“Shortly
after the election is when I became aware of it,” says Lois Brenner, a
New York–based divorce attorney. “People were thinking about splitting
up their marriages because of political differences.” She’d never
encountered this before, but she’s since found herself litigating two
such divorces. “After people got over their shock,” she says, “they
started arguing.”…
Many people with divergent perspectives from their
partners have not been able to make it work in the Trump era. A
Reuters/Ipsos poll completed in early 2017 found that in the months
following Trump’s election win, 13 percent of 6,426 participants had cut
ties with a friend or family member over political differences. This
past summer, another survey of 1,000 people found that a third declared
the same. More generally, 29 percent of respondents to a May 2017 survey
said their romantic relationship had been negatively affected by
Trump’s presidency. And even people ostensibly on the same side of the
issues as their partner have run into challenges, with the climate
exacerbating or revealing new fault lines. Herewith, two couples, and
four individual women — all except the final pair using pseudonyms —
talk about how conflict over politics is testing, or even ending, their
relationships.On the downside, most of these men will get hosed in the divorce proceedings. On the positive side, they no longer have to be saddled with an insane feminist wife anymore.
Hell, I became very aware of political differences in romantic partners during the Obama era. A constitutionalist and a socialist dont mix.
Trump for king
My latest at The Week.
Don’t worry, don’t worry, it’s not what you think! I just suspect Trump and his fans alike would be cool with him as a powerless head of state with no actual governance authority. An excerpt:
Donald Trump shouldn’t be president. He should be king.
Well, let me qualify that. First, I’d rather Trump have no position of public influence or state authority. Second, I oppose everything about inherited power. And third, I don’t mean “king” so much as “head of state,” a role which can take many forms (monarchy included) that are at once very shiny and entirely impotent.
In the United States, we have combined head of state and head of government in a single role: the presidency. But they are not the same thing, and such a combination is not universal. […]
The United Kingdom, for example, has Queen Elizabeth II as its hereditary head of state and the prime minister, presently Theresa May, as its head of government. Elizabeth’s face is on the money, and she and the rest of the royal family stay busy throwing state dinners, christening ships, cutting ribbons, going to charity events, and so on. She is a living symbol of national unity inside the U.K. and out. And though she legally wields someexecutive power per the national constitution, in practice the British monarchy functions as a rubberstamp for the elected government. No royal veto has been issued in more than three centuries.
I used to think maintaining separate heads of state and government would be unnecessary duplication. Like any good libertarian, I saw the smaller option as the better option. As Oscar from The Office sarcastically says when Jim and Michael are made co-managers, “It doesn’t take a genius to know that any organization thrives when it has two leaders. Go ahead, name a country that doesn’t have two presidents. A boat that sets sail without two captains. Where would Catholicism be without the popes?” Why have two officials — with all the attendant bureaucracy and expense — when you can have just one? Surely the wisdom of our American efficiency was evident.
But the longer this administration continues, the more I see the merit of a figurehead role for head of state — a powerless position that can do all the feelings stuff without interfering with governance.
Read the rest here.
Obama: Identity Politics Originated With Founding Fathers, Americans Showed ‘Great Smugness’ After Cold War
The Game-Changing Promise of a Green New Deal
Like so many others, I’ve been energized by the bold moral
leadership coming from newly elected members of Congress like Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Ayanna Pressley in the
face of the spiraling climate crisis and the outrageous attacks on
unarmed migrants at the border. It has me thinking about the crucial
difference between leadership that acts and leadership that talks about
acting.I’ll get to the Green New Deal and why we need to hold tight to that
lifeline for all we’re worth. But before that, bear with me for a visit
to the grandstanding of climate politics past.
yes i post thing i don’t like
“by the bold moral
leadership
“
and thing i laugh at
take your pick in this case
Intersectional Identity Politics Are Racist, Sexist, Anti-American Lies
In academia, censorship and conformity have become the norm
For those who say ideas that denigrate members of society shouldn’t be
entertained, silencing the debate doesn’t make hateful beliefs go away.
In many cases, it isn’t controversial findings that pose a threat; the
threat comes from the possibility that others will use these facts to
justify discrimination. But it’s important that we distinguish between
an idea and the researcher putting forth that idea, and the potential
for bad behaviour.
Look up their co-authors and see which
university departments they belong to. Medical doctors and hard
scientists will often team up with faculty in departments such as gender
studies, philosophy, education and English to provide an ideological
framework through which findings are interpreted. (I should emphasize,
however, that not all scholars from these fields are suspect.)See
if their online university profile contains progressive buzzwords like
“inequality,” “lived experience,” or makes reference to their race,
sexual orientation, or status as a woman or feminist. Being sensitive to
issues like inequality is important; however, it isn’t appropriate for
researchers – especially scientists – to make these pronouncements in an
academic context. Good research is objective, and the researcher’s
identity, whether they are a so-called cis white man or a minority,
shouldn’t make a difference.
Dissenting from the Leftist Party Line
When Democrats Win, Freedom Loses
Deals with the Devil
Trump or the trump party where not the opposition to the dem till very recently. It is the naive middle painting oranges red
Is it possible that both parties could simultaneously reach the
toleration tipping point? Can the country defy political gravity and
clamber its way back up the slippery slope? No bipartisan, smoke-filled
backroom exists where such a deal could be hammered out. Rather,
politicians and laypersons on both sides of the political spectrum who
believe the pendulum has swung too far toward amorality must be willing
to face down the true believers in the current ends-justify-the-means
political culture. It may be a bloody fight, but if it is fought on both
sides simultaneously, it may help restore our politics to a higher
plane.
“who believe the pendulum has swung too far toward amorality must be
willing to face down the true believers in the current
ends-justify-the-means political culture.” is not likely to win the race
with progressive totalitarian control, civil war or societal collapse
CultML 