Canada going full Gen-X for the win!
America’s uniform is super white. Checks out.
New UFO video. Twilight Zone To Serve Man starts in a few minutes. I hope I don’t have nightmares.
It’s funny the little details you notice on rewatching. When an especially fat guy steps on the scale before getting on the ship, the alien gives him a big smile. Lol.
I’m in a book club here and when it’s been my turn I have chosen both this book and Station Eleven, her previous novel. That one is about a pandemic. She’s a good writer imo.
I think you meant to post that here
As a token of my apology, please enjoy Cumtown’s rendition of Jerry Seinfeld doing blue comedy
I’ve never really found meditation to be my thing, but this one honestly hit me right where I needed it.
This article describes where I’m at right now to a a T.
“That all these activities aren’t necessarily safe just yet appears not to matter to some of the same people who have held out for more than a year. Some of them are reaching the limits of their resiliency, which is not, as it turns out, an infinitely renewable resource. Part of this different behavior comes down to people’s need for “autonomy and freedom and independence—the ability to follow their impulses,” Darcia Narvaez, a psychology professor emerita at the University of Notre Dame, told me. “That’s been curtailed for so long that you just kind of run out of the capacity to hold back.” Especially for those who have returned to in-person work—which the Gallup poll indicates is now the majority of people, and more than at any previous point in the pandemic—forgoing other joyful in-person activities might not feel logical anymore, or like it’s worth the sacrifice.
Even if you’re abstaining from new risks, you still might be having a hard time channeling your energy toward anything but fantasizing about the summer ahead. To explain that, Narvaez pointed to the concept of anticipatory euphoria. That’s what people are experiencing when they cover their house in Christmas decorations as soon as Thanksgiving is over, or why buying a wedding dress can be so emotionally affecting a year before the big day. These moments might not make the desired event come any faster, but they give people access to some of the joy they expect those occasions will bring. Whether you’re browsing future vacation destinations or plotting your post-pandemic wardrobe, Narvaez said, it’s easy to let an obsession with arriving at a particular goal distract you from the things that need to be done in order to get there. That’s true even if those things are the rote tasks of living your life, staying safe, and keeping your job until your brain returns to its regularly scheduled programming.”
@clovis You asked me to explain why I think term limits are a bad idea in American politics.
On a very basic level, governing the country is complicated. We have parliamentarians in the House and Senate because the rules can be arcane and Congress needs professional help to guide it.
I am a strong believer in the need for the division of labor in an increasing complex society. We need expertise in politics. This is no longer a part-time job that people can do in addition to their regular line of work. What term limits do is kick people out before they can acquire expertise in government. With only a short time in government, members of Congress will exhibit a much shallower understanding of issues. Even more so than now, legislation will be written by lobbyists who have legislators’ ears.
The rightward turn and nuttery of Republicans in Congress is at least partly magnified by their policy of term-limiting committee chairs, as these members of Congress are more inclined to retire instead of maintaining institutional memory. (Democrats do not do this when in power.) This also contributes to an increased revolving door, with a steady stream of ex-legislators ready to join special interest groups and become lobbyists.
With so few truly good politicians out there, it seems silly to force them to leave. Term limits create enforced mediocrity. One effect of this is that it weakens the legislature relative to the executive, leading to a greater imbalance of political power.
I am not opposed to fixed terms for SCOTUS instead of lifetime appointments, but I would not limit how many consecutive terms a justice could theoretically serve.
I am not convinced. It would make a lot more sense to have rotating political reps that are focused on representing and advocating for their constituents, supported by career staffers who deal with the nuts and bolts. This is how the rest of the world works.
What they also do is inhibit the natural desire of many arrogant politicians to become corrupt once they’ve been in power for a decade. You might find that outweighs the expertise argument.
I don’t see any evidence that novice politicians are more focused on representing and advocating for their constituents. And creating smaller and less gerrymandered districts is a better solution to making politicians more focused on representing and advocating for their constituents than term limits.
Yeah, I would agree with that. At the same time, I also am not seeing much evidence that having politicians spend decades learning the procedural tactics of governance makes them more focused on representing and advocating for their constituents. The point is that it doesn’t make sense to have legislators devote all their time to figuring out procedural esoterica, any more than it makes sense to hire a CEO and spend the first 5 years teaching the person how to use the world’s most complicated photocopier. Leaders should lead.
It usually doesn’t make sense to hire a CEO without executive experience.
No politician should be elected without adequate “experience”?
I don’t think it outweighs the expertise argument. It’s not like politicians only become arrogant and corrupt after being in power for a long time. A new breed of Republicans are arrogant and corrupt right out of the gate, with less checks on their behavior from the party establishment.
No, but you probably shouldn’t install someone as a committee chair or Speaker of the House without adequate experience. It’s not enough to simply support the right policies. Some legislators are more effective than others for reasons other than issue positions.
It’s certainly a large factor in political corruption here but I guess our political systems are sufficiently different to account for this.
Granted, but it just seems inconceivable to me that what we would want our legislators in a representative democracy doing is learning the complicated procedural rules and policies of an archaic legislative system. To really run this CEO reference into the ground - there isn’t a single CEO at any larger company that is also the CFO (or general counsel or head of HR or whatever) specifically because they have different priorities. If the elected officials are making a priority of learning procedures that’s the sign of a badly broken system.