achieved higher positions, although culturally the male is considered more likely to be the unwanted aggressor so that risk is less.

  106. Culturally, if a female subordinate, or even a peer, complains about harassment, given opportunity is proven then you end up trying to prove the negative.
    That same after work drink or dinner with a male is not considered opportunity, culturally so the liability risk is significantly less.
    That risk has been increasing for women as they have achieved higher positions, although culturally the male is considered more likely to be the unwanted aggressor so that risk is less.

  107. That same after work drink or dinner with a male is not considered opportunity, culturally so the liability risk is significantly less.
    Do you suppose, as homosexuality becomes less stigmatized, the difference will diminish?

  108. That same after work drink or dinner with a male is not considered opportunity, culturally so the liability risk is significantly less.
    Do you suppose, as homosexuality becomes less stigmatized, the difference will diminish?

  113. The only thing I disagree with in that article, CharlesWT, is the assumption that because something is rare then one shouldn’t take steps to avoid it.
    The other is the whole discussion about things being “hard to prove”.
    No one has to prove anything to cost a person a job, reputation and marriage.
    I don’t really know how everyone dealt with it, but I simply quit going out except for very important engagements, with men or women.

  114. The only thing I disagree with in that article, CharlesWT, is the assumption that because something is rare then one shouldn’t take steps to avoid it.
    The other is the whole discussion about things being “hard to prove”.
    No one has to prove anything to cost a person a job, reputation and marriage.
    I don’t really know how everyone dealt with it, but I simply quit going out except for very important engagements, with men or women.

  115. So both bathroom stalls and offices require a line of sight.
    And jail cells.
    Who needs Big Brother when we have each other?

  116. So both bathroom stalls and offices require a line of sight.
    And jail cells.
    Who needs Big Brother when we have each other?

  117. Of course, it gets started early when one’s mother raps on the locked bathroom door and inquires suspiciously “What ARE you doing in there?”
    Reading Proust and caulking the shower! What’s it to ya?
    The trend now is completely open office spaces, without even cubicles separated by dividers, I’m told. I guess so a guy can’t even do some innocent malingering a bit now and then, let alone canoodling.
    At the same time, another trend is being encouraged as well: chairs and desks designed to make a cat nap comfortable to improve productivity.
    We’re a peculiar sort, we Americans.
    Why not just put the toilets where the desk chairs are and call it enhanced productivity.

  118. Of course, it gets started early when one’s mother raps on the locked bathroom door and inquires suspiciously “What ARE you doing in there?”
    Reading Proust and caulking the shower! What’s it to ya?
    The trend now is completely open office spaces, without even cubicles separated by dividers, I’m told. I guess so a guy can’t even do some innocent malingering a bit now and then, let alone canoodling.
    At the same time, another trend is being encouraged as well: chairs and desks designed to make a cat nap comfortable to improve productivity.
    We’re a peculiar sort, we Americans.
    Why not just put the toilets where the desk chairs are and call it enhanced productivity.

  119. I had a college buddy who would eat breakfast while sitting on the commode every morning.
    Forty years later, I heard he fell asleep while driving and died after hitting a bridge abutment.
    Multitasking is overrated.

  120. I had a college buddy who would eat breakfast while sitting on the commode every morning.
    Forty years later, I heard he fell asleep while driving and died after hitting a bridge abutment.
    Multitasking is overrated.

  121. …I disagree with […] the assumption that because something is rare then one shouldn’t take steps to avoid it.
    The problem with this is that when it becomes institutional received wisdom, then women become a liability. It’s easier and simpler for women to not be there, either by not hiring them or not promoting them to a level where this is an issue for (default male) decision-makers. The authority figure may not seek to exclude women for the sake of excluding women, but if operations are perceived to run more smoothly when you don’t have to “take reasonable precautions”, it’s natural to have some bias in that direction, acted on or not…
    To point to a peripheral topic this calls to mind, this is a major recurring theme in conversations about women in combat arms in the military. “Women [or “integrated units” if the speaker is being cagier] are disruptive, so unless there’s a specific mission requirement that demands female personnel, they shouldn’t be there” is an argument I’ve seen over and over again in various forms (the quoted language is nearly verbatim from an argument I was in on social media earlier today). That has a direct impact on the gender breakdown of upper military ranks, as combat command is a favorite path to distinguished leadership.
    No one has to prove anything to cost a person a job, reputation and marriage.
    …because an awful lot of what goes on in workplace relations aren’t formal interactions; they’re perceptions, reputation, and such. And this is just as much a problem for women as men; there need not be evidence that you’re disruptive or manipulative to garner ill will and disfavorable treatment because of reputed behavior. It’s not just the male manager who risks losing job, reputation, and marriage based on gendered perceptions without proof…

  122. …I disagree with […] the assumption that because something is rare then one shouldn’t take steps to avoid it.
    The problem with this is that when it becomes institutional received wisdom, then women become a liability. It’s easier and simpler for women to not be there, either by not hiring them or not promoting them to a level where this is an issue for (default male) decision-makers. The authority figure may not seek to exclude women for the sake of excluding women, but if operations are perceived to run more smoothly when you don’t have to “take reasonable precautions”, it’s natural to have some bias in that direction, acted on or not…
    To point to a peripheral topic this calls to mind, this is a major recurring theme in conversations about women in combat arms in the military. “Women [or “integrated units” if the speaker is being cagier] are disruptive, so unless there’s a specific mission requirement that demands female personnel, they shouldn’t be there” is an argument I’ve seen over and over again in various forms (the quoted language is nearly verbatim from an argument I was in on social media earlier today). That has a direct impact on the gender breakdown of upper military ranks, as combat command is a favorite path to distinguished leadership.
    No one has to prove anything to cost a person a job, reputation and marriage.
    …because an awful lot of what goes on in workplace relations aren’t formal interactions; they’re perceptions, reputation, and such. And this is just as much a problem for women as men; there need not be evidence that you’re disruptive or manipulative to garner ill will and disfavorable treatment because of reputed behavior. It’s not just the male manager who risks losing job, reputation, and marriage based on gendered perceptions without proof…

  123. No one has to prove anything to cost a person a job, reputation and marriage.
    Similarly, someone willing to launch a false accusation of sexual harassment isn’t likely to be deterred by an open door or glass windows.
    I don’t think doing either of those is a problem generally, although I would argue that if you feel it necessary to leave a door open when meeting in an office with a woman, you should do the same thing with a man, but it’s not too far from that to what NV says above – having women around is the problem, so it’s better just not to have them around.

  124. No one has to prove anything to cost a person a job, reputation and marriage.
    Similarly, someone willing to launch a false accusation of sexual harassment isn’t likely to be deterred by an open door or glass windows.
    I don’t think doing either of those is a problem generally, although I would argue that if you feel it necessary to leave a door open when meeting in an office with a woman, you should do the same thing with a man, but it’s not too far from that to what NV says above – having women around is the problem, so it’s better just not to have them around.

  131. Since I posted the note above, I have seen a couple of things which seem to suggest Pence (and perhaps others) share the Arab view that a man will be unable to restrain himself if alone with a woman.
    Which, if true (that that’s the belief which motivates his behavior), is rather appalling. And if it’s true that he couldn’t, that’s worse.

  132. Since I posted the note above, I have seen a couple of things which seem to suggest Pence (and perhaps others) share the Arab view that a man will be unable to restrain himself if alone with a woman.
    Which, if true (that that’s the belief which motivates his behavior), is rather appalling. And if it’s true that he couldn’t, that’s worse.

  133. See what happens when an American man cannot restrain himself when NOT alone and in full view of complicit Americans with an American boy.
    https://www.balloon-juice.com/2017/03/31/life-imitates-satire-tsa-edition/
    Courtesy of al-Qaeda and Steve King.
    Those two need to get a stall or an office where they can be surveilled, and I’ll bet someone would put a stop to that.
    American is pretty much full of shit.
    Besides, it’s obvious the kid is carrying at the orders of the NRA. I can see the automatic weapon under his t-shirt.

  134. See what happens when an American man cannot restrain himself when NOT alone and in full view of complicit Americans with an American boy.
    https://www.balloon-juice.com/2017/03/31/life-imitates-satire-tsa-edition/
    Courtesy of al-Qaeda and Steve King.
    Those two need to get a stall or an office where they can be surveilled, and I’ll bet someone would put a stop to that.
    American is pretty much full of shit.
    Besides, it’s obvious the kid is carrying at the orders of the NRA. I can see the automatic weapon under his t-shirt.

  135. having women around is the problem, so it’s better just not to have them around.
    Almost as soon as I posted my prior comment, it occurred to me that mommytracking and crap like that also fits into this sort of gendered precautionary principle.

  136. having women around is the problem, so it’s better just not to have them around.
    Almost as soon as I posted my prior comment, it occurred to me that mommytracking and crap like that also fits into this sort of gendered precautionary principle.

  137. Count, and the groper did not even find the ceramic razors that terrorist toddler hid between his toes and did not notice that his hair consisted of nitrokeratin and that under each fingernail there was a different bioagent.
    Not to forget the plutonium-filled condoms in his stomach. During the flight that kid would have shat the cadmium pills that kept it from getting critical and gone nuclear on the toilet.

  138. Count, and the groper did not even find the ceramic razors that terrorist toddler hid between his toes and did not notice that his hair consisted of nitrokeratin and that under each fingernail there was a different bioagent.
    Not to forget the plutonium-filled condoms in his stomach. During the flight that kid would have shat the cadmium pills that kept it from getting critical and gone nuclear on the toilet.

  139. Since I posted the note above, I have seen a couple of things which seem to suggest Pence (and perhaps others) share the Arab view that a man will be unable to restrain himself if alone with a woman.
    On sex and gender, modern fundamentalist US-based Christianity has more in common with fundamentalist Islam than the former cares to admit. Also, too.
    Also, three:
    Ultra-Orthodox Jewish Neighborhoods:
    Some Israeli cities house neighborhoods with strong ultra-Orthodox beliefs. Meah She’arim in West Jerusalem is an example. If you plan to visit one of these neighborhoods, ensure you are dressed appropriately. For men, this means not wearing shorts, but for women the list of requirements is longer. Female travelers should avoid wearing trousers or jeans – select a long skirt, ideally well below the knee, and a blouse that covers your shoulders and upper arms. The U.S. State Department warns that people failing to dress appropriately in these neighborhoods may be assaulted, stoned or spat on.
    I’m sure there will be a female pope any day now.

  140. Since I posted the note above, I have seen a couple of things which seem to suggest Pence (and perhaps others) share the Arab view that a man will be unable to restrain himself if alone with a woman.
    On sex and gender, modern fundamentalist US-based Christianity has more in common with fundamentalist Islam than the former cares to admit. Also, too.
    Also, three:
    Ultra-Orthodox Jewish Neighborhoods:
    Some Israeli cities house neighborhoods with strong ultra-Orthodox beliefs. Meah She’arim in West Jerusalem is an example. If you plan to visit one of these neighborhoods, ensure you are dressed appropriately. For men, this means not wearing shorts, but for women the list of requirements is longer. Female travelers should avoid wearing trousers or jeans – select a long skirt, ideally well below the knee, and a blouse that covers your shoulders and upper arms. The U.S. State Department warns that people failing to dress appropriately in these neighborhoods may be assaulted, stoned or spat on.
    I’m sure there will be a female pope any day now.

  141. Yup, (fundamentalist adherents of) the three great monotheistic religions have much in common with regard to their attitude to women. This has formed the subject matter of some of my most heated arguments with McKinney.

  142. Yup, (fundamentalist adherents of) the three great monotheistic religions have much in common with regard to their attitude to women. This has formed the subject matter of some of my most heated arguments with McKinney.

  143. I’m starting to think that strident adherence to rigid ideologies of various kinds causes problems with human social and political behavior. (Animals are more pragmatic.)

  144. I’m starting to think that strident adherence to rigid ideologies of various kinds causes problems with human social and political behavior. (Animals are more pragmatic.)

  145. strident adherence to rigid ideologies
    oh sure. but at the same time, who would want to be a rudderless pragmatist?

  146. strident adherence to rigid ideologies
    oh sure. but at the same time, who would want to be a rudderless pragmatist?

  147. “It’s not just the male manager who risks losing job, reputation, and marriage based on gendered perceptions without proof…”
    This strikes me as true, and irrelevant to the point I was making.

  148. “It’s not just the male manager who risks losing job, reputation, and marriage based on gendered perceptions without proof…”
    This strikes me as true, and irrelevant to the point I was making.

  149. oh sure. but at the same time, who would want to be a rudderless pragmatist?
    I don’t know. Would it allow me to have dinner with women I’m not related or married to? That might be cool. Dinner’s one of my favorites.

  150. oh sure. but at the same time, who would want to be a rudderless pragmatist?
    I don’t know. Would it allow me to have dinner with women I’m not related or married to? That might be cool. Dinner’s one of my favorites.

  151. Any woman who has lunch with Mike Pence, that hot hunk of love who will shall refer to as Daddy for the purposes of this post, alone should be forced to undergo an ultrasound on her abdomen within one week after the meal and must look AT the screen during the procedure.
    No references to intercourse may be introduced during the procedure to avoid having to explain what exactly intercourse is to Mike Pence if he ever asks. Instead, the clinician conducting the exam may lead off the questioning by asking each woman “Shall we take a peek at what the Vice President ordered for you at lunch the other week, hmmm?”
    A tape loop of Michele Bachmann “tsking” disapprovingly to the sultry beat of a Barry White number shall be played for the duration of the procedure, as tribute to the parlous and contradicktory attitudes toward whoopy in ChristenDumb.
    If the woman looks away from the ultrasound screen or does not reveal the proper degree of motherly emotion, these behavioral tells will be noted in her permanent medical records and distributed to the Governors of 26 states in America in which this practice is mandated, the dirty latter of whom may view the ultrasound results behind closed doors at their leisure, but make it look like the viewing is part of their jobs, like filling potholes on state highways.
    Pants are optional.
    Any of the 26 Governors may at any time thereafter demand the women in question physically attend a subsequent exploratory pelvic exam in their state, which may be conducted by the said Governor, Donald Trump, and Ted Nugent, in what professionals in the business call “the six-handed conservative canoodle”.
    “Man Date”, for short.
    Mr Pence may attend via remote video feed unless it gives him a case of the flop sweats.
    If subsequently any of these women one day conceive a child in the state of holy matrimony and bring the baby to term, but have no health insurance, excuse me, “access” to prenatal and postnatal care for their child, the Freedom Caucus shall declare them shit outta luck.
    No more man dates for her.

  152. Any woman who has lunch with Mike Pence, that hot hunk of love who will shall refer to as Daddy for the purposes of this post, alone should be forced to undergo an ultrasound on her abdomen within one week after the meal and must look AT the screen during the procedure.
    No references to intercourse may be introduced during the procedure to avoid having to explain what exactly intercourse is to Mike Pence if he ever asks. Instead, the clinician conducting the exam may lead off the questioning by asking each woman “Shall we take a peek at what the Vice President ordered for you at lunch the other week, hmmm?”
    A tape loop of Michele Bachmann “tsking” disapprovingly to the sultry beat of a Barry White number shall be played for the duration of the procedure, as tribute to the parlous and contradicktory attitudes toward whoopy in ChristenDumb.
    If the woman looks away from the ultrasound screen or does not reveal the proper degree of motherly emotion, these behavioral tells will be noted in her permanent medical records and distributed to the Governors of 26 states in America in which this practice is mandated, the dirty latter of whom may view the ultrasound results behind closed doors at their leisure, but make it look like the viewing is part of their jobs, like filling potholes on state highways.
    Pants are optional.
    Any of the 26 Governors may at any time thereafter demand the women in question physically attend a subsequent exploratory pelvic exam in their state, which may be conducted by the said Governor, Donald Trump, and Ted Nugent, in what professionals in the business call “the six-handed conservative canoodle”.
    “Man Date”, for short.
    Mr Pence may attend via remote video feed unless it gives him a case of the flop sweats.
    If subsequently any of these women one day conceive a child in the state of holy matrimony and bring the baby to term, but have no health insurance, excuse me, “access” to prenatal and postnatal care for their child, the Freedom Caucus shall declare them shit outta luck.
    No more man dates for her.

  153. It sucks being prevented from doing things that you used to be able to do without thinking. I’m getting old and am reminded of that constantly.
    However, in this case, a problem may be that it isn’t something that you really can’t do anything about (you can’t stop getting old), but because of changing norms. Or, as young people (I think) say ‘because society’.
    It seems that the lesson some people take from that is that there is something you can do about it, so by all means, hold on to that privilege and ridicule others when they suggest otherwise.
    However, the lesson I take from it is that if you don’t gracefully give up your perquisites, you might end up in a situation where you will really find yourself at a disadvantage. And if you keep trying to hold on to those perks, the other side is going to find a way to take them from you, probably in a way that you are not happy about.
    One of my very guilty pleasures is watching kung-fu movies. One of the lessons one can draw from these 3-5 minute morality plays is that the hero usually gets the crap beat out of him until he does something differently and ends up turning the tables. The hero will win because he (or she) will think outside of the box. Bruce Lee changing to Jeet Kun Do to finish off Chuck Norris in Way of the Dragon. Donnie Yen moving to a ground stance to get the best of Mike Tyson. Jet Li besting Cyril Raffaelli and Didier Azoulay in Kiss of the Dragon (look em up on YouTube if you want)
    The fact is that the other side always has weapons they can use, if they are willing, and if you force the issue to the point where they are going to resort to those weapons, you have to take some of the blame for pushing the issue to that point. That’s why it is not in your best interests to take things to that level. You may win today, you may win tomorrow. You may win until you croak, but they someday, someone in your “tribe” is going to be on the losing end.
    So yeah, I have to keep the door open when female students visit me. I have to think about what my body language and gestures suggest all the time. And because Japanese often adopt the form of these things, but are blissfully unaware of the function, there are cases of people getting railroaded, and all the care in the world may not be enough. But if there weren’t so many idiots who couldn’t understand that their privilege ended sometime in the last century, maybe I wouldn’t have had to worry about that. So I blame them rather than society.

  154. It sucks being prevented from doing things that you used to be able to do without thinking. I’m getting old and am reminded of that constantly.
    However, in this case, a problem may be that it isn’t something that you really can’t do anything about (you can’t stop getting old), but because of changing norms. Or, as young people (I think) say ‘because society’.
    It seems that the lesson some people take from that is that there is something you can do about it, so by all means, hold on to that privilege and ridicule others when they suggest otherwise.
    However, the lesson I take from it is that if you don’t gracefully give up your perquisites, you might end up in a situation where you will really find yourself at a disadvantage. And if you keep trying to hold on to those perks, the other side is going to find a way to take them from you, probably in a way that you are not happy about.
    One of my very guilty pleasures is watching kung-fu movies. One of the lessons one can draw from these 3-5 minute morality plays is that the hero usually gets the crap beat out of him until he does something differently and ends up turning the tables. The hero will win because he (or she) will think outside of the box. Bruce Lee changing to Jeet Kun Do to finish off Chuck Norris in Way of the Dragon. Donnie Yen moving to a ground stance to get the best of Mike Tyson. Jet Li besting Cyril Raffaelli and Didier Azoulay in Kiss of the Dragon (look em up on YouTube if you want)
    The fact is that the other side always has weapons they can use, if they are willing, and if you force the issue to the point where they are going to resort to those weapons, you have to take some of the blame for pushing the issue to that point. That’s why it is not in your best interests to take things to that level. You may win today, you may win tomorrow. You may win until you croak, but they someday, someone in your “tribe” is going to be on the losing end.
    So yeah, I have to keep the door open when female students visit me. I have to think about what my body language and gestures suggest all the time. And because Japanese often adopt the form of these things, but are blissfully unaware of the function, there are cases of people getting railroaded, and all the care in the world may not be enough. But if there weren’t so many idiots who couldn’t understand that their privilege ended sometime in the last century, maybe I wouldn’t have had to worry about that. So I blame them rather than society.

  157. I have to admit that sometimes when I meet a woman whom I find smart and attractive, my mouth and eyes say Hello but my body is saying Bonjour.
    Of course, I assume no privilege whatsoever. Every open door seems to get slammed shut or hits me in the keester me on the way out. No does not mean yes. In fact, yes rarely means yes.
    But, I kid.
    I agree that doors in professional and other power situations should remain open at all times for the protection of all parties.
    And like lj, I’d like to thank our many idiot predecessors for ruining things for everyone.

  158. I have to admit that sometimes when I meet a woman whom I find smart and attractive, my mouth and eyes say Hello but my body is saying Bonjour.
    Of course, I assume no privilege whatsoever. Every open door seems to get slammed shut or hits me in the keester me on the way out. No does not mean yes. In fact, yes rarely means yes.
    But, I kid.
    I agree that doors in professional and other power situations should remain open at all times for the protection of all parties.
    And like lj, I’d like to thank our many idiot predecessors for ruining things for everyone.

  159. “I’m sure there will be a female pope any day now.”
    That would be a “Mome”. They rath outgrabe also, too.

  160. “I’m sure there will be a female pope any day now.”
    That would be a “Mome”. They rath outgrabe also, too.

  161. oh sure. but at the same time, who would want to be a rudderless pragmatist?
    …and this is what I mean by pointing to ongoing unaccountable drive-by nose-tweaking crap. No particular value, no content, not even much in the way of relevance to the conversation, but it should piss off the right people by bringing up old arguments, yeah?
    Of course, being “pragmatic” and “centerist” in this case is only true when you’ve bought into the convenient lie that not just politics but all social beliefs fall on a simple one-dimensional spectrum where you’ve seized the moderate middle ground. rather than admitting that it’s a three-plus-dimensional space with no clear origin point, and your constant tacking towards one region is in fact showing a strong preference that you work towards in favor of other outcomes rather than pragmatic flexibility that strangely just so happens to lead to the same end results every single time.

  162. oh sure. but at the same time, who would want to be a rudderless pragmatist?
    …and this is what I mean by pointing to ongoing unaccountable drive-by nose-tweaking crap. No particular value, no content, not even much in the way of relevance to the conversation, but it should piss off the right people by bringing up old arguments, yeah?
    Of course, being “pragmatic” and “centerist” in this case is only true when you’ve bought into the convenient lie that not just politics but all social beliefs fall on a simple one-dimensional spectrum where you’ve seized the moderate middle ground. rather than admitting that it’s a three-plus-dimensional space with no clear origin point, and your constant tacking towards one region is in fact showing a strong preference that you work towards in favor of other outcomes rather than pragmatic flexibility that strangely just so happens to lead to the same end results every single time.

  165. One of my very guilty pleasures is watching kung-fu movies.
    I recall that. It’s a long time past, but one other constant feature remains vivid:
    The hero’s girl friend (rarely, sister) gets battered to a pulp by the bad guy. The hero finds herself, and rushes to take her, dying, in his arms. And his words to her always show in the subtitles as “brace up”.
    I’ve long been curious what the phrase he uses actually means. But it regularly brought a (totally inappropriate) grin.
    “Brace up” — taking the stiff upper lip to a whole new level.

  166. One of my very guilty pleasures is watching kung-fu movies.
    I recall that. It’s a long time past, but one other constant feature remains vivid:
    The hero’s girl friend (rarely, sister) gets battered to a pulp by the bad guy. The hero finds herself, and rushes to take her, dying, in his arms. And his words to her always show in the subtitles as “brace up”.
    I’ve long been curious what the phrase he uses actually means. But it regularly brought a (totally inappropriate) grin.
    “Brace up” — taking the stiff upper lip to a whole new level.

  167. Best April Fool joke I’ve seen in while
    https://view.e.economist.com/?qs=4bd4e705b509befbdcdb397d1dbf3f462969da6358aabba4699970ba561db3e793f97cc09fe46e330d0c472069f7bc38a3d72843c9c29beae943c70f1f298fc2
    (Fourth item down)
    It seems that the International Space Station has declared independence. It “would be the smallest country on Earth (population, six), if it were indeed on Earth.” No mention of whether independence will be expanded to gravitational independence.

  168. Best April Fool joke I’ve seen in while
    https://view.e.economist.com/?qs=4bd4e705b509befbdcdb397d1dbf3f462969da6358aabba4699970ba561db3e793f97cc09fe46e330d0c472069f7bc38a3d72843c9c29beae943c70f1f298fc2
    (Fourth item down)
    It seems that the International Space Station has declared independence. It “would be the smallest country on Earth (population, six), if it were indeed on Earth.” No mention of whether independence will be expanded to gravitational independence.

  171. I’ve probably told this joke a million times, but whatever.
    Bad musician to Lester Young – “Hey Prez, when was the last time we played together?”
    Lester Young replies: “Tonight!”
    Some things just never get old.
    Not a joke, but a prank. Apparently jazz violinist Joe Venuti on one occasion went through the musician’s union book and called, like, 40 bass players.
    “Hey, it’s Joe, I got a gig for you. Meet me at the corner of 5th and whatever tomorrow at 5:00”.
    Next day at five, he watches 40 bass players congregate on the corner of 5th and whatever, wondering WTF was up.
    Rim shot!!
    Another prank, perhaps my all-time favorite. Stop me if I’ll told it before (hah hah!).
    My father in law gets about 100 helium balloons. To each one he ties a card saying:
    “I will pay the bearer of this card $5”
    and signed it with his brother-in-laws name and address. This was, like, 60 years ago, when $5 was real money, especially around Akron.
    Then, he released all the balloons.

  172. I’ve probably told this joke a million times, but whatever.
    Bad musician to Lester Young – “Hey Prez, when was the last time we played together?”
    Lester Young replies: “Tonight!”
    Some things just never get old.
    Not a joke, but a prank. Apparently jazz violinist Joe Venuti on one occasion went through the musician’s union book and called, like, 40 bass players.
    “Hey, it’s Joe, I got a gig for you. Meet me at the corner of 5th and whatever tomorrow at 5:00”.
    Next day at five, he watches 40 bass players congregate on the corner of 5th and whatever, wondering WTF was up.
    Rim shot!!
    Another prank, perhaps my all-time favorite. Stop me if I’ll told it before (hah hah!).
    My father in law gets about 100 helium balloons. To each one he ties a card saying:
    “I will pay the bearer of this card $5”
    and signed it with his brother-in-laws name and address. This was, like, 60 years ago, when $5 was real money, especially around Akron.
    Then, he released all the balloons.

  173. I really hate to post this after russell’s great comment but
    and this is what I mean by pointing to ongoing unaccountable drive-by nose-tweaking crap. No particular value, no content, not even much in the way of relevance to the conversation, but it should piss off the right people by bringing up old arguments, yeah?
    NV, maybe cleek (or the person impersonating him) is really just taking this opportunity to be an ass. Maybe. But it was in response to hsh, not you. I understand that people are going to get upset with what people get upset with, but if you are getting angry on behalf of others, it’s not really helpful. especially in an open thread devoted to tell us a joke. And yes, I’m not one to talk, answering Donald and now you and tramping mud all over this nice carpet.
    I really thought about just letting this slide, but given the fact that we’ve just gone thru some radical transparency, where I posted messages I sent to others that might have been better left unrevealed, I felt like I should say something. Obviously, this bothers you enough to say something, so I don’t want to brush it off. This is not a threat and I appreciate your contribution to this commentariat. we would be much poorer if you left.
    And maybe cleek is tweaking you and if he is, I hope he’ll stop it. But I don’t see how, do you feel like you are a rudderless pragmatist? Maybe there is some thread that I’ve forgotten where cleek called you that, but I’m having a hard time imagining anyone suggesting that you are rudderless. If there is anyone who could be accused of being a rudderless pragmatist on this board, it’s probably me. And I’m not sure if anyone would want to be me.
    In line with my previous comment, it’s about being nice to each other, not because they may deserve it (sometimes they don’t, but this is not a comment on this current problem), but because the alternative is to have everyone take up sides and leave the place a smoking wreck.

  174. I really hate to post this after russell’s great comment but
    and this is what I mean by pointing to ongoing unaccountable drive-by nose-tweaking crap. No particular value, no content, not even much in the way of relevance to the conversation, but it should piss off the right people by bringing up old arguments, yeah?
    NV, maybe cleek (or the person impersonating him) is really just taking this opportunity to be an ass. Maybe. But it was in response to hsh, not you. I understand that people are going to get upset with what people get upset with, but if you are getting angry on behalf of others, it’s not really helpful. especially in an open thread devoted to tell us a joke. And yes, I’m not one to talk, answering Donald and now you and tramping mud all over this nice carpet.
    I really thought about just letting this slide, but given the fact that we’ve just gone thru some radical transparency, where I posted messages I sent to others that might have been better left unrevealed, I felt like I should say something. Obviously, this bothers you enough to say something, so I don’t want to brush it off. This is not a threat and I appreciate your contribution to this commentariat. we would be much poorer if you left.
    And maybe cleek is tweaking you and if he is, I hope he’ll stop it. But I don’t see how, do you feel like you are a rudderless pragmatist? Maybe there is some thread that I’ve forgotten where cleek called you that, but I’m having a hard time imagining anyone suggesting that you are rudderless. If there is anyone who could be accused of being a rudderless pragmatist on this board, it’s probably me. And I’m not sure if anyone would want to be me.
    In line with my previous comment, it’s about being nice to each other, not because they may deserve it (sometimes they don’t, but this is not a comment on this current problem), but because the alternative is to have everyone take up sides and leave the place a smoking wreck.

  175. So, as for opposite sex dining and drinking:
    I’ve enjoyed lots of meals with colleagues of various genders. I’ve also been in situations where I traveled with colleagues of various genders. A lot of people I’ve worked with have been in similar situations. Lots of opportunities and temptations.
    In the end, it comes down to you. Do we deal with that with gender apartheid, or with personal responsibility?
    As someone who has represented criminal defendants (not many times – that wasn’t my strength), I’m not averse to leaving the door open. The trouble is, when there’s a reason to close the door, I wouldn’t want anyone to draw conclusions from that. Sexual abuse and assault is a very difficult issue, from any perspective, because it happens behind closed doors with no witnesses.
    That horriffying TSA video that the Count posted is pretty much cut and dried, but whaaaa?

  176. So, as for opposite sex dining and drinking:
    I’ve enjoyed lots of meals with colleagues of various genders. I’ve also been in situations where I traveled with colleagues of various genders. A lot of people I’ve worked with have been in similar situations. Lots of opportunities and temptations.
    In the end, it comes down to you. Do we deal with that with gender apartheid, or with personal responsibility?
    As someone who has represented criminal defendants (not many times – that wasn’t my strength), I’m not averse to leaving the door open. The trouble is, when there’s a reason to close the door, I wouldn’t want anyone to draw conclusions from that. Sexual abuse and assault is a very difficult issue, from any perspective, because it happens behind closed doors with no witnesses.
    That horriffying TSA video that the Count posted is pretty much cut and dried, but whaaaa?

  177. I, for one, am completely rudderless.
    The ailerons work fine though. I don’t put much stock in the yaw way of doing things.

  178. I, for one, am completely rudderless.
    The ailerons work fine though. I don’t put much stock in the yaw way of doing things.

  179. In the end, it comes down to you. Do we deal with that with gender apartheid, or with personal responsibility?
    I guess it’s why I view folks like Pence (or the other fundamentalists, of whichever sect) with such total incomprehension. Among the people I associate with, this would be considered normal and expected behavior:
    A man and a women (unmarried, roughly 30s) are traveling for a meeting of an organization that they belong to. When they arrive in town, acquaintances have offered them crash space (is it still called that?). They are not, and never have been, a couple. But their acquaintances, assuming that they are, have provided one room with a double bed. Rather than cause a difficulty, they just use what’s provided . . . and just sleep.
    Folks like Pence would probably consider such a thing wildly improbable to impossible. Folks like my people consider it unexceptional.

  180. In the end, it comes down to you. Do we deal with that with gender apartheid, or with personal responsibility?
    I guess it’s why I view folks like Pence (or the other fundamentalists, of whichever sect) with such total incomprehension. Among the people I associate with, this would be considered normal and expected behavior:
    A man and a women (unmarried, roughly 30s) are traveling for a meeting of an organization that they belong to. When they arrive in town, acquaintances have offered them crash space (is it still called that?). They are not, and never have been, a couple. But their acquaintances, assuming that they are, have provided one room with a double bed. Rather than cause a difficulty, they just use what’s provided . . . and just sleep.
    Folks like Pence would probably consider such a thing wildly improbable to impossible. Folks like my people consider it unexceptional.

  181. Kind of a joke here relating to what wj said. When I went to grad school, I was fortunate that my undergrad roommate had gotten a tenure track position at the university and he let me live with him. He also had come out when we were undergraduates.
    So I roll up to grad school, and everyone in the department assumed that I was his boyfriend, something I found out after I got engaged. ‘We thought you were gay’. I could recall a time where that would have horrified me, but I got the impression that my roommate was the one upset because if I were his boyfriend, it would reflect poorly on him and his standards…

  182. Kind of a joke here relating to what wj said. When I went to grad school, I was fortunate that my undergrad roommate had gotten a tenure track position at the university and he let me live with him. He also had come out when we were undergraduates.
    So I roll up to grad school, and everyone in the department assumed that I was his boyfriend, something I found out after I got engaged. ‘We thought you were gay’. I could recall a time where that would have horrified me, but I got the impression that my roommate was the one upset because if I were his boyfriend, it would reflect poorly on him and his standards…

  183. So wj, hypothetical, two people, one is the boss, the other not. The one that is not the boss is married.
    So, how likely would they be to be planning to share crash space? If so, Would sharing the single space be unexceptional? For both. And the spouse, who doesn’t really know the boss?
    You started with the least tense of all examples, I suspect lots of people would find it unexceptional, if not ideal.

  184. So wj, hypothetical, two people, one is the boss, the other not. The one that is not the boss is married.
    So, how likely would they be to be planning to share crash space? If so, Would sharing the single space be unexceptional? For both. And the spouse, who doesn’t really know the boss?
    You started with the least tense of all examples, I suspect lots of people would find it unexceptional, if not ideal.

  185. NV, maybe cleek (or the person impersonating him) is really just taking this opportunity to be an ass. Maybe. But it was in response to hsh, not you. I understand that people are going to get upset with what people get upset with, but if you are getting angry on behalf of others, it’s not really helpful. especially in an open thread devoted to tell us a joke.
    FWIW when I read this I was pretty sure that cleek was tweaking NV with the “rudderless pragmatist” comment – only cleek is sarcastically referring to himself as a rudderless pragmatist, suggesting that is how NV views him, going back to their (and others) argument about whether to vote for Hillary and the reasons for Trump’s win.
    But obviously cleek can speak for himself.
    For myself, they are both a pleasure to have around, other than when this topic (and its newly associated penumbras) comes up – and part of that is me getting tired of the topic generally, especially when ISTM the two people disagreeing disagreeably over it seems to have the same (or mostly the same) underlying substantive policy views on the big questions of the day.

  186. NV, maybe cleek (or the person impersonating him) is really just taking this opportunity to be an ass. Maybe. But it was in response to hsh, not you. I understand that people are going to get upset with what people get upset with, but if you are getting angry on behalf of others, it’s not really helpful. especially in an open thread devoted to tell us a joke.
    FWIW when I read this I was pretty sure that cleek was tweaking NV with the “rudderless pragmatist” comment – only cleek is sarcastically referring to himself as a rudderless pragmatist, suggesting that is how NV views him, going back to their (and others) argument about whether to vote for Hillary and the reasons for Trump’s win.
    But obviously cleek can speak for himself.
    For myself, they are both a pleasure to have around, other than when this topic (and its newly associated penumbras) comes up – and part of that is me getting tired of the topic generally, especially when ISTM the two people disagreeing disagreeably over it seems to have the same (or mostly the same) underlying substantive policy views on the big questions of the day.

  189. Marty, in that first (type) case, the (martial arts) teacher was unmarried but not unattached. The girlfriend heard of events when we got back home. And joined the eye rolling at the assumptions of the locals. Never even occurred to her that there might have been an issue.
    As for the sort of situation you describe, it hasn’t quite come my way. But close. Small company. Business trip. It wouldn’t have been quite the same, since hotel rooms typically have two separate beds. But still unthinkable to the Pence set.
    Actually, I did raise the option, since funds were tight at the time. My sense is that we ended up with separate rooms at least as much because we’re both serious introverts — after a day of schmoozing with potential customers, we were both going to be in need of alone time.
    Would my spouse have been distressed? Well since she’s also involved in the company, she was present at the discussion. Her comment: Be warned, he snores. So, not super concerned.

  190. Marty, in that first (type) case, the (martial arts) teacher was unmarried but not unattached. The girlfriend heard of events when we got back home. And joined the eye rolling at the assumptions of the locals. Never even occurred to her that there might have been an issue.
    As for the sort of situation you describe, it hasn’t quite come my way. But close. Small company. Business trip. It wouldn’t have been quite the same, since hotel rooms typically have two separate beds. But still unthinkable to the Pence set.
    Actually, I did raise the option, since funds were tight at the time. My sense is that we ended up with separate rooms at least as much because we’re both serious introverts — after a day of schmoozing with potential customers, we were both going to be in need of alone time.
    Would my spouse have been distressed? Well since she’s also involved in the company, she was present at the discussion. Her comment: Be warned, he snores. So, not super concerned.

  191. Yes in each case you are assuming, or noting, an existing relationship with the spouse. In small companies I have worked in I can imagine similar discussions. I would suggest you may not be processing the reason you didnt end up in a common room.
    Also, both of these situations involve you, we have clearly established you are open to whatever arrangement. I am pretty sanguine about situations like this, but I would be unlikely to PLAN to share a room with a female coworker. I am certain my significant other would find that troubling. However, in various situations beyond my control I have PLANNED to share a room on the road with a male coworker. I only had to once. In general I don’t want to share a room with anyone, ever.

  192. Yes in each case you are assuming, or noting, an existing relationship with the spouse. In small companies I have worked in I can imagine similar discussions. I would suggest you may not be processing the reason you didnt end up in a common room.
    Also, both of these situations involve you, we have clearly established you are open to whatever arrangement. I am pretty sanguine about situations like this, but I would be unlikely to PLAN to share a room with a female coworker. I am certain my significant other would find that troubling. However, in various situations beyond my control I have PLANNED to share a room on the road with a male coworker. I only had to once. In general I don’t want to share a room with anyone, ever.

  193. In general I don’t want to share a room with anyone, ever.
    I’m totally with you there!
    It does occur to me to wonder. As homosexuality becomes unexceptional in the workplace, how do the various acceptable room sharings change? Can you put a mixed gender pair in the same room if one is gay? Can you not put a pair of people of the same gender in a room if both are gay? How about if just one is?
    lj mentions above the case of college roommates. How is that being dealt with these days?

  194. In general I don’t want to share a room with anyone, ever.
    I’m totally with you there!
    It does occur to me to wonder. As homosexuality becomes unexceptional in the workplace, how do the various acceptable room sharings change? Can you put a mixed gender pair in the same room if one is gay? Can you not put a pair of people of the same gender in a room if both are gay? How about if just one is?
    lj mentions above the case of college roommates. How is that being dealt with these days?

  195. what’s all this about rooms? I thought we were just talking dinner and maybe a cocktail.
    you guys move way too fast for me…

  196. what’s all this about rooms? I thought we were just talking dinner and maybe a cocktail.
    you guys move way too fast for me…

  197. Well on one hand, if you won’t even be alone or to dinner with a woman, sharing a room would be inconceivable. Contrawise, if you can see sharing a room at need, you won’t see what the problem would be with sharing dinner or a drink. In short, it’s a reflection of how differently we see the world.

  198. Well on one hand, if you won’t even be alone or to dinner with a woman, sharing a room would be inconceivable. Contrawise, if you can see sharing a room at need, you won’t see what the problem would be with sharing dinner or a drink. In short, it’s a reflection of how differently we see the world.

  199. also, rudderless pragmatists = great band name, if anyone needs one.
    oddly, perhaps, jazz ensembles rarely have the ‘band name’ issue. if Joe blow booked it and it’s a trio, it’s the ‘Joe Blow trio’.
    not a big market for merch there, though.

  200. also, rudderless pragmatists = great band name, if anyone needs one.
    oddly, perhaps, jazz ensembles rarely have the ‘band name’ issue. if Joe blow booked it and it’s a trio, it’s the ‘Joe Blow trio’.
    not a big market for merch there, though.

  203. My daughter is in a co-ed dorm, I think one floor boys, one floor girls. A bit rare here in Japan, but not so bizarre. I can’t imagine, however, given the kerfluffle over bathrooms in the states that there would be any ‘Jenny, here’s your new roommate Sam!’ situations there.
    Which reminds me of another funny story. My university, shortly before I arrived, had a curfew for women students, who had to be back at the dorm by 10 pm. There was a committee of teachers that had to adjudicate and deal out punishments and one teacher told me that he was on that committee and a couple came, looking very sheepish. They asked the guy why the girl had missed the curfew and he said that they were watching TV and dozed off and when they woke up, it was 11 pm. The committee thought this was understandable, you could certainly fall asleep watching TV, but one of the teachers followed and asked ‘well, after you realized she had missed the curfew, what did you do’. The boy, helpfully, said ‘Well, of course, we pulled on our clothes and came to the dorm!’…

  204. My daughter is in a co-ed dorm, I think one floor boys, one floor girls. A bit rare here in Japan, but not so bizarre. I can’t imagine, however, given the kerfluffle over bathrooms in the states that there would be any ‘Jenny, here’s your new roommate Sam!’ situations there.
    Which reminds me of another funny story. My university, shortly before I arrived, had a curfew for women students, who had to be back at the dorm by 10 pm. There was a committee of teachers that had to adjudicate and deal out punishments and one teacher told me that he was on that committee and a couple came, looking very sheepish. They asked the guy why the girl had missed the curfew and he said that they were watching TV and dozed off and when they woke up, it was 11 pm. The committee thought this was understandable, you could certainly fall asleep watching TV, but one of the teachers followed and asked ‘well, after you realized she had missed the curfew, what did you do’. The boy, helpfully, said ‘Well, of course, we pulled on our clothes and came to the dorm!’…

  205. Sorry, I didn’t go back far enough and missed ugh’s comment. I now don’t know what is the correct interpretation, but just ask that everyone chill a bit. thx

  206. Sorry, I didn’t go back far enough and missed ugh’s comment. I now don’t know what is the correct interpretation, but just ask that everyone chill a bit. thx

  207. My university, shortly before I arrived, had a curfew for women students, who had to be back at the dorm by 10 pm.
    Use to be that way in the US Marines.

  208. My university, shortly before I arrived, had a curfew for women students, who had to be back at the dorm by 10 pm.
    Use to be that way in the US Marines.

  209. wj I meant to mention it before but the room sharing is a quite different dynamic than dinner, or drinks after work.
    Grabbing a drink with the gang(Which mostly these days would include women), or a guy, is different than dinner or drinks with a woman. I suspect for both people, but I only have one perspective.

  210. wj I meant to mention it before but the room sharing is a quite different dynamic than dinner, or drinks after work.
    Grabbing a drink with the gang(Which mostly these days would include women), or a guy, is different than dinner or drinks with a woman. I suspect for both people, but I only have one perspective.

  213. Michael Howard says Theresa May is prepared to start a war with Spain over Gibraltar.
    No joke, sadly – imbeciles…

  214. Michael Howard says Theresa May is prepared to start a war with Spain over Gibraltar.
    No joke, sadly – imbeciles…

  215. WTF.
    i can’t use the word “pragmatist” without causing a freak-out?
    you win, NV. goodbye all.

  216. WTF.
    i can’t use the word “pragmatist” without causing a freak-out?
    you win, NV. goodbye all.

  217. Marty was right when he said every time someone leaves they take a piece of the fabric with them. It’s one thing if someone leaves because they gradually just don’t fancy it anymore, but when someone leaves because they feel hounded out, it is a fucking drag, to put it lightly.

    For myself, they are both a pleasure to have around, other than when this topic (and its newly associated penumbras) comes up – and part of that is me getting tired of the topic generally, especially when ISTM the two people disagreeing disagreeably over it seems to have the same (or mostly the same) underlying substantive policy views on the big questions of the day.

    This, this and thrice this. When lj said somewhere if we don’t cease and desist we’ll be left in the smoking ruins, he was right.

  218. Marty was right when he said every time someone leaves they take a piece of the fabric with them. It’s one thing if someone leaves because they gradually just don’t fancy it anymore, but when someone leaves because they feel hounded out, it is a fucking drag, to put it lightly.

    For myself, they are both a pleasure to have around, other than when this topic (and its newly associated penumbras) comes up – and part of that is me getting tired of the topic generally, especially when ISTM the two people disagreeing disagreeably over it seems to have the same (or mostly the same) underlying substantive policy views on the big questions of the day.

    This, this and thrice this. When lj said somewhere if we don’t cease and desist we’ll be left in the smoking ruins, he was right.

  219. Of all the people here, cleek, and in a different way lj, have been quickest to jump on me for various things over the years.
    Two things I have learned, cleek is always going to be snarky (apologies to Snarki) and he is rarely insulting enough to respond to aside from the underlying point.
    Yes, he meant that to be snark directed at NV, c’mon, have you been here recently? But it was a drive by of opportunity and, well, that’s just cleek.
    But that is cleek, somewhat hyped up by the events of the last few months, but nonetheless not out of character.
    A character that is as much an institution here as the Count.
    Not worth driving him away, he is not an ideologue, but is a pure partisan along with sapient. I value having that perspective in these threads, even if I mostly ignore the confrontation.

  220. Of all the people here, cleek, and in a different way lj, have been quickest to jump on me for various things over the years.
    Two things I have learned, cleek is always going to be snarky (apologies to Snarki) and he is rarely insulting enough to respond to aside from the underlying point.
    Yes, he meant that to be snark directed at NV, c’mon, have you been here recently? But it was a drive by of opportunity and, well, that’s just cleek.
    But that is cleek, somewhat hyped up by the events of the last few months, but nonetheless not out of character.
    A character that is as much an institution here as the Count.
    Not worth driving him away, he is not an ideologue, but is a pure partisan along with sapient. I value having that perspective in these threads, even if I mostly ignore the confrontation.

  221. Not worth driving him away, he is not an ideologue, but is a pure partisan along with sapient. I value having that perspective in these threads, even if I mostly ignore the confrontation.
    I think it’s important for people to be able to have a personality. I’m trying to tone down my own since there seems to be a general consensus that I need to do that. cleek, on the other hand, does not approach incivility, IMO. Thank you for saying this, Marty, and for having a thick enough skin to hang out here.

  222. Not worth driving him away, he is not an ideologue, but is a pure partisan along with sapient. I value having that perspective in these threads, even if I mostly ignore the confrontation.
    I think it’s important for people to be able to have a personality. I’m trying to tone down my own since there seems to be a general consensus that I need to do that. cleek, on the other hand, does not approach incivility, IMO. Thank you for saying this, Marty, and for having a thick enough skin to hang out here.

  223. Michael Howard says Theresa May is prepared to start a war with Spain over Gibraltar.
    After the Falklands, why would this be unexpected? If the residents of Gibraltar want to stay British, their government won’t cast them out.
    Fortunately, the Spanish government doesn’t appear as lost to reality as that Argentine junta was.

  224. Michael Howard says Theresa May is prepared to start a war with Spain over Gibraltar.
    After the Falklands, why would this be unexpected? If the residents of Gibraltar want to stay British, their government won’t cast them out.
    Fortunately, the Spanish government doesn’t appear as lost to reality as that Argentine junta was.

  225. “I think it’s important for people to be able to have a personality.”
    While cleek can certainly be irritating, yes I know its hard to believe, in this case I read his comment and imagined him chuckling at the opportunity. Maybe not less irritating but not being mean either.

  226. “I think it’s important for people to be able to have a personality.”
    While cleek can certainly be irritating, yes I know its hard to believe, in this case I read his comment and imagined him chuckling at the opportunity. Maybe not less irritating but not being mean either.

  227. Mr GftNC and I were discussing this as we drove to lunch, and are (perhaps naively) hoping that this might give Theresa May an excuse to hold a second referendum, further on down the line if Spain is intransigent. Mr thinks that the Leave voters might have second thoughts because of Gibraltar, but I am more pessimistic, partly because it seems to me at the moment that everything that can go wrong will go wrong, and a decision to reverse the Brexit vote would be just too good to be true.

  228. Mr GftNC and I were discussing this as we drove to lunch, and are (perhaps naively) hoping that this might give Theresa May an excuse to hold a second referendum, further on down the line if Spain is intransigent. Mr thinks that the Leave voters might have second thoughts because of Gibraltar, but I am more pessimistic, partly because it seems to me at the moment that everything that can go wrong will go wrong, and a decision to reverse the Brexit vote would be just too good to be true.

  229. My sense, from thousands of miles away, is that most Brexit voters are rather too self-centered to consider changing their position just because some folks in Gibraltar might suffer as a result.

  230. My sense, from thousands of miles away, is that most Brexit voters are rather too self-centered to consider changing their position just because some folks in Gibraltar might suffer as a result.

  231. Well, if it was all about being self-centred they would have voted their pocketbook, which in the most pro-Brexit areas should have been Remain, because those (rather poor) areas were getting vast EU subsidies. I don’t think self-centred is exactly right – but I do think most of them made a (more or usually less well-informed) case about regaining national sovereignty, and that is the issue that might animate them in the Gibraltar question, just as it animated much jingoism in the Falklands situation.

  232. Well, if it was all about being self-centred they would have voted their pocketbook, which in the most pro-Brexit areas should have been Remain, because those (rather poor) areas were getting vast EU subsidies. I don’t think self-centred is exactly right – but I do think most of them made a (more or usually less well-informed) case about regaining national sovereignty, and that is the issue that might animate them in the Gibraltar question, just as it animated much jingoism in the Falklands situation.

  233. if we get rid of all of the snark on the internet, all that will be left are cat videos. and probably half of them will have to go, too.
    just saying.

  234. if we get rid of all of the snark on the internet, all that will be left are cat videos. and probably half of them will have to go, too.
    just saying.

  235. “…all that will be left are cat videos.”
    At that point, countme-Out.
    I have actually regretted some of things I have written in response to Marty, but I’ll never admit it. This is the internet, ya’ know.
    Tryin’ to be more civil these days.
    As for never-ending lesserevilism…. look, it’s been around a long time (since Greece and Rome). You never know, somebody might come up with something new.
    Hope remains.

  236. “…all that will be left are cat videos.”
    At that point, countme-Out.
    I have actually regretted some of things I have written in response to Marty, but I’ll never admit it. This is the internet, ya’ know.
    Tryin’ to be more civil these days.
    As for never-ending lesserevilism…. look, it’s been around a long time (since Greece and Rome). You never know, somebody might come up with something new.
    Hope remains.

  237. GFTNC, wouldn’t that assume that they were clear on the economics of Brexit for them personally? Consider the perceived, as opposed to real, economic impact of Trump’s policy proposals on the areas that voted heavily for him.
    Voting one’s pocketbook, and voting it accurately, are not necessarily the same.

  238. GFTNC, wouldn’t that assume that they were clear on the economics of Brexit for them personally? Consider the perceived, as opposed to real, economic impact of Trump’s policy proposals on the areas that voted heavily for him.
    Voting one’s pocketbook, and voting it accurately, are not necessarily the same.

  239. DNA is a big topic; every time it comes up to the extent that it has in this thread, I wish I had studied genetics instead of literature. (But then, I can wish I studied almost anything – except maybe finance – if the right person does a presentation about it.)
    People in my extended family have met some of our distant relatives in Italy, and from them we have more of the family tree sketched in than we would have had otherwise – one line back to the early 1800s, which is much further back than I would have hoped for given my impression that vast numbers of records were destroyed during WWII. One of these distant relatives says that my surname, or some version of it, was brought into Italy from Spain five hundred years ago.
    So…are we really Spanish? Nah, five hundred years is a long time. But the lighthearted question does come from a more serious one, which is, what does it mean, genetically, to be “Italian” or “French” or “Indonesian”?
    No doubt the answer is almost always: It’s complicated. IIRC, the Genographic project’s main goal was to use the money it collected from people like me to fund DNA research on the dwindling number of relatively homogenous (genetically speaking) groups/tribes left on the planet. I haven’t kept up with how that research has progressed, but maybe after I retire, one of the things I’ll read up on is the level of hetero- vs homogeneity in the gene pools of various groups. I remember reading once online – too lazy/busy to chase down a link – that a study of DNA across Europe suggested just what you would expect, that the people on the fringes – Italians and Finns were prominently mentioned – were the most heterogenous. So there’s yet another way in which it becomes at least bemusing, if not downright problematic, to define what an “Italian” actually is.

  240. DNA is a big topic; every time it comes up to the extent that it has in this thread, I wish I had studied genetics instead of literature. (But then, I can wish I studied almost anything – except maybe finance – if the right person does a presentation about it.)
    People in my extended family have met some of our distant relatives in Italy, and from them we have more of the family tree sketched in than we would have had otherwise – one line back to the early 1800s, which is much further back than I would have hoped for given my impression that vast numbers of records were destroyed during WWII. One of these distant relatives says that my surname, or some version of it, was brought into Italy from Spain five hundred years ago.
    So…are we really Spanish? Nah, five hundred years is a long time. But the lighthearted question does come from a more serious one, which is, what does it mean, genetically, to be “Italian” or “French” or “Indonesian”?
    No doubt the answer is almost always: It’s complicated. IIRC, the Genographic project’s main goal was to use the money it collected from people like me to fund DNA research on the dwindling number of relatively homogenous (genetically speaking) groups/tribes left on the planet. I haven’t kept up with how that research has progressed, but maybe after I retire, one of the things I’ll read up on is the level of hetero- vs homogeneity in the gene pools of various groups. I remember reading once online – too lazy/busy to chase down a link – that a study of DNA across Europe suggested just what you would expect, that the people on the fringes – Italians and Finns were prominently mentioned – were the most heterogenous. So there’s yet another way in which it becomes at least bemusing, if not downright problematic, to define what an “Italian” actually is.

  241. A conflict with Spain regarding Gibraltar is something most Brexit voters would love, they love the empire and casting themselves as victims and it’s all so wonderfully distracting from the actual policy challenges ahead, a marvelous diversion – the sad excuse for a press in the UK (Sun, Mail, Torygraph, Times, Spectator, Express) will have a field day as will Bozo Johnson. Expect lots of bad history and national stereotypes being bandied about … Ironically Gibraltar voted 96% Remain.

  242. A conflict with Spain regarding Gibraltar is something most Brexit voters would love, they love the empire and casting themselves as victims and it’s all so wonderfully distracting from the actual policy challenges ahead, a marvelous diversion – the sad excuse for a press in the UK (Sun, Mail, Torygraph, Times, Spectator, Express) will have a field day as will Bozo Johnson. Expect lots of bad history and national stereotypes being bandied about … Ironically Gibraltar voted 96% Remain.

  243. Grrrrr, wrong thread, sorry. lj, if you can delete this I will repost it, or if you can repost it, even better.

  244. Grrrrr, wrong thread, sorry. lj, if you can delete this I will repost it, or if you can repost it, even better.

  245. GFTNC, wouldn’t that assume that they were clear on the economics of Brexit for them personally? Consider the perceived, as opposed to real, economic impact of Trump’s policy proposals on the areas that voted heavily for him
    It may be becoming clearer to them gradually, and maybe more so as the negotiations grind on. Not to mention as the government’s ongoing austerity package starts biting more and more. Plus, with a shortage of doctors in the NHS already, and the revelation that 10% of our doctors are EU nationals (probably not known to most Brexiteers, but presumably this stuff is going to keep drip-drip-dripping out) who have already started leaving, there is a chance that people (or enough people) will change their minds. But as I say, I am not hopeful, even in the somewhat unlikely event we get a second referendum.

  246. GFTNC, wouldn’t that assume that they were clear on the economics of Brexit for them personally? Consider the perceived, as opposed to real, economic impact of Trump’s policy proposals on the areas that voted heavily for him
    It may be becoming clearer to them gradually, and maybe more so as the negotiations grind on. Not to mention as the government’s ongoing austerity package starts biting more and more. Plus, with a shortage of doctors in the NHS already, and the revelation that 10% of our doctors are EU nationals (probably not known to most Brexiteers, but presumably this stuff is going to keep drip-drip-dripping out) who have already started leaving, there is a chance that people (or enough people) will change their minds. But as I say, I am not hopeful, even in the somewhat unlikely event we get a second referendum.

  247. another joke, and another prank, both from the mind of the wonderful Paul Desmond.
    Desmond was not really a family man, and had a string of girlfriends throughout his life. Upon seeing one walking down the street with a guy in a suit, he quipped, “There she goes, not with a whim, but with a banker!”.
    He owned a grand piano that he lent to Bradley Cunningham, owner of the NYC piano bar Bradley’s, on the condition that, upon Desmond’s death, Cunningham would pay to move the piano back to Desmond’s apartment so that it could be handled as part of his estate.
    Desmond passed, and Cunningham had the piano moved back to Desmond’s apartment, no doubt at some inconvenience and expense.
    When they read Desmond’s will, Cunningham was informed that Desmond had left the piano to him.
    Rim shot!!

  248. another joke, and another prank, both from the mind of the wonderful Paul Desmond.
    Desmond was not really a family man, and had a string of girlfriends throughout his life. Upon seeing one walking down the street with a guy in a suit, he quipped, “There she goes, not with a whim, but with a banker!”.
    He owned a grand piano that he lent to Bradley Cunningham, owner of the NYC piano bar Bradley’s, on the condition that, upon Desmond’s death, Cunningham would pay to move the piano back to Desmond’s apartment so that it could be handled as part of his estate.
    Desmond passed, and Cunningham had the piano moved back to Desmond’s apartment, no doubt at some inconvenience and expense.
    When they read Desmond’s will, Cunningham was informed that Desmond had left the piano to him.
    Rim shot!!

  251. nah, you know what : no goodbyes. more of the same.
    i’ve been here since at least September 2004. i’ve been here through countless trolls, Moe Lane’s transmogrification, Bird Dog turning into Charles Bird, then getting a damned blog named “Hating On Charles Bird” created in his (dis)-honor. i’ve seen some of the smartest people on the internet come and go through here. i’ve posted hundreds of comments of these 13.5 years, and i’ll be damned if i’m going to let the absurd fact that i’m the star of someone else’s victimization fantasies drive me away.
    i’ve done my best to ignore that person, despite the fact that she has derailed thread after thread, complaining about me and dragging other people into her complaints about me. and i’m going to keep ignoring her.
    Ugh, you’re the best, but you were wrong: i was not referencing NV. the debate between fundamentalism and pragmatism is as old as man. nobody here has the rights to all mentions of that debate. if the very word “pragmatism” sets someone off, that’s not my fucking fault, it’s a word that’s going to come up on a political blog.
    so, i’ll be back. count on it.

  252. nah, you know what : no goodbyes. more of the same.
    i’ve been here since at least September 2004. i’ve been here through countless trolls, Moe Lane’s transmogrification, Bird Dog turning into Charles Bird, then getting a damned blog named “Hating On Charles Bird” created in his (dis)-honor. i’ve seen some of the smartest people on the internet come and go through here. i’ve posted hundreds of comments of these 13.5 years, and i’ll be damned if i’m going to let the absurd fact that i’m the star of someone else’s victimization fantasies drive me away.
    i’ve done my best to ignore that person, despite the fact that she has derailed thread after thread, complaining about me and dragging other people into her complaints about me. and i’m going to keep ignoring her.
    Ugh, you’re the best, but you were wrong: i was not referencing NV. the debate between fundamentalism and pragmatism is as old as man. nobody here has the rights to all mentions of that debate. if the very word “pragmatism” sets someone off, that’s not my fucking fault, it’s a word that’s going to come up on a political blog.
    so, i’ll be back. count on it.

  259. cleek’s return and the mention of the fabric of ObWi reminds me of this from Steinbeck’s Cannery Row
    Eddie was understudy bartender at La Ida. He filled in when Whitey the regular bartender was sick, which was as often as Whitey could get away with it. Every time Eddie filled in, a few bottles disappeared, so he couldn’t fill in too often. But Whitey liked to have Eddie take his place because he was convinced, and correctly, that Eddie was one man who wouldn’t try to keep his job permanently. Almost anyone could have trusted Eddie to this extent. Eddie didn’t have to remove much liquor. He kept a gallon jug under the bar and in the mouth of the jug there was a funnel. Anything left in the glasses Eddie poured into the funnel before he washed the glasses. If an argument or a song were going on at La Ida, or late at night when good fellowship had reached its logical conclusion, Eddie poured glasses half or two-thirds full into the funnel. The resulting punch which he took back to the Palace was always interesting and sometimes surprising. The mixture of rye, beer, bourbon, scotch, wine, rum and gin was fairly constant, but now and then some effete customer would order a stinger or an anisette or a curasao and these little touches gave a distinct character to the punch. It was Eddie’s habit always to shake a little angostura into the jug just before he left. On a good night Eddie got three-quarters of a gallon. It was a source of satisfaction to him that nobody was out anything. He had observed that a man got just as drunk on half a glass as on a whole one, that is, if he was in the mood to get drunk stall.
    Don’t like the homophobic line in the middle of that, but I find the gallon jug to be an apt metaphor for this place. I have no idea who is which ingredient, but I am confident you are all contributing to the mix.

  260. cleek’s return and the mention of the fabric of ObWi reminds me of this from Steinbeck’s Cannery Row
    Eddie was understudy bartender at La Ida. He filled in when Whitey the regular bartender was sick, which was as often as Whitey could get away with it. Every time Eddie filled in, a few bottles disappeared, so he couldn’t fill in too often. But Whitey liked to have Eddie take his place because he was convinced, and correctly, that Eddie was one man who wouldn’t try to keep his job permanently. Almost anyone could have trusted Eddie to this extent. Eddie didn’t have to remove much liquor. He kept a gallon jug under the bar and in the mouth of the jug there was a funnel. Anything left in the glasses Eddie poured into the funnel before he washed the glasses. If an argument or a song were going on at La Ida, or late at night when good fellowship had reached its logical conclusion, Eddie poured glasses half or two-thirds full into the funnel. The resulting punch which he took back to the Palace was always interesting and sometimes surprising. The mixture of rye, beer, bourbon, scotch, wine, rum and gin was fairly constant, but now and then some effete customer would order a stinger or an anisette or a curasao and these little touches gave a distinct character to the punch. It was Eddie’s habit always to shake a little angostura into the jug just before he left. On a good night Eddie got three-quarters of a gallon. It was a source of satisfaction to him that nobody was out anything. He had observed that a man got just as drunk on half a glass as on a whole one, that is, if he was in the mood to get drunk stall.
    Don’t like the homophobic line in the middle of that, but I find the gallon jug to be an apt metaphor for this place. I have no idea who is which ingredient, but I am confident you are all contributing to the mix.

  261. “Two things I have learned, cleek is always going to be snarky (apologies to Snarki)”
    Thanks for the sentiment, but no apology necessary. I am perfectly happy being the embodiment of the Internet, and all who troll in its vineyards.

  262. “Two things I have learned, cleek is always going to be snarky (apologies to Snarki)”
    Thanks for the sentiment, but no apology necessary. I am perfectly happy being the embodiment of the Internet, and all who troll in its vineyards.

  265. I have over many decades learned many hundreds of jokes, and have not forgotten them all, but somehow to me – as to most of the commenters above, apparently – jokes don’t seem quite suitable fare in this Age of Absurdity: funny, perhaps, but not funny enough to ward off the ubiquitous dread.
    Except – and this keeps coming to mind – a line scribbled in a men’s room right above one of the urinals:
    WHY ARE YOU LOOKING UP HERE WHEN THE JOKE IS IN YOUR HAND?

  266. I have over many decades learned many hundreds of jokes, and have not forgotten them all, but somehow to me – as to most of the commenters above, apparently – jokes don’t seem quite suitable fare in this Age of Absurdity: funny, perhaps, but not funny enough to ward off the ubiquitous dread.
    Except – and this keeps coming to mind – a line scribbled in a men’s room right above one of the urinals:
    WHY ARE YOU LOOKING UP HERE WHEN THE JOKE IS IN YOUR HAND?

  267. [cleek]: the debate between fundamentalism and pragmatism is as old as man.

    The Closer is a great show and there’s a particular episode, Serving the King that’s apropos.
    In it Brenda gives a speech about the conflict between pragmatism and idealism. I recommend it.

  268. [cleek]: the debate between fundamentalism and pragmatism is as old as man.

    The Closer is a great show and there’s a particular episode, Serving the King that’s apropos.
    In it Brenda gives a speech about the conflict between pragmatism and idealism. I recommend it.

  269. Piano prank is nice. I think musicians are big on pranks. When I was in HS band, our band director used to listen to the rehearsals on a big reel to reel recorder and headphones. One day, he did something and got a big feedback shriek and ripped off the headphones and shouted an obscenity. My and my best friend, a trombone player, ran into the office and started moving our mouths like we were says ‘are you alright? everything ok?) but making no sound. He said something, realized he could hear it and said ‘don’t ever do that again’.
    Yeah, pranks have a cruel streak, but gawd, they are fun.
    One guy I knew, a sax player, had a dog whistle, and during the sound checks, he’d surreptitiously blow the whistle, pegging all the dials, but nothing could be heard. The sound guy had to go check all his connections to make sure everything was ok.
    I had my horn out and my I heard my sax playing roommate having a go at it. I waited a bit, came in and started to play and made a godawful sound with my horn and looked at him and said ‘What did you do to my horn’. The look of shock was pretty funny.
    My people, I guess…

  270. Piano prank is nice. I think musicians are big on pranks. When I was in HS band, our band director used to listen to the rehearsals on a big reel to reel recorder and headphones. One day, he did something and got a big feedback shriek and ripped off the headphones and shouted an obscenity. My and my best friend, a trombone player, ran into the office and started moving our mouths like we were says ‘are you alright? everything ok?) but making no sound. He said something, realized he could hear it and said ‘don’t ever do that again’.
    Yeah, pranks have a cruel streak, but gawd, they are fun.
    One guy I knew, a sax player, had a dog whistle, and during the sound checks, he’d surreptitiously blow the whistle, pegging all the dials, but nothing could be heard. The sound guy had to go check all his connections to make sure everything was ok.
    I had my horn out and my I heard my sax playing roommate having a go at it. I waited a bit, came in and started to play and made a godawful sound with my horn and looked at him and said ‘What did you do to my horn’. The look of shock was pretty funny.
    My people, I guess…

  271. “There was a man who lived in the German city of Baden Baden in the 18th century. He was a carpenter by trade, but he made a hobby of carving decorative scrolls for violins with his leftover pieces of wood. (The scroll of a violin is the curly bit at the end of the neck, where the tuning pegs are.) Shortly after he began carving them, people began to recognize them as the most luxurious scrolls a musician could buy. The level of detail was held in such high regard that major musicians of the time began putting them on their instruments, and the carpenter made a fortune.”
    “His prosperity, however was short lived. Soon after attaching the scrolls to their violins, it was discovered that the note Middle C wouldn’t play with these scrolls. Nobody had an explanation, but nothing anyone tried could fix this bizarre problem.”
    “The carpenter was forced to return to his old trade, and musicians have since known him as the man responsible for the Dead C Scrolls.”

  272. “There was a man who lived in the German city of Baden Baden in the 18th century. He was a carpenter by trade, but he made a hobby of carving decorative scrolls for violins with his leftover pieces of wood. (The scroll of a violin is the curly bit at the end of the neck, where the tuning pegs are.) Shortly after he began carving them, people began to recognize them as the most luxurious scrolls a musician could buy. The level of detail was held in such high regard that major musicians of the time began putting them on their instruments, and the carpenter made a fortune.”
    “His prosperity, however was short lived. Soon after attaching the scrolls to their violins, it was discovered that the note Middle C wouldn’t play with these scrolls. Nobody had an explanation, but nothing anyone tried could fix this bizarre problem.”
    “The carpenter was forced to return to his old trade, and musicians have since known him as the man responsible for the Dead C Scrolls.”

  273. In heaven, Jesus has to take God’s place for a bit at the gate, deciding who is to go in and who isn’t. While he’s working, he suddenly hears someone who had entered heaven sobbing.
    Jesus stops the line and goes over to talk to him and says ‘hey, this is Heaven, why are you crying like this?’
    The man, between heaving sobs, says ‘I just want to find my son. I can’t find him’.
    Jesus says ‘hey, don’t worry, I can help. So you just had one son?’
    The man says, ‘Yes, yes, he was an amazing boy, he was a miracle.’
    Jesus then says ‘Well, ok, where are you from?’
    The man says ‘well, I’m from the Mediterranean’.
    Jesus says, as a notion is coming into his head, ‘Mediterranean, check, and what kind of work did you do on earth?’
    The man says ‘I worked with wood, I was a carpenter.’
    Jesus is shocked and drops his clipboard and says hesitantly ‘Father?’
    And the man says
    ‘Pinocchio?’

  274. In heaven, Jesus has to take God’s place for a bit at the gate, deciding who is to go in and who isn’t. While he’s working, he suddenly hears someone who had entered heaven sobbing.
    Jesus stops the line and goes over to talk to him and says ‘hey, this is Heaven, why are you crying like this?’
    The man, between heaving sobs, says ‘I just want to find my son. I can’t find him’.
    Jesus says ‘hey, don’t worry, I can help. So you just had one son?’
    The man says, ‘Yes, yes, he was an amazing boy, he was a miracle.’
    Jesus then says ‘Well, ok, where are you from?’
    The man says ‘well, I’m from the Mediterranean’.
    Jesus says, as a notion is coming into his head, ‘Mediterranean, check, and what kind of work did you do on earth?’
    The man says ‘I worked with wood, I was a carpenter.’
    Jesus is shocked and drops his clipboard and says hesitantly ‘Father?’
    And the man says
    ‘Pinocchio?’

  275. Good joke lj, and I particularly liked Snarki’s pun about the Internet and those who troll in its vineyards. Not too keen on most practical jokes because they are always at someone’s expense, in what can seem a mean way. But different strokes etc.
    I am attaching here the latest in a series of Observer articles by carole Cadwalladr on Mercer, data, the Russians etc. She is building quite an interesting picture of how some very rich amoral people are interfering in our (US and UK) democracies, aided immeasurably by modern technology. This piece is based around an interview with Arron Banks, the guy who almost singlehandedly funded UKIP, thus producing a result (Brexit) after e.g. Putin’s heart’s desire. For anybody who is interested:
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/02/arron-banks-interview-brexit-ukip-far-right-trump-putin-russia

  276. Good joke lj, and I particularly liked Snarki’s pun about the Internet and those who troll in its vineyards. Not too keen on most practical jokes because they are always at someone’s expense, in what can seem a mean way. But different strokes etc.
    I am attaching here the latest in a series of Observer articles by carole Cadwalladr on Mercer, data, the Russians etc. She is building quite an interesting picture of how some very rich amoral people are interfering in our (US and UK) democracies, aided immeasurably by modern technology. This piece is based around an interview with Arron Banks, the guy who almost singlehandedly funded UKIP, thus producing a result (Brexit) after e.g. Putin’s heart’s desire. For anybody who is interested:
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/02/arron-banks-interview-brexit-ukip-far-right-trump-putin-russia

  281. Not too keen on most practical jokes because they are always at someone’s expense, in what can seem a mean way. But different strokes etc.
    That’s a good point, and there was always an ethos (at least among the people I was with) that pulling a prank on someone was saying that if you got pranked, you would accept it with good grace. Which means you don’t prank people that can’t prank back. Of course, it is easy to justify that, especially when someone takes exception it (the cry of the bully is to claim that if the bullee could just ‘take it’, everything would be fine). And I think it is something that you do (or I did) as a college student. There is a certain amount of innocence that comes with that and it’s easy to see how relentless pranking can turn into a kind of oppression.

  282. Not too keen on most practical jokes because they are always at someone’s expense, in what can seem a mean way. But different strokes etc.
    That’s a good point, and there was always an ethos (at least among the people I was with) that pulling a prank on someone was saying that if you got pranked, you would accept it with good grace. Which means you don’t prank people that can’t prank back. Of course, it is easy to justify that, especially when someone takes exception it (the cry of the bully is to claim that if the bullee could just ‘take it’, everything would be fine). And I think it is something that you do (or I did) as a college student. There is a certain amount of innocence that comes with that and it’s easy to see how relentless pranking can turn into a kind of oppression.

  283. i’ve done my best to ignore that person, despite the fact that she has derailed thread after thread, complaining about me and dragging other people into her complaints about me.
    I wonder who’s the one with the “victimization fantasies” here …

  284. i’ve done my best to ignore that person, despite the fact that she has derailed thread after thread, complaining about me and dragging other people into her complaints about me.
    I wonder who’s the one with the “victimization fantasies” here …

  289. i only called one person a troll: you. because it seemed that you were intent on trying to provoke me into an argument – as you are apparently still trying to do.
    perhaps if you stopped doing that i could change my mind?
    the ball’s in your court, playa.

  290. i only called one person a troll: you. because it seemed that you were intent on trying to provoke me into an argument – as you are apparently still trying to do.
    perhaps if you stopped doing that i could change my mind?
    the ball’s in your court, playa.

  291. the ‘jam v marmalade’ joke is one of my all time favorites because it’s so short, simple and shockingly rude. but i can’t repeat it here. i can’t even recommend you go look it up.
    one of me father-in-law’s favorite jokes was this one:

    A scientific expedition disembarks from its plane at the final outpost of civilization in the deepest Amazon rain forest. They immediately notice the ceaseless thrumming of native drums. As they venture further into the bush, the drums never stop, day or night, for weeks.
    The lead scientist asks one of the natives about this, and the native’s only reply is “Drums good. Drums never stop. Very BAD if drums stop.”
    The drumming continues, night and day, until one night, six weeks into the trip, when the jungle is suddenly silent. Immediately the natives run screaming from their huts, covering their ears. The scientists grab one boy and demand “What is it? The drums have stopped!”
    The terror-stricken youth replies “Yes! Drums stop! VERY BAD!”
    The scientists ask “Why? Why? What will happen?”
    Wild-eyed, the boy responds,
    ” . . . BASS SOLO!!!”

  292. the ‘jam v marmalade’ joke is one of my all time favorites because it’s so short, simple and shockingly rude. but i can’t repeat it here. i can’t even recommend you go look it up.
    one of me father-in-law’s favorite jokes was this one:

    A scientific expedition disembarks from its plane at the final outpost of civilization in the deepest Amazon rain forest. They immediately notice the ceaseless thrumming of native drums. As they venture further into the bush, the drums never stop, day or night, for weeks.
    The lead scientist asks one of the natives about this, and the native’s only reply is “Drums good. Drums never stop. Very BAD if drums stop.”
    The drumming continues, night and day, until one night, six weeks into the trip, when the jungle is suddenly silent. Immediately the natives run screaming from their huts, covering their ears. The scientists grab one boy and demand “What is it? The drums have stopped!”
    The terror-stricken youth replies “Yes! Drums stop! VERY BAD!”
    The scientists ask “Why? Why? What will happen?”
    Wild-eyed, the boy responds,
    ” . . . BASS SOLO!!!”

  293. cleek: Ugh, you’re the best, but you were wrong
    My bad. Just wanted to note that referencing NV was what jumped to my mind as well when I read your rudderless pragmatist (is there any other kind, he asks, like grave danger?) comment.
    The fight and post-mortem over the 2016 election, both primary and general, reminds me of my view that certain topics should have their own permanent side bar conversation where people can continuously talk about it without infecting other threads. These include abortion, Israel-Palestine, and the 2000 Presidential election. Probably a few others.

  294. cleek: Ugh, you’re the best, but you were wrong
    My bad. Just wanted to note that referencing NV was what jumped to my mind as well when I read your rudderless pragmatist (is there any other kind, he asks, like grave danger?) comment.
    The fight and post-mortem over the 2016 election, both primary and general, reminds me of my view that certain topics should have their own permanent side bar conversation where people can continuously talk about it without infecting other threads. These include abortion, Israel-Palestine, and the 2000 Presidential election. Probably a few others.

  295. That last thing I want is to engage in an argument with you, cleek, you have simply been quite rude lately and I am calling you on it.

  296. That last thing I want is to engage in an argument with you, cleek, you have simply been quite rude lately and I am calling you on it.

  297. novakant, i seriously want threads to stop being about me. can you help me accomplish this?

  298. novakant, i seriously want threads to stop being about me. can you help me accomplish this?

  299. A template for trump’s america as the going gets tough for the White House and the Republican Party:
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/04/03/a-bomb-hits-russia-s-st-petersburg-metro-conspiracy-theories-follow.html?via=newsletter&source=DDMorning
    Make no mistake, the legitimate opposition in America will be accused by the far right trump amplifiers, we’re talking Jim Hoft and company, of complicity in terrorism when it occurs.
    The black guy is the ringleader.

  300. A template for trump’s america as the going gets tough for the White House and the Republican Party:
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/04/03/a-bomb-hits-russia-s-st-petersburg-metro-conspiracy-theories-follow.html?via=newsletter&source=DDMorning
    Make no mistake, the legitimate opposition in America will be accused by the far right trump amplifiers, we’re talking Jim Hoft and company, of complicity in terrorism when it occurs.
    The black guy is the ringleader.

  305. The jam v marmalade joke: utterly revolting, you were completely correct not to recommend it – I wish I’d listened. Not because it’s rude…
    However, I love the Bass Solo!! joke. It reminds me of my beloved late brother-in-law, who was a musician from San Francisco and spent a long agonising time dying. He was terribly claustrophobic, so hated any scan in a confined space etc, which they usually got over by my sister sitting nearby and reading to him or holding his hand. But for one of his last scans he was completely enclosed in a tube (his utter nightmare – I think it may have been a PET Scan) and they couldn’t play music or anything inside because the machine was so incredibly noisy, and he had to be in it for AGES. However, he was really brave, so he gritted his teeth and went into the thing. When they got him out, and asked him if he was OK, how had it been? the only thing he said was:
    “Too much bass.”
    He was the coolest.

  306. The jam v marmalade joke: utterly revolting, you were completely correct not to recommend it – I wish I’d listened. Not because it’s rude…
    However, I love the Bass Solo!! joke. It reminds me of my beloved late brother-in-law, who was a musician from San Francisco and spent a long agonising time dying. He was terribly claustrophobic, so hated any scan in a confined space etc, which they usually got over by my sister sitting nearby and reading to him or holding his hand. But for one of his last scans he was completely enclosed in a tube (his utter nightmare – I think it may have been a PET Scan) and they couldn’t play music or anything inside because the machine was so incredibly noisy, and he had to be in it for AGES. However, he was really brave, so he gritted his teeth and went into the thing. When they got him out, and asked him if he was OK, how had it been? the only thing he said was:
    “Too much bass.”
    He was the coolest.

  309. Yeah, no worries. It’s not the obscenity (no problem for the likes of moi) it’s the sort of frat boy tone of it (most unlike my idea of you, cleek, I must say!)

  310. Yeah, no worries. It’s not the obscenity (no problem for the likes of moi) it’s the sort of frat boy tone of it (most unlike my idea of you, cleek, I must say!)

  311. hmm. now that i think about it, you’re right: it is fratty. i first heard it from a female friend, so it’s always been ‘Blair’s joke’, to me. i will reconsider.
    on the other hand, my all time favorite joke is the “a piece of string walks into a bar” joke. on the off-chance you were never 8, you can look that one up safely.
    puns are the best!

  312. hmm. now that i think about it, you’re right: it is fratty. i first heard it from a female friend, so it’s always been ‘Blair’s joke’, to me. i will reconsider.
    on the other hand, my all time favorite joke is the “a piece of string walks into a bar” joke. on the off-chance you were never 8, you can look that one up safely.
    puns are the best!

  317. the only thing he said was:
    “Too much bass.”
    He was the coolest.
    Beautiful.
    I don’t even know the guy and I’m sorry he’s gone.

  318. the only thing he said was:
    “Too much bass.”
    He was the coolest.
    Beautiful.
    I don’t even know the guy and I’m sorry he’s gone.

  319. “Too much bass.”
    that’s a great one.
    Don’t. Even. Start.
    help, help, i’m being estopped!

  320. “Too much bass.”
    that’s a great one.
    Don’t. Even. Start.
    help, help, i’m being estopped!

  321. He died in his 50s, in the late 90s, and his funeral was full of hundreds of people, some of whom had been at high school with him and hadn’t seen him since. He came from a very white, somewhat military, somewhat rightwing background (he was the opposite), and a bunch of black guys who’d been at school with him told my sister that although he was a big football guy, very social etc, unlike most other people there he had been completely colour-blind, and when they heard he died they felt they had to come. Everything about him was cool.

  322. He died in his 50s, in the late 90s, and his funeral was full of hundreds of people, some of whom had been at high school with him and hadn’t seen him since. He came from a very white, somewhat military, somewhat rightwing background (he was the opposite), and a bunch of black guys who’d been at school with him told my sister that although he was a big football guy, very social etc, unlike most other people there he had been completely colour-blind, and when they heard he died they felt they had to come. Everything about him was cool.

  323. I have told this joke, but never tried to type it out.
    A trio of jazzers got a gig on the Titanic, but of course, it was playing crappy 2 beat slow music, Boom chik, boom chik, ba boom chik boom chik,
    when they hit the iceberg.
    The purser comes to them and says ‘please keep playing, we don’t want anyone to panic’. The trio nod and they keep playing Boom chik, boom chik, ba boom chik boom chik…
    They take the women and children first, and the trio keeps playing, Boom chik, boom chik, ba boom chik boom chik.
    Then the men leave and the trio keeps playing
    Boom chik, boom chik, ba boom chik boom chik,
    They the service staff leave and the trio keeps playing
    Boom chik, boom chik, ba boom chik boom chik,
    And, as they are playing
    Boom chik, boom chik, ba boom chik boom chik,
    the water starts creeping into the ballroom and reaches the bandstand
    At that moment, the trio all look at each other and they seem to share a thought. The pianist says ‘are you thinking what I’m thinking’. The bassist says ‘yeah, let’s go into 4!’

  324. I have told this joke, but never tried to type it out.
    A trio of jazzers got a gig on the Titanic, but of course, it was playing crappy 2 beat slow music, Boom chik, boom chik, ba boom chik boom chik,
    when they hit the iceberg.
    The purser comes to them and says ‘please keep playing, we don’t want anyone to panic’. The trio nod and they keep playing Boom chik, boom chik, ba boom chik boom chik…
    They take the women and children first, and the trio keeps playing, Boom chik, boom chik, ba boom chik boom chik.
    Then the men leave and the trio keeps playing
    Boom chik, boom chik, ba boom chik boom chik,
    They the service staff leave and the trio keeps playing
    Boom chik, boom chik, ba boom chik boom chik,
    And, as they are playing
    Boom chik, boom chik, ba boom chik boom chik,
    the water starts creeping into the ballroom and reaches the bandstand
    At that moment, the trio all look at each other and they seem to share a thought. The pianist says ‘are you thinking what I’m thinking’. The bassist says ‘yeah, let’s go into 4!’

  327. Seriously, this is fncking insane:
    The goal is to “figure out who you are communicating with,” the senior DHS official said. “What you can get on the average person’s phone can be invaluable.”
    A second change would ask applicants for their social-media handles and passwords so that officials could see information posted privately in addition to public posts. DHS has experimented with asking for people’s handles so they can read public posts, but not those restricted to friends.
    “We want to say for instance, ‘What sites do you visit? And give us your passwords,’ so that we can see what they do on the internet,” Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly said at a congressional hearing in February. “If they don’t want to give us that information then they don’t come.”
    How long until they want to apply this to Americans returning from overseas trips?

  328. Seriously, this is fncking insane:
    The goal is to “figure out who you are communicating with,” the senior DHS official said. “What you can get on the average person’s phone can be invaluable.”
    A second change would ask applicants for their social-media handles and passwords so that officials could see information posted privately in addition to public posts. DHS has experimented with asking for people’s handles so they can read public posts, but not those restricted to friends.
    “We want to say for instance, ‘What sites do you visit? And give us your passwords,’ so that we can see what they do on the internet,” Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly said at a congressional hearing in February. “If they don’t want to give us that information then they don’t come.”
    How long until they want to apply this to Americans returning from overseas trips?

  331. Hans Fiene is a Lutheran pastor in Illinois and the creator of Lutheran Satire, a series of comical videos intended to teach the Lutheran faith.
    I was hoping this was part of his “satire” (however horrible it would be if it’s satire) but then there’s this where he seems to be serious.
    But Donald Trump is President of the United States of America, so who the fnck knows.
    Separately, I keep wondering how much of libertarian and conservative ideology is there to make horribly selfish people feel good about themselves and their “fnck them!” political views. A fair bit ISTM.

  332. Hans Fiene is a Lutheran pastor in Illinois and the creator of Lutheran Satire, a series of comical videos intended to teach the Lutheran faith.
    I was hoping this was part of his “satire” (however horrible it would be if it’s satire) but then there’s this where he seems to be serious.
    But Donald Trump is President of the United States of America, so who the fnck knows.
    Separately, I keep wondering how much of libertarian and conservative ideology is there to make horribly selfish people feel good about themselves and their “fnck them!” political views. A fair bit ISTM.

  333. “Separately, I keep wondering how much of libertarian and conservative ideology is there to make horribly selfish people feel good about themselves and their “fnck them!” political views. A fair bit ISTM.”
    Separately I keep wondering when legislating charity and caring became the sole province of a centralized federal government. A fair bit of left wing politics is based on the greater me knowing how and for whom you should spend your money to help others.

  334. “Separately, I keep wondering how much of libertarian and conservative ideology is there to make horribly selfish people feel good about themselves and their “fnck them!” political views. A fair bit ISTM.”
    Separately I keep wondering when legislating charity and caring became the sole province of a centralized federal government. A fair bit of left wing politics is based on the greater me knowing how and for whom you should spend your money to help others.

  335. A fair bit of left wing politics is based on the greater me knowing how and for whom you should spend your money to help others.
    isn’t spending your money to help others kindof a fundamental function and raisin-d’etre of government?
    even law enforcement is ‘spending your money to help others’ by enforcing the laws that protect us all. so is military defense is ‘spending your money to help others’ by keeping us all safe (in theory).

  336. A fair bit of left wing politics is based on the greater me knowing how and for whom you should spend your money to help others.
    isn’t spending your money to help others kindof a fundamental function and raisin-d’etre of government?
    even law enforcement is ‘spending your money to help others’ by enforcing the laws that protect us all. so is military defense is ‘spending your money to help others’ by keeping us all safe (in theory).

  337. How long until they want to apply this to Americans returning from overseas trips?
    Any day now, I figure.
    There’s already this sh!t going on, and this, and who knows how much more.
    And there’s pushback, but I don’t know if there will or can be enough to matter. At the moment of contact, these people have godlike, or should I say satanlike powers over us.

  338. How long until they want to apply this to Americans returning from overseas trips?
    Any day now, I figure.
    There’s already this sh!t going on, and this, and who knows how much more.
    And there’s pushback, but I don’t know if there will or can be enough to matter. At the moment of contact, these people have godlike, or should I say satanlike powers over us.

  339. Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly said at a congressional hearing in February. “If they don’t want to give us that information then they don’t come.”
    and Bernie Sanders voted to confirm Kelly.
    /facepalm

  340. Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly said at a congressional hearing in February. “If they don’t want to give us that information then they don’t come.”
    and Bernie Sanders voted to confirm Kelly.
    /facepalm

  341. I’m a bit late to this party but here is a joke I heard years ago that might be enjoyed by some with an appreciation for music:
    C,E-flat and G go into a bar.
    The bartender says, “Sorry, but we don’t serve minors”
    So E-Flat leaves and C and G have as open 5th between them.
    After a few drinks the 5th is diminished and the G is out flat. An F comes in and tries to augment the situation but is not sharp enough. A D comes into the bar and heads straight for the bathroom saying,*Excuse me, I’ll just be a second”
    An A comes into the bar but the bartender is not convinced this realtive of C is not a minor. Then the bartender notices a B-Flat hiding at the end of the bar and excalims, “Get out now! You’re the seventh minor I’ve found in the bar tonight.” The E-Flat is not easily deflated, comes back to the bar the next night in a 3-piece suit with nicely shined shoes. The bartender who used to have a nice coporate job until his company downsized, says, “You’re looking sharp tonight, come on in! This could be a major development.” This proves to be the case as the E-Flat takes off the suit and everything else and stands there au natural.
    Eventually C sobers up and realizes in horror he is under a rest. The C is brought to trial, found guilty of contributing to the diminution of a minor, and is sentenced to 10 years of DS without Coda at an upscale correctional facility. On appeal, however, the C is found innocent of any wrong doing, even accidental, and that all accusations to the contrary are bassless.

  342. I’m a bit late to this party but here is a joke I heard years ago that might be enjoyed by some with an appreciation for music:
    C,E-flat and G go into a bar.
    The bartender says, “Sorry, but we don’t serve minors”
    So E-Flat leaves and C and G have as open 5th between them.
    After a few drinks the 5th is diminished and the G is out flat. An F comes in and tries to augment the situation but is not sharp enough. A D comes into the bar and heads straight for the bathroom saying,*Excuse me, I’ll just be a second”
    An A comes into the bar but the bartender is not convinced this realtive of C is not a minor. Then the bartender notices a B-Flat hiding at the end of the bar and excalims, “Get out now! You’re the seventh minor I’ve found in the bar tonight.” The E-Flat is not easily deflated, comes back to the bar the next night in a 3-piece suit with nicely shined shoes. The bartender who used to have a nice coporate job until his company downsized, says, “You’re looking sharp tonight, come on in! This could be a major development.” This proves to be the case as the E-Flat takes off the suit and everything else and stands there au natural.
    Eventually C sobers up and realizes in horror he is under a rest. The C is brought to trial, found guilty of contributing to the diminution of a minor, and is sentenced to 10 years of DS without Coda at an upscale correctional facility. On appeal, however, the C is found innocent of any wrong doing, even accidental, and that all accusations to the contrary are bassless.

  343. Separately I keep wondering when legislating charity and caring became the sole province of a centralized federal government. A fair bit of left wing politics is based on the greater me knowing how and for whom you should spend your money to help others.
    I’m not quite clear how state, as opposed to federal government doing this would be any different. Especially in those states which are, in size and population, bigger than lots of countries.
    For that matter, how is my city government deciding that my money should be spent to build a bridge help others be able to get across the creek to town? It’s not like it does me any good, since my house is on this side.

  344. Separately I keep wondering when legislating charity and caring became the sole province of a centralized federal government. A fair bit of left wing politics is based on the greater me knowing how and for whom you should spend your money to help others.
    I’m not quite clear how state, as opposed to federal government doing this would be any different. Especially in those states which are, in size and population, bigger than lots of countries.
    For that matter, how is my city government deciding that my money should be spent to build a bridge help others be able to get across the creek to town? It’s not like it does me any good, since my house is on this side.

  345. JanieM,
    It’s always a good idea to transfer your important files, encrypted, prior to going through customs.
    Encrypting the hard drive is good too. I prefer to use a password that ‘threatens the president’, so that the only way they can force you to reveal it is to give you immunity against threatening the president. Which is a nice thing to have in 2017.
    But leave some unencrypted stuff for the BorderNazis to play with. I suggest nasty viruses would be appropriate. Or Windows, much the same.

  346. JanieM,
    It’s always a good idea to transfer your important files, encrypted, prior to going through customs.
    Encrypting the hard drive is good too. I prefer to use a password that ‘threatens the president’, so that the only way they can force you to reveal it is to give you immunity against threatening the president. Which is a nice thing to have in 2017.
    But leave some unencrypted stuff for the BorderNazis to play with. I suggest nasty viruses would be appropriate. Or Windows, much the same.

  347. From cleek’s Federalist cite:

    Imagine that friendship is a good that people acquire in exchange for the currency of their time. The average man lives in a competitive friendship market where some forms of friendship appeal to him more than others and therefore get his business.

    Land of the Ferengis.

  348. From cleek’s Federalist cite:

    Imagine that friendship is a good that people acquire in exchange for the currency of their time. The average man lives in a competitive friendship market where some forms of friendship appeal to him more than others and therefore get his business.

    Land of the Ferengis.

  351. Still awaiting word from the Grand Nagus Trump as to how much latinum a man forfeits by having a non-sexual friendship with a feemale.

  352. Still awaiting word from the Grand Nagus Trump as to how much latinum a man forfeits by having a non-sexual friendship with a feemale.

  353. russell, I happened to take a class, Bayesian Modeling, Inference, Prediction and Decision-Making. David Draper (the instructor) is a great teacher. It’s basically a short graduate course in applied statistics.
    One thing that comes up is a “utility function” used to quantify results, and of course it’s commonplace to consider that function’s resulting units as money.
    I happened to be facing a practical decision at work so I asked Prof. Draper, “does anyone really make decisions this way?” He laughed, and said “no.” Expanding: this way of reasoning is a method to help think clearly about decision making, not just an automatic way to an answer.

  354. russell, I happened to take a class, Bayesian Modeling, Inference, Prediction and Decision-Making. David Draper (the instructor) is a great teacher. It’s basically a short graduate course in applied statistics.
    One thing that comes up is a “utility function” used to quantify results, and of course it’s commonplace to consider that function’s resulting units as money.
    I happened to be facing a practical decision at work so I asked Prof. Draper, “does anyone really make decisions this way?” He laughed, and said “no.” Expanding: this way of reasoning is a method to help think clearly about decision making, not just an automatic way to an answer.

  357. Naturally, if she’s a ferengi! Don’t you remember your Rules of Acquisition?

  358. Naturally, if she’s a ferengi! Don’t you remember your Rules of Acquisition?

  359. “isn’t spending your money to help others kindof a fundamental function and raisin-d’etre of government?”
    I have been a little tied up but the answer to this is no.
    There is a difference between collecting taxes and using that money for the common good and collecting taxes to redistribute wealth.
    The purpose for government as defined in our founding document, IMO, is to do the first. The litmus test for that is whether it is a common good.
    Roads, bridges, defense, law enforcement, all fall into the category of things to do to promote the general welfare. None of those are redistribution mechanisms beyond the decision that the taxes should be collected based on income level.
    To collect taxes and allocate those for the specific good, no matter how good, is simply taking the charitable nature of the populace and forcing it to support the favorite charities of the majority. As the federal government has taken a larger role, the charitable nature of individuals has been lessened, again IMO, because they assume the government is taking care of it.
    My favorite example of this is that Planned Parenthood would most likely be able to collect the vast majority of its monetary needs from individuals and charitable organizations, but it spends its time and money, and the supporting PAC money, trying to ensure it gets the money from the government.
    A long way to say, no not really.

  360. “isn’t spending your money to help others kindof a fundamental function and raisin-d’etre of government?”
    I have been a little tied up but the answer to this is no.
    There is a difference between collecting taxes and using that money for the common good and collecting taxes to redistribute wealth.
    The purpose for government as defined in our founding document, IMO, is to do the first. The litmus test for that is whether it is a common good.
    Roads, bridges, defense, law enforcement, all fall into the category of things to do to promote the general welfare. None of those are redistribution mechanisms beyond the decision that the taxes should be collected based on income level.
    To collect taxes and allocate those for the specific good, no matter how good, is simply taking the charitable nature of the populace and forcing it to support the favorite charities of the majority. As the federal government has taken a larger role, the charitable nature of individuals has been lessened, again IMO, because they assume the government is taking care of it.
    My favorite example of this is that Planned Parenthood would most likely be able to collect the vast majority of its monetary needs from individuals and charitable organizations, but it spends its time and money, and the supporting PAC money, trying to ensure it gets the money from the government.
    A long way to say, no not really.

  361. The purpose for government as defined in our founding document
    the one that starts like this?

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare…

    ?
    the charitable nature of individuals has been lessened, again IMO
    assuming 2016 was anything like 2015, charitable giving in the US is at an all-time high.
    https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/content.view/cpid/42#
    forcing it to support the favorite charities of the majority.
    charities? such as?
    certainly you’re not talking about the tax exemption for churches.
    and, Planned Parenthood is quite literally the only form of health care tens of millions of women in this country receive.

  362. The purpose for government as defined in our founding document
    the one that starts like this?

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare…

    ?
    the charitable nature of individuals has been lessened, again IMO
    assuming 2016 was anything like 2015, charitable giving in the US is at an all-time high.
    https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/content.view/cpid/42#
    forcing it to support the favorite charities of the majority.
    charities? such as?
    certainly you’re not talking about the tax exemption for churches.
    and, Planned Parenthood is quite literally the only form of health care tens of millions of women in this country receive.

  365. There is a difference between collecting taxes and using that money for the common good and collecting taxes to redistribute wealth.
    i’m hard pressed to think of a ‘common good’ that could not be, and frankly has not been, construed to be a transfer of wealth.

  366. There is a difference between collecting taxes and using that money for the common good and collecting taxes to redistribute wealth.
    i’m hard pressed to think of a ‘common good’ that could not be, and frankly has not been, construed to be a transfer of wealth.

  369. build a road. money is transferred from govt to the people who own the shovels. in return, in theory, everybody benefits from increased access; but the people who benefit most are those who live near the road and will use it most often. people who don’t live near the road might never use it.
    my wealth has been taken and used to benefit jerks in Oklahoma! i paid for a road i will never even see on a map! those people are enjoying a better life on my dime.

  370. build a road. money is transferred from govt to the people who own the shovels. in return, in theory, everybody benefits from increased access; but the people who benefit most are those who live near the road and will use it most often. people who don’t live near the road might never use it.
    my wealth has been taken and used to benefit jerks in Oklahoma! i paid for a road i will never even see on a map! those people are enjoying a better life on my dime.

  371. The four you named count only if everyone in society benefits from them in exactly the proportion in which they pay for them.

  372. The four you named count only if everyone in society benefits from them in exactly the proportion in which they pay for them.

  373. build a road.
    One of my great irritations, when traveling, is that my Federal taxes went to pay for Interstate highways, which are toll roads in other parts of the country. That’s a big wealth transfer from me to them.

  374. build a road.
    One of my great irritations, when traveling, is that my Federal taxes went to pay for Interstate highways, which are toll roads in other parts of the country. That’s a big wealth transfer from me to them.

  375. I suppose that a common good could be interpreted as an equal individual good, but I don’t think equal benefit has to be ensured.
    Unequal benefit is different in kind than targeted individual benefit.

  376. I suppose that a common good could be interpreted as an equal individual good, but I don’t think equal benefit has to be ensured.
    Unequal benefit is different in kind than targeted individual benefit.

  377. the whole country paid for our good old big dig here in boston. that’s roads, tunnels, and bridges, plus a nice urban park and most of a harbor island.
    thanks everyone! if you come to boston, we’ll let you drive on them.
    the defense industry is as much a massive transfer of wealth from the many to the few as I can think of.
    the benefits of policing are likewise not evenly distributed across the population.

  378. the whole country paid for our good old big dig here in boston. that’s roads, tunnels, and bridges, plus a nice urban park and most of a harbor island.
    thanks everyone! if you come to boston, we’ll let you drive on them.
    the defense industry is as much a massive transfer of wealth from the many to the few as I can think of.
    the benefits of policing are likewise not evenly distributed across the population.

  379. Unequal benefit is different in kind than targeted individual benefit.
    if you say so.
    it just takes a little bit of bad luck to be in the ‘targeted individual benefit’ club.
    that’s why it’s not really so different from roads and bridges.

  380. Unequal benefit is different in kind than targeted individual benefit.
    if you say so.
    it just takes a little bit of bad luck to be in the ‘targeted individual benefit’ club.
    that’s why it’s not really so different from roads and bridges.

  381. I say so. Everyone is “some” bad luck from needing charity. We have tens of thousands of them in the US.
    We used to get significant pushback against company United Way drives because people felt coerced into giving, most of those people wanted their money to go to a different charity.
    The government is not the most effective means to meet those needs necessarily. And it is certainly not the reason it exists.

  382. I say so. Everyone is “some” bad luck from needing charity. We have tens of thousands of them in the US.
    We used to get significant pushback against company United Way drives because people felt coerced into giving, most of those people wanted their money to go to a different charity.
    The government is not the most effective means to meet those needs necessarily. And it is certainly not the reason it exists.

  383. Marty complained that I get on him, and I honestly try not to. But ‘everyone being “some” bad luck from needing charity’ makes me wonder what ‘some’ means. Hurricane? flooding? bird flu? medical condition?
    We can’t, of course, pay for everyone who has bad luck, and definitions of bad luck are going to vary. But the lack of imagination in considering why bad luck might be something we want to try and alleviate is pretty stunning, even from Marty. Stephen Hawking had ‘bad luck’, but one would think that his accomplishments make it a fair trade. I wonder how many African Americans or Hispanics etc who could make some contributions to society are being kept out. Maybe the next medical breakthrough, or the next industrial patent, or the next Apple is potentially in their heads and hands, but bad luck of being born a different skin color, or not being born to rich white parents means that we will never see them. To me, it seems to me that the reason Marty thinks government exists is to make sure that we don’t see them…

  384. Marty complained that I get on him, and I honestly try not to. But ‘everyone being “some” bad luck from needing charity’ makes me wonder what ‘some’ means. Hurricane? flooding? bird flu? medical condition?
    We can’t, of course, pay for everyone who has bad luck, and definitions of bad luck are going to vary. But the lack of imagination in considering why bad luck might be something we want to try and alleviate is pretty stunning, even from Marty. Stephen Hawking had ‘bad luck’, but one would think that his accomplishments make it a fair trade. I wonder how many African Americans or Hispanics etc who could make some contributions to society are being kept out. Maybe the next medical breakthrough, or the next industrial patent, or the next Apple is potentially in their heads and hands, but bad luck of being born a different skin color, or not being born to rich white parents means that we will never see them. To me, it seems to me that the reason Marty thinks government exists is to make sure that we don’t see them…

  385. “To me, it seems to me that the reason Marty thinks government exists is to make sure that we don’t see them…”
    As usual, thus my comment you refer to, this is a pretty big leap from anything I said. It is the leap from an honest discussion of the role of government to assumed racist motivations. Which is your typical response to me, the most negative possible interpretation that could be created from what I actually said.

  386. “To me, it seems to me that the reason Marty thinks government exists is to make sure that we don’t see them…”
    As usual, thus my comment you refer to, this is a pretty big leap from anything I said. It is the leap from an honest discussion of the role of government to assumed racist motivations. Which is your typical response to me, the most negative possible interpretation that could be created from what I actually said.

  387. i’m trying to figure out what a ‘targeted individual benefit’ is.
    anything that is available to some people, but not others?

  388. i’m trying to figure out what a ‘targeted individual benefit’ is.
    anything that is available to some people, but not others?

  391. The government is not the most effective means to meet those needs necessarily.
    There aren’t better ways to do it efficiently. The government has a way of enacting programs that, when no means testing is necessary, are reasonably able to be distributed fairly. When assistance is based on need, the government is in the best position to assess people’s income and financial situation.
    No human system is perfect, and any welfare system or other government program needs to be constantly reassessed and tweaked based on data that should always be under scrutiny. But the most efficient way to do any of that is through government.
    Our state and local governments are useful, too, for providing more granular input on issues that might not resound nationally. I’m not in favor of shifting control to states for most federal programs, because many state and local governments are more corrupt than the national government. But all of this, of course, is contingent on competent and talented leaders and bureaucrats. We had made such good progress with that under Obama. Sad that it will be ripped apart. I only hope we’ll be able to build it again.

  392. The government is not the most effective means to meet those needs necessarily.
    There aren’t better ways to do it efficiently. The government has a way of enacting programs that, when no means testing is necessary, are reasonably able to be distributed fairly. When assistance is based on need, the government is in the best position to assess people’s income and financial situation.
    No human system is perfect, and any welfare system or other government program needs to be constantly reassessed and tweaked based on data that should always be under scrutiny. But the most efficient way to do any of that is through government.
    Our state and local governments are useful, too, for providing more granular input on issues that might not resound nationally. I’m not in favor of shifting control to states for most federal programs, because many state and local governments are more corrupt than the national government. But all of this, of course, is contingent on competent and talented leaders and bureaucrats. We had made such good progress with that under Obama. Sad that it will be ripped apart. I only hope we’ll be able to build it again.

  393. life would be a lot simpler if people would quit worrying that somebody, somewhere, is getting something they aren’t.
    guess what? the world is full of people who are getting something you aren’t. when it comes to people who are getting stuff that you aren’t from the government, folks who are getting what we commonly call ‘welfare’ are probably not getting anything you really want to be in need of.
    as far as the United way goes, taxes aren’t charity.

  394. life would be a lot simpler if people would quit worrying that somebody, somewhere, is getting something they aren’t.
    guess what? the world is full of people who are getting something you aren’t. when it comes to people who are getting stuff that you aren’t from the government, folks who are getting what we commonly call ‘welfare’ are probably not getting anything you really want to be in need of.
    as far as the United way goes, taxes aren’t charity.

  395. There is a difference between collecting taxes and using that money for the common good and collecting taxes to redistribute wealth.
    Left unsaid is the bald fact that government policies play a major role in the distribution of that wealth to begin with. If the government is free to “create a class of wealth” why is it not free to “redistribute” that wealth as well?
    Logically, one can posit that swinging some bankers from lamp posts will indeed promote the general welfare, but I’ll settle for taking back some of the loot we gave them.

  396. There is a difference between collecting taxes and using that money for the common good and collecting taxes to redistribute wealth.
    Left unsaid is the bald fact that government policies play a major role in the distribution of that wealth to begin with. If the government is free to “create a class of wealth” why is it not free to “redistribute” that wealth as well?
    Logically, one can posit that swinging some bankers from lamp posts will indeed promote the general welfare, but I’ll settle for taking back some of the loot we gave them.

  397. As usual, thus my comment you refer to, this is a pretty big leap from anything I said. It is the leap from an honest discussion of the role of government to assumed racist motivations. Which is your typical response to me, the most negative possible interpretation that could be created from what I actually said.
    Well, I’m trying to understand how ‘bad luck’ applies equally across the spectrums of race and class in the US. I don’t believe it does and if you believe that bad luck is somehow color-blind, I’m not sure what I can say that won’t be taken as accusing you of racism. I’ve said multiple times that I think everyone is at least a little bit racist, and I include myself in that. So your complaint fails to see the point I was trying to make. Put yourself in my shoes, and explain to me how I could point this out in a way that would be acceptable to the Marty that you are talking to.

  398. As usual, thus my comment you refer to, this is a pretty big leap from anything I said. It is the leap from an honest discussion of the role of government to assumed racist motivations. Which is your typical response to me, the most negative possible interpretation that could be created from what I actually said.
    Well, I’m trying to understand how ‘bad luck’ applies equally across the spectrums of race and class in the US. I don’t believe it does and if you believe that bad luck is somehow color-blind, I’m not sure what I can say that won’t be taken as accusing you of racism. I’ve said multiple times that I think everyone is at least a little bit racist, and I include myself in that. So your complaint fails to see the point I was trying to make. Put yourself in my shoes, and explain to me how I could point this out in a way that would be acceptable to the Marty that you are talking to.

  399. Left unsaid is the bald fact that government policies play a major role in the distribution of that wealth to begin with.
    I’m glad you noted this. It can’t be said enough that the government sets the rules of the game and those who look down their nose at welfare, medicare, medicaid, social security,etc. are, at the end of the day, the recipients of government largesse themselves, it’s just of the “good” kind like courts, private property, national defense, law enforcement, an independent judiciary (although they hate that at times too), etc.
    To take just one example, there’s no reason we have to have limited liability corporations in this country. They are wholly a creation of state law. They could be gone tomorrow (with some caveats). And yet many people seem to think they are the natural state of things.

  400. Left unsaid is the bald fact that government policies play a major role in the distribution of that wealth to begin with.
    I’m glad you noted this. It can’t be said enough that the government sets the rules of the game and those who look down their nose at welfare, medicare, medicaid, social security,etc. are, at the end of the day, the recipients of government largesse themselves, it’s just of the “good” kind like courts, private property, national defense, law enforcement, an independent judiciary (although they hate that at times too), etc.
    To take just one example, there’s no reason we have to have limited liability corporations in this country. They are wholly a creation of state law. They could be gone tomorrow (with some caveats). And yet many people seem to think they are the natural state of things.

  403. i’m still trying to figure out what a ‘targeted individual benefit’ is.
    there is no ‘send a check to marty’ bill before congress. all policies either apply to everyone, or to particular classes or subsets of everyone.
    can you explain what characterizes the things you object to?

  404. i’m still trying to figure out what a ‘targeted individual benefit’ is.
    there is no ‘send a check to marty’ bill before congress. all policies either apply to everyone, or to particular classes or subsets of everyone.
    can you explain what characterizes the things you object to?

  405. “Well, I’m trying to understand how ‘bad luck’ applies equally across the spectrums of race and class in the US.”
    It doesn’t have to equally apply across any spectrum to have a discussion about the role of government. There are millions more white people who get government funded benefits than people of color. Every question just doesn’t come down to race.

  406. “Well, I’m trying to understand how ‘bad luck’ applies equally across the spectrums of race and class in the US.”
    It doesn’t have to equally apply across any spectrum to have a discussion about the role of government. There are millions more white people who get government funded benefits than people of color. Every question just doesn’t come down to race.

  407. i’m still trying to figure out what a ‘targeted individual benefit’ is.
    i’m assuming it’s stuff like food stamps where the primary benefit goes directly to people who need it – as opposed to roads where, ostensibly, everyone with a car benefits.
    but society as a whole benefits indirectly from food stamps. if we had millions of people on the brink of starvation, we’d be in tough shape – governments have been overthrown for less. so, we all benefit when those who are down on their luck get a boost.

  408. i’m still trying to figure out what a ‘targeted individual benefit’ is.
    i’m assuming it’s stuff like food stamps where the primary benefit goes directly to people who need it – as opposed to roads where, ostensibly, everyone with a car benefits.
    but society as a whole benefits indirectly from food stamps. if we had millions of people on the brink of starvation, we’d be in tough shape – governments have been overthrown for less. so, we all benefit when those who are down on their luck get a boost.

  411. so, we all benefit when those who are down on their luck get a boost.
    FWIW, the fact that so many people in the US need food stamps is in no small part related to other public policies, that benefit other classes of people.
    Luck is not the only, or often even the primary, factor, and mitigating the downside of all of that is not charity.
    I still do not understand what Marty means by ‘targeted individual benefit’. Things that are beneficial, but are not ‘targeted individual benefits’, are OK, but things that are beneficial but are ‘targeted individual benefits’ are not. Or, are less so.
    Lots of public policies result in some advantage, financial or otherwise, to one category of people or another.
    What makes something a ‘targeted individual benefit’, as opposed to merely ‘useful’ or ‘a good idea’? What does that phrase mean?

  412. so, we all benefit when those who are down on their luck get a boost.
    FWIW, the fact that so many people in the US need food stamps is in no small part related to other public policies, that benefit other classes of people.
    Luck is not the only, or often even the primary, factor, and mitigating the downside of all of that is not charity.
    I still do not understand what Marty means by ‘targeted individual benefit’. Things that are beneficial, but are not ‘targeted individual benefits’, are OK, but things that are beneficial but are ‘targeted individual benefits’ are not. Or, are less so.
    Lots of public policies result in some advantage, financial or otherwise, to one category of people or another.
    What makes something a ‘targeted individual benefit’, as opposed to merely ‘useful’ or ‘a good idea’? What does that phrase mean?

  413. What does that phrase mean?
    It means that the circumstances that allow you to benefit from whatever particular thing the government does can be categorized in such a way that makes that particular thing the government does constitutionally objectionable or not.
    I mean … duh!

  414. What does that phrase mean?
    It means that the circumstances that allow you to benefit from whatever particular thing the government does can be categorized in such a way that makes that particular thing the government does constitutionally objectionable or not.
    I mean … duh!

  415. Marty, everyone is picking at ‘targeted individual benefit’, which is an interesting nut to crack, but if blacks or hispanics were suffering more than whites, the fact that whites receive more of the benefit doesn’t erase the problem. If you were to stop whites from receiving the benefit, I think you would not accept that as just. So what does the fact that whites receive more of the benefit, just by dint of there being more of them, do to save your argument? I’m really not trying to call you racist here, I just want to understand how invoking the fact that there are more white people than people of color in America save your argument?

  416. Marty, everyone is picking at ‘targeted individual benefit’, which is an interesting nut to crack, but if blacks or hispanics were suffering more than whites, the fact that whites receive more of the benefit doesn’t erase the problem. If you were to stop whites from receiving the benefit, I think you would not accept that as just. So what does the fact that whites receive more of the benefit, just by dint of there being more of them, do to save your argument? I’m really not trying to call you racist here, I just want to understand how invoking the fact that there are more white people than people of color in America save your argument?

  417. If chmatl is anywhere about, and since this is still an open thread:
    have just seen this disgusting ad run against Jon Ossoff:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oH-VTBqzgN8
    Hope this is not having too much of an effect. Drop by if you have time and if you feel like it, to let us go how your efforts are going

  418. If chmatl is anywhere about, and since this is still an open thread:
    have just seen this disgusting ad run against Jon Ossoff:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oH-VTBqzgN8
    Hope this is not having too much of an effect. Drop by if you have time and if you feel like it, to let us go how your efforts are going

  419. lj , It doesn’t save my argument, or lose it, it just answers your criticism that somehow what I said was racially biased somehow.

  420. lj , It doesn’t save my argument, or lose it, it just answers your criticism that somehow what I said was racially biased somehow.

  421. “i’m assuming it’s stuff like food stamps where the primary benefit goes directly to people who need it – as opposed to roads where, ostensibly, everyone with a car benefits.”
    This is close enough. There is simply a difference in promoting the general welfare and promoting the welfare of a specific subset of individuals.
    It is not specifically something that government at varying levels can’t, or in some cases shouldn’t, do.
    It just isn’t the reason for the existence of government, as proposed.
    I also think it is something that should be done with the conscious recognition of the difference in those two things. I think it was lj that mentioned that we cant do everything for everybody as kind of a throwaway recognition of reality.
    And that is true.
    So you do those things that fall into the common good category and then explore which of the others is feasible, affordable and widely accepted as a priority. With an eye to what level of government may be the best level to provide it.
    The relative honesty of various governmental bodies is not really a good argument for complete centralization of all government activity at the federal level….

  422. “i’m assuming it’s stuff like food stamps where the primary benefit goes directly to people who need it – as opposed to roads where, ostensibly, everyone with a car benefits.”
    This is close enough. There is simply a difference in promoting the general welfare and promoting the welfare of a specific subset of individuals.
    It is not specifically something that government at varying levels can’t, or in some cases shouldn’t, do.
    It just isn’t the reason for the existence of government, as proposed.
    I also think it is something that should be done with the conscious recognition of the difference in those two things. I think it was lj that mentioned that we cant do everything for everybody as kind of a throwaway recognition of reality.
    And that is true.
    So you do those things that fall into the common good category and then explore which of the others is feasible, affordable and widely accepted as a priority. With an eye to what level of government may be the best level to provide it.
    The relative honesty of various governmental bodies is not really a good argument for complete centralization of all government activity at the federal level….

  425. There is simply a difference in promoting the general welfare and promoting the welfare of a specific subset of individuals.
    But, again, that depends on what “general welfare” means. It could mean that the federal government shouldn’t devote undue resources to, say, the state of Wyoming, while ignoring the rest of the states, simply because the president is from Wyoming.
    What subset of people benefits from food stamps? Is there a restriction, such that, even if you circumstantially qualified for the program, you wouldn’t be provided the benefits because you aren’t within that subset? Is it a fixed subset of people, with particular names and SS numbers?
    What about the mortgage interest deduction? Are only some people allowed to take it because of who they are, or is it a matter of meeting a set of criteria having nothing to do with your identity?
    Are you bothered by people in rural areas getting utilities run to their homes only because of government regulations and subsidies? That doesn’t seem fair to people in the city.
    What about kids who get good grades receiving tuition assistance? They’re a “subset of individuals.” Is that fair to the C students?

  426. There is simply a difference in promoting the general welfare and promoting the welfare of a specific subset of individuals.
    But, again, that depends on what “general welfare” means. It could mean that the federal government shouldn’t devote undue resources to, say, the state of Wyoming, while ignoring the rest of the states, simply because the president is from Wyoming.
    What subset of people benefits from food stamps? Is there a restriction, such that, even if you circumstantially qualified for the program, you wouldn’t be provided the benefits because you aren’t within that subset? Is it a fixed subset of people, with particular names and SS numbers?
    What about the mortgage interest deduction? Are only some people allowed to take it because of who they are, or is it a matter of meeting a set of criteria having nothing to do with your identity?
    Are you bothered by people in rural areas getting utilities run to their homes only because of government regulations and subsidies? That doesn’t seem fair to people in the city.
    What about kids who get good grades receiving tuition assistance? They’re a “subset of individuals.” Is that fair to the C students?

  427. I don’t think it does. The fact that you are against these things because a large number of whites benefit from them means that you won’t consider any kind of support at all for people of color who are in far worse situations. That seems problematic to me. This then (at least from my standpoint) has you systematically underestimate the problems faced by people of color. It also seems that you are unduly sensitive to exploring the notion that what you propose, that we strive to eliminate any benefit that is targeted, as being problematic. It’s not a position I would feel comfortable with, so I’m wondering how it is that you don’t seem to see the problem.

  428. I don’t think it does. The fact that you are against these things because a large number of whites benefit from them means that you won’t consider any kind of support at all for people of color who are in far worse situations. That seems problematic to me. This then (at least from my standpoint) has you systematically underestimate the problems faced by people of color. It also seems that you are unduly sensitive to exploring the notion that what you propose, that we strive to eliminate any benefit that is targeted, as being problematic. It’s not a position I would feel comfortable with, so I’m wondering how it is that you don’t seem to see the problem.

  429. There is simply a difference in promoting the general welfare and promoting the welfare of a specific subset of individuals.
    so you disagree that a fed and housed population benefits everyone, not just the people who receive food and housing assistance ?

  430. There is simply a difference in promoting the general welfare and promoting the welfare of a specific subset of individuals.
    so you disagree that a fed and housed population benefits everyone, not just the people who receive food and housing assistance ?

  431. The government is not the most effective means to meet those needs necessarily.
    At the risk of taking a great leap beyond what he has said (at least on this thread), let me offer this. I think Marty believes that charity should be a matter of individuals choosing what their money is donated for. Whereas with government programs, the individual does not get to make that choice. Am I close, Marty?
    The weakness with that approach is the free-rider problem. That is, while many generous individuals will make donations, there are others who simply will not. Sometimes because they simply don’t happen to hear about a particular need. Sometimes because they simply aren’t generous — at least to anyone outside their very immediate circle.
    The question then becomes, what things should government-paid (i.e. unavoidable) charity be used for? Do we do nothing? Do we only spend the money on things where everybody can use it, e.g. roads?
    Do we spend it on providing enough so that people aren’t starving. If not, do we spend it on policing up the dead bodies — just to keep them from becoming a source of disease to everybody.

  432. The government is not the most effective means to meet those needs necessarily.
    At the risk of taking a great leap beyond what he has said (at least on this thread), let me offer this. I think Marty believes that charity should be a matter of individuals choosing what their money is donated for. Whereas with government programs, the individual does not get to make that choice. Am I close, Marty?
    The weakness with that approach is the free-rider problem. That is, while many generous individuals will make donations, there are others who simply will not. Sometimes because they simply don’t happen to hear about a particular need. Sometimes because they simply aren’t generous — at least to anyone outside their very immediate circle.
    The question then becomes, what things should government-paid (i.e. unavoidable) charity be used for? Do we do nothing? Do we only spend the money on things where everybody can use it, e.g. roads?
    Do we spend it on providing enough so that people aren’t starving. If not, do we spend it on policing up the dead bodies — just to keep them from becoming a source of disease to everybody.

  433. Fake news? If not, wow!
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/girl-found-living-monkeys-indian-forest-151652308.html

    Some woodcutters spotted the girl roaming with monkeys, police officer Dinesh Tripathi told The Associated Press on Thursday. They alerted police.
    “They said the girl was naked and was very comfortable in the company of monkeys. When they tried to rescue the girl, they were chased away by the monkeys,” the officer said.
    She was rescued later by a police officer in the Katarniya Ghat forest range. “When he called the girl, the monkeys attacked him but he was able to rescue the girl. He sped away with her in his police car while the monkeys gave chase,” Tripathi said.

  434. Fake news? If not, wow!
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/girl-found-living-monkeys-indian-forest-151652308.html

    Some woodcutters spotted the girl roaming with monkeys, police officer Dinesh Tripathi told The Associated Press on Thursday. They alerted police.
    “They said the girl was naked and was very comfortable in the company of monkeys. When they tried to rescue the girl, they were chased away by the monkeys,” the officer said.
    She was rescued later by a police officer in the Katarniya Ghat forest range. “When he called the girl, the monkeys attacked him but he was able to rescue the girl. He sped away with her in his police car while the monkeys gave chase,” Tripathi said.

  435. There is simply a difference in promoting the general welfare and promoting the welfare of a specific subset of individuals.
    I find this distinction to be, well, of little use.
    How about agriculture subsidies? Do they “benefit the general welfare” or a “specific subset of individuals”?
    How about low rate and/or guaranteed loans to exporters?
    Lower tax rates on hedge fund managers?
    Mortgage interest deduction (hurts renters)?
    One could go on for a long time here.
    At bottom, the conservative objection seems to be one of “they don’t do nuttin'” so “they don’t deserve nuttin'” (i.e., get “free stuff” for doin’ nuttin’ that good people like me have to pay for).
    I could be wrong, but I should think it incumbent on Marty to provide an example of what he is talking about here.

  436. There is simply a difference in promoting the general welfare and promoting the welfare of a specific subset of individuals.
    I find this distinction to be, well, of little use.
    How about agriculture subsidies? Do they “benefit the general welfare” or a “specific subset of individuals”?
    How about low rate and/or guaranteed loans to exporters?
    Lower tax rates on hedge fund managers?
    Mortgage interest deduction (hurts renters)?
    One could go on for a long time here.
    At bottom, the conservative objection seems to be one of “they don’t do nuttin'” so “they don’t deserve nuttin'” (i.e., get “free stuff” for doin’ nuttin’ that good people like me have to pay for).
    I could be wrong, but I should think it incumbent on Marty to provide an example of what he is talking about here.

  437. FWIW, the fact that so many people in the US need food stamps is in no small part related to other public policies, that benefit other classes of people.
    no doubt.

  438. FWIW, the fact that so many people in the US need food stamps is in no small part related to other public policies, that benefit other classes of people.
    no doubt.

  439. There is simply a difference in promoting the general welfare and promoting the welfare of a specific subset of individuals.
    Almost every thing the government does has different upsides and downsides for different demographics within the population.
    Including every one of our examples, and every one of everyone else’s.
    Food stamps, to pick on one example used in this thread, makes it tolerable for the US to have a hire-at-will labor market and very thin support for labor in public policy. It mitigates poverty caused in no small part by other policies that we consider to be beneficial, for other reasons.
    Instead of food stamps, we could instead choose to sponsor a program of full employment at locally sustainable wages, and if there weren’t jobs in a given area that fit that bill we’d invent them and hire and pay people to do them, on the public dime.
    Or, we could require employers to provide a minimal sustaining income for people they lay off, as a form of severance.
    Or, we could just say screw it, if you can’t find work you’re on your own. Root hog or die.
    Each of those policies is feasible, and the choice of which we pursue is a political decision, with disparate up and downsides for different parts of the population.
    People who get food stamps aren’t ‘singled out’ for ‘individual targeting’, they qualify because they’re poor. Just like I qualify for a mortgage deduction, because I own a house. Or a veteran qualifies for VA health care, because they’re a vet.
    The burden is on you to come up with an example of some government function or service that doesn’t ‘individually target’ subsets of the population.
    And no, roads, bridges, cops, and the military are not good examples.

  440. There is simply a difference in promoting the general welfare and promoting the welfare of a specific subset of individuals.
    Almost every thing the government does has different upsides and downsides for different demographics within the population.
    Including every one of our examples, and every one of everyone else’s.
    Food stamps, to pick on one example used in this thread, makes it tolerable for the US to have a hire-at-will labor market and very thin support for labor in public policy. It mitigates poverty caused in no small part by other policies that we consider to be beneficial, for other reasons.
    Instead of food stamps, we could instead choose to sponsor a program of full employment at locally sustainable wages, and if there weren’t jobs in a given area that fit that bill we’d invent them and hire and pay people to do them, on the public dime.
    Or, we could require employers to provide a minimal sustaining income for people they lay off, as a form of severance.
    Or, we could just say screw it, if you can’t find work you’re on your own. Root hog or die.
    Each of those policies is feasible, and the choice of which we pursue is a political decision, with disparate up and downsides for different parts of the population.
    People who get food stamps aren’t ‘singled out’ for ‘individual targeting’, they qualify because they’re poor. Just like I qualify for a mortgage deduction, because I own a house. Or a veteran qualifies for VA health care, because they’re a vet.
    The burden is on you to come up with an example of some government function or service that doesn’t ‘individually target’ subsets of the population.
    And no, roads, bridges, cops, and the military are not good examples.

  441. According to James Madison, the clause authorized Congress to spend money, but only to carry out the powers and duties specifically enumerated in the subsequent clauses of Article I, Section 8, and elsewhere in the Constitution, not to meet the seemingly infinite needs of the general welfare. Alexander Hamilton maintained that the clause granted Congress the power to spend without limitation for the general welfare of the nation. The winner of this debate was not declared for 150 years.
    In     United States v. Butler, 56 S. Ct. 312, 297 U.S. 1, 80 L. Ed. 477 (1936), the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a federal agricultural spending program because a specific congressional power over agricultural production appeared nowhere in the Constitution. According to the Court in Butler, the spending program invaded a right reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.
    Though the Court decided that Butler was consistent with Madison’s philosophy of limited federal government, it adopted Hamilton’s interpretation of the General Welfare Clause, which gave Congress broad powers to spend federal money. It also established that determination of the general welfare would be left to the discretion of Congress. In its opinion, the Court warned that to challenge a federal expense on the ground that it did not promote the general welfare would “naturally require a showing that by no reasonable possibility can the challenged legislation fall within the wide range of discretion permitted to the Congress.”
    General Welfare: The concern of the government for the health, peace, morality, and safety of its citizens.

  442. According to James Madison, the clause authorized Congress to spend money, but only to carry out the powers and duties specifically enumerated in the subsequent clauses of Article I, Section 8, and elsewhere in the Constitution, not to meet the seemingly infinite needs of the general welfare. Alexander Hamilton maintained that the clause granted Congress the power to spend without limitation for the general welfare of the nation. The winner of this debate was not declared for 150 years.
    In     United States v. Butler, 56 S. Ct. 312, 297 U.S. 1, 80 L. Ed. 477 (1936), the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a federal agricultural spending program because a specific congressional power over agricultural production appeared nowhere in the Constitution. According to the Court in Butler, the spending program invaded a right reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.
    Though the Court decided that Butler was consistent with Madison’s philosophy of limited federal government, it adopted Hamilton’s interpretation of the General Welfare Clause, which gave Congress broad powers to spend federal money. It also established that determination of the general welfare would be left to the discretion of Congress. In its opinion, the Court warned that to challenge a federal expense on the ground that it did not promote the general welfare would “naturally require a showing that by no reasonable possibility can the challenged legislation fall within the wide range of discretion permitted to the Congress.”
    General Welfare: The concern of the government for the health, peace, morality, and safety of its citizens.

  445. “The question then becomes, what things should government-paid (i.e. unavoidable) charity be used for? Do we do nothing? Do we only spend the money on things where everybody can use it, e.g. roads?”
    Thanks wj, I believe that a discussion of what should the government, and which government, is a valid discussion. To simply hand wave and say that every imaginable charitable venture surely helps everyone because it helps someone is, IMO, not discussion in good faith.
    The concept is not difficult or obscure. There are bright lines and less bright lines. I think most subsidies do not promote the general welfare, while some employment based subsidies fall on the line. Food stamps are charity, and if you read carefully I have not once said we shouldn’t provide any specific safety net. I have simply said, in response to bobbyp remarking that it is providing that support is the reason that government exists, that it is not the reason for the government to exist.
    In our country, traditionally, charity was rewarded by tax deductions and there was not a government mandate to provide that charity. There is a mandate to provide defense of the nation.

  446. “The question then becomes, what things should government-paid (i.e. unavoidable) charity be used for? Do we do nothing? Do we only spend the money on things where everybody can use it, e.g. roads?”
    Thanks wj, I believe that a discussion of what should the government, and which government, is a valid discussion. To simply hand wave and say that every imaginable charitable venture surely helps everyone because it helps someone is, IMO, not discussion in good faith.
    The concept is not difficult or obscure. There are bright lines and less bright lines. I think most subsidies do not promote the general welfare, while some employment based subsidies fall on the line. Food stamps are charity, and if you read carefully I have not once said we shouldn’t provide any specific safety net. I have simply said, in response to bobbyp remarking that it is providing that support is the reason that government exists, that it is not the reason for the government to exist.
    In our country, traditionally, charity was rewarded by tax deductions and there was not a government mandate to provide that charity. There is a mandate to provide defense of the nation.

  447. In this country, the problem of poor people – how best to deal with them as a social phenomenon, who deserves assistance, what level and organ of government should be responsible for it – has been a subject of public policy – laws, regulations, and the raising and spending of public money to make it happen – since the Pilgrims first landed.
    And they brought it with them from the UK, where it was a public concern before that.
    Every society in human history that has had a government, at all, of any size shape or form, has addressed the issue of poverty in some way as a matter of public policy. I.e., not just delegating the issue to private charity, but making some kind of public policy to address it as a social phenomenon.
    Sometimes that amounted to “kick those bums out of town!”. But poverty was recognized as a social phenomenon, with social consequences, and addressing it has always been recognized as being within the purview of the government.
    You can say “not the government’s business” but the history is not on your side.

  448. In this country, the problem of poor people – how best to deal with them as a social phenomenon, who deserves assistance, what level and organ of government should be responsible for it – has been a subject of public policy – laws, regulations, and the raising and spending of public money to make it happen – since the Pilgrims first landed.
    And they brought it with them from the UK, where it was a public concern before that.
    Every society in human history that has had a government, at all, of any size shape or form, has addressed the issue of poverty in some way as a matter of public policy. I.e., not just delegating the issue to private charity, but making some kind of public policy to address it as a social phenomenon.
    Sometimes that amounted to “kick those bums out of town!”. But poverty was recognized as a social phenomenon, with social consequences, and addressing it has always been recognized as being within the purview of the government.
    You can say “not the government’s business” but the history is not on your side.

  449. Marty, there’s not a “tradition” of providing medical care to the population, but that didn’t seem to stop every OECD country but the US from doing it. Handwaving to tradition is another way to avoid the hard questions.
    Promoting the general welfare, to me, seems that a nation has an obligation to make sure that as many of its citizens as possible are as productive as possible. When studies show the effect that poor nutrition can have on learning outcomes, or when studies suggest that crime rates are related to lead levels in the environment, it seems that general welfare is precisely finding where benefits can be provided to a targeted group.
    Providing food in a time when there were no networks to transport it and no technologies to preserve it doesn’t make sense. When those come into existence, providing food support becomes an evolutionary step. No entity, which in a situation where competition occurs, can survive and thrive if it doesn’t make full use of the resources it has available. Your ‘tradition’ is just an invitation to make the US irrelevant, so in that sense, Trump is just a logical continuation of your thinking.
    Perhaps a company, like Walmart, can benefit by using the government to provide basic benefits
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/#4496f03b720b
    But your idea seems to suggest that we’d be better off if we pulled that safety net. You say that you have never asserted that we shouldn’t provide a safety net, but you refuse to outline what an acceptable safety net would be for you. If you accept that a government has to provide a safety net, they we are just haggling about the price. So give us what you believe is an acceptable safety net to provide.

  450. Marty, there’s not a “tradition” of providing medical care to the population, but that didn’t seem to stop every OECD country but the US from doing it. Handwaving to tradition is another way to avoid the hard questions.
    Promoting the general welfare, to me, seems that a nation has an obligation to make sure that as many of its citizens as possible are as productive as possible. When studies show the effect that poor nutrition can have on learning outcomes, or when studies suggest that crime rates are related to lead levels in the environment, it seems that general welfare is precisely finding where benefits can be provided to a targeted group.
    Providing food in a time when there were no networks to transport it and no technologies to preserve it doesn’t make sense. When those come into existence, providing food support becomes an evolutionary step. No entity, which in a situation where competition occurs, can survive and thrive if it doesn’t make full use of the resources it has available. Your ‘tradition’ is just an invitation to make the US irrelevant, so in that sense, Trump is just a logical continuation of your thinking.
    Perhaps a company, like Walmart, can benefit by using the government to provide basic benefits
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/#4496f03b720b
    But your idea seems to suggest that we’d be better off if we pulled that safety net. You say that you have never asserted that we shouldn’t provide a safety net, but you refuse to outline what an acceptable safety net would be for you. If you accept that a government has to provide a safety net, they we are just haggling about the price. So give us what you believe is an acceptable safety net to provide.

  451. I have simply said, in response to bobbyp remarking that it is providing that support is the reason that government exists, that it is not the reason for the government to exist.
    This, I do not disagree with.
    Governments exist for lots of reasons. Mostly, they exist because they are, apparently, a natural function of human life. If a large enough group of people exist in a persistent community, they inevitably create some kind of government for themselves, to manage their common public life.
    If you can find a counter-example, I’d love to see it.
    Shorter me: governments don’t need a ‘reason to exist’, any more than family structures, speech, or engaging in the practice of making and building need a ‘reason to exist’. They are all things that humans *do*, because they are human.
    So no, providing material assistance to its members is not the reason government exists.
    It is, however, and always has been, something that is considered to be legitimately within the scope of what governments can and should do.
    Again, if you would like to provide a counter-example, I’d be interested in seeing it.

  452. I have simply said, in response to bobbyp remarking that it is providing that support is the reason that government exists, that it is not the reason for the government to exist.
    This, I do not disagree with.
    Governments exist for lots of reasons. Mostly, they exist because they are, apparently, a natural function of human life. If a large enough group of people exist in a persistent community, they inevitably create some kind of government for themselves, to manage their common public life.
    If you can find a counter-example, I’d love to see it.
    Shorter me: governments don’t need a ‘reason to exist’, any more than family structures, speech, or engaging in the practice of making and building need a ‘reason to exist’. They are all things that humans *do*, because they are human.
    So no, providing material assistance to its members is not the reason government exists.
    It is, however, and always has been, something that is considered to be legitimately within the scope of what governments can and should do.
    Again, if you would like to provide a counter-example, I’d be interested in seeing it.

  453. “So no, providing material assistance to its members is not the reason government exists.”
    Thanks.
    And at least twice in this thread I have specifically stated that it is not outside the acceptable scope of a government to provide that support.
    I think it should be provided in a thoughtful way, explicitly recognizing that it is a specific redistribution act, taking from one set of people and giving to another. It should, therefore, be at a level broadly agreed to comprise an acceptable safety net. If part of our current level of support is not widely accepted it should be reviewed.

  454. “So no, providing material assistance to its members is not the reason government exists.”
    Thanks.
    And at least twice in this thread I have specifically stated that it is not outside the acceptable scope of a government to provide that support.
    I think it should be provided in a thoughtful way, explicitly recognizing that it is a specific redistribution act, taking from one set of people and giving to another. It should, therefore, be at a level broadly agreed to comprise an acceptable safety net. If part of our current level of support is not widely accepted it should be reviewed.

  455. Well, here’s something Government shouldn’t be doing, trying to obtain identities behind the “alt-government” Twitter accounts.
    After the inauguration, when I read about these accounts, I subscribed to the whole list (that I could find). I’ve since weeded out some of them, but they are a lot of fun to read, for Twitter addicts out there. I think you have to be kind of careful now because some alt-alt accounts were created in retaliation.

  456. Well, here’s something Government shouldn’t be doing, trying to obtain identities behind the “alt-government” Twitter accounts.
    After the inauguration, when I read about these accounts, I subscribed to the whole list (that I could find). I’ve since weeded out some of them, but they are a lot of fun to read, for Twitter addicts out there. I think you have to be kind of careful now because some alt-alt accounts were created in retaliation.

  457. I think it should be provided in a thoughtful way, explicitly recognizing that it is a specific redistribution act, taking from one set of people and giving to another.
    we agree
    It should, therefore, be at a level broadly agreed to comprise an acceptable safety net. If part of our current level of support is not widely accepted it should be reviewed.
    I believe that is underway. it’s going to be an interesting exploration of the principle “be careful what you wish for”.
    All I ask of those who will soon receive an object lesson in the meaning of the phrase “Hoist by your own petard” is that they not blame the likes of me.
    I may be snotty, liberal, and elitist, but I’d never take bread from a hungry person’s mouth.
    best of luck, everybody.

  458. I think it should be provided in a thoughtful way, explicitly recognizing that it is a specific redistribution act, taking from one set of people and giving to another.
    we agree
    It should, therefore, be at a level broadly agreed to comprise an acceptable safety net. If part of our current level of support is not widely accepted it should be reviewed.
    I believe that is underway. it’s going to be an interesting exploration of the principle “be careful what you wish for”.
    All I ask of those who will soon receive an object lesson in the meaning of the phrase “Hoist by your own petard” is that they not blame the likes of me.
    I may be snotty, liberal, and elitist, but I’d never take bread from a hungry person’s mouth.
    best of luck, everybody.

  459. All I ask of those who will soon receive an object lesson in the meaning of the phrase “Hoist by your own petard” is that they not blame the likes of me.
    Yes, this.
    Unfortunately, over and over, it seems that many people still don’t understand the best strategy for, not only a better world, but their own comfortable future.
    Eight years of Bush II: war, international disgrace, financial crisis
    Eight years of Obama: fixed some things very well, including economic numbers for most of us
    Trump: uncertain, but looking like the US is losing it international prestige with no upside
    And still the Trump supporters (and Marty says he isn’t one, but …) complain about the ACA and social programs.
    I’ve not participated too much in this Marty conversation about “what government is for” because … it’s all way to obvious to me that Marty’s position is unsustainable. Marty, you yourself, (from what you’ve told us) are someone who benefits materially by liberal Democratic social policies. You’ve been a high earner all your life, but now you’re older and have medical needs which private insurance will not cover unless forced to. But you’ve bought the right-wing talking points, and you’re not going to let go. I don’t have any more to say about it, because you have the political world that you want (Republicans in every branch of government). Hope it works out for you.

  460. All I ask of those who will soon receive an object lesson in the meaning of the phrase “Hoist by your own petard” is that they not blame the likes of me.
    Yes, this.
    Unfortunately, over and over, it seems that many people still don’t understand the best strategy for, not only a better world, but their own comfortable future.
    Eight years of Bush II: war, international disgrace, financial crisis
    Eight years of Obama: fixed some things very well, including economic numbers for most of us
    Trump: uncertain, but looking like the US is losing it international prestige with no upside
    And still the Trump supporters (and Marty says he isn’t one, but …) complain about the ACA and social programs.
    I’ve not participated too much in this Marty conversation about “what government is for” because … it’s all way to obvious to me that Marty’s position is unsustainable. Marty, you yourself, (from what you’ve told us) are someone who benefits materially by liberal Democratic social policies. You’ve been a high earner all your life, but now you’re older and have medical needs which private insurance will not cover unless forced to. But you’ve bought the right-wing talking points, and you’re not going to let go. I don’t have any more to say about it, because you have the political world that you want (Republicans in every branch of government). Hope it works out for you.

  461. sapient,
    In the political world I want we would have all of the above. Focused programs that benefit economic growth, some level of social safety net, smaller defense budget, smaller epa, smaller irs, vat tax, means tested ss, means tested universal health insurance, SS and Medicare minimums at 300% of poverty kevel and no copays/Medicare supplemental, lower levels of qualification for means testing social programs for healthy adults under 65, 100% school breakfast and lunch programs no matter what school you used your voucher to send you kids to, constant infrastructure investment and a meaningful transaction tax on securities trades, insurance that is national, legalized marijuana, illegal abortions after 14 weeks and gun lock requirements when not carrying openly, concealed carry illegal, no three strikes or mandatory sentences and unicorns and rainbows. But I have to pick and choose from what’s on offer like everyone else.

  462. sapient,
    In the political world I want we would have all of the above. Focused programs that benefit economic growth, some level of social safety net, smaller defense budget, smaller epa, smaller irs, vat tax, means tested ss, means tested universal health insurance, SS and Medicare minimums at 300% of poverty kevel and no copays/Medicare supplemental, lower levels of qualification for means testing social programs for healthy adults under 65, 100% school breakfast and lunch programs no matter what school you used your voucher to send you kids to, constant infrastructure investment and a meaningful transaction tax on securities trades, insurance that is national, legalized marijuana, illegal abortions after 14 weeks and gun lock requirements when not carrying openly, concealed carry illegal, no three strikes or mandatory sentences and unicorns and rainbows. But I have to pick and choose from what’s on offer like everyone else.

  463. In the political world I want we would have all of the above.
    Then you are not invoking some high principle, either moral or constitutional.
    So I would ask you stop invoking them.
    All these good things have distributional effects. When you put the letters “re” in front of that word, you simply hand wave away the existing distribution of resources (a distribution largely the result of public policies), and try to paint those who disagree with you into a highly and morally tinged rhetorical corner, i.e., they want to “take stuff away from those that have it.”
    Which is a pure bullshit argument.
    For example, if I were to argue as you do, I would assert that the mortgage interest deduction TAKES resources from the poor and GIVES them to the rich.
    Is that not “redistributionist”? I would say no. It is a policy that has distributional effects that we should be aware of. I tend to think that policy has real problems. It also tends to inflate real estate prices.
    All I am saying is that there are many government policies, and many of them have distributional effects.* You may like some of them, and not like others. But don’t just piss on the ones you dislike, play the “redistributionist” card, and ignore the rest.
    *PS I have never claimed that the social safety net is the ‘reason’ government exists. So stop claiming I did. Thanks.

  464. In the political world I want we would have all of the above.
    Then you are not invoking some high principle, either moral or constitutional.
    So I would ask you stop invoking them.
    All these good things have distributional effects. When you put the letters “re” in front of that word, you simply hand wave away the existing distribution of resources (a distribution largely the result of public policies), and try to paint those who disagree with you into a highly and morally tinged rhetorical corner, i.e., they want to “take stuff away from those that have it.”
    Which is a pure bullshit argument.
    For example, if I were to argue as you do, I would assert that the mortgage interest deduction TAKES resources from the poor and GIVES them to the rich.
    Is that not “redistributionist”? I would say no. It is a policy that has distributional effects that we should be aware of. I tend to think that policy has real problems. It also tends to inflate real estate prices.
    All I am saying is that there are many government policies, and many of them have distributional effects.* You may like some of them, and not like others. But don’t just piss on the ones you dislike, play the “redistributionist” card, and ignore the rest.
    *PS I have never claimed that the social safety net is the ‘reason’ government exists. So stop claiming I did. Thanks.

  465. Marty, you and I disagree about a whole lot of the items you mentioned, although certainly would have common ground on some.
    Still, you’re correct, we all have to pick and choose. My choices are not with Republicans who, in addition to destroying the social safety net, seem not to care about anyone outside the borders of this country.
    I want the US to be a beacon. That’s my vision of “American exceptionalism”, which I know has not been fully realized at any time in history. The Statue of Liberty is my favorite icon for America. The fact that we are a now being seen as a country of haters is something that makes me physically sick.

  466. Marty, you and I disagree about a whole lot of the items you mentioned, although certainly would have common ground on some.
    Still, you’re correct, we all have to pick and choose. My choices are not with Republicans who, in addition to destroying the social safety net, seem not to care about anyone outside the borders of this country.
    I want the US to be a beacon. That’s my vision of “American exceptionalism”, which I know has not been fully realized at any time in history. The Statue of Liberty is my favorite icon for America. The fact that we are a now being seen as a country of haters is something that makes me physically sick.

  467. bobbyp, sorry cleek said it upthread. Shouldn’t post from memory.
    I’m not a fan of the mortgage interest deduction myself.

  468. bobbyp, sorry cleek said it upthread. Shouldn’t post from memory.
    I’m not a fan of the mortgage interest deduction myself.

  469. “The Statue of Liberty is my favorite icon for America.”
    Which, of course, is thanks to the cheese-eating surrender monkeys, aka “the French”.
    No wonder the right-wingers hate it.

  470. “The Statue of Liberty is my favorite icon for America.”
    Which, of course, is thanks to the cheese-eating surrender monkeys, aka “the French”.
    No wonder the right-wingers hate it.

  475. sounds like we all kinda like ike, except maybe bobbyp.
    sadly, ike is dead.
    we had a few years of ike-esque, which wasn’t bad, actually. but that wouldn’t do. too tyrranical.
    and the horrible liberals were too rude and unkind, so The American People decided to teach us all a lesson and deliver us unto Trump.
    so, Trump it is.
    enjoy the ride.

  476. sounds like we all kinda like ike, except maybe bobbyp.
    sadly, ike is dead.
    we had a few years of ike-esque, which wasn’t bad, actually. but that wouldn’t do. too tyrranical.
    and the horrible liberals were too rude and unkind, so The American People decided to teach us all a lesson and deliver us unto Trump.
    so, Trump it is.
    enjoy the ride.

  477. the American People decided to teach us all a lesson
    well, a few thousand scattered here and there in just the right places did. the American People, taken as a whole said “NO THANK YOU”, when asked if they wanted Trump.
    but, our sacred and all-hallowed Constitution is defective. it values arbitrary cartography above the citizens who uphold it.

  478. the American People decided to teach us all a lesson
    well, a few thousand scattered here and there in just the right places did. the American People, taken as a whole said “NO THANK YOU”, when asked if they wanted Trump.
    but, our sacred and all-hallowed Constitution is defective. it values arbitrary cartography above the citizens who uphold it.

  481. well, a few thousand scattered here and there in just the right places did
    I use the label they apply to themselves.
    it pisses me off, just as it does you.

  482. well, a few thousand scattered here and there in just the right places did
    I use the label they apply to themselves.
    it pisses me off, just as it does you.

  483. I want the US to be a beacon.
    Hm, isn’t a beacon usually a marker for ‘avoid this place’ put on dangerous pieces of geography? 😉

  484. I want the US to be a beacon.
    Hm, isn’t a beacon usually a marker for ‘avoid this place’ put on dangerous pieces of geography? 😉

  485. Hm, isn’t a beacon usually a marker for ‘avoid this place’ put on dangerous pieces of geography? 😉
    Well, then, success!

  486. Hm, isn’t a beacon usually a marker for ‘avoid this place’ put on dangerous pieces of geography? 😉
    Well, then, success!

  487. In other news, only 98K new hires in March.
    Early days, granted, but not an encouraging sign.
    Maybe it was that bad weather. Maybe better luck in April.
    Are we sick of winning yet?

  488. In other news, only 98K new hires in March.
    Early days, granted, but not an encouraging sign.
    Maybe it was that bad weather. Maybe better luck in April.
    Are we sick of winning yet?

Comments are closed.