Oh god, there's an Only in Russia twitter feed. I'll never work again.
J, Robot writes: As most of you know from the other place, I spent the past week at Cancer Camp*, near CharleyCarp's place.
Personally, I'm simultaneously strongly attracted to and deeply suspicious of "woo." The camp itself wasn't too terribly woo-ish, but two of the campers sell essential oils, and many campers and staff have dietary restrictions (gluten, dairy, added sugars, meat) that they claim have improved their health and wellbeing. One of the camp chefs--who was incredible--claims that removing wheat and dairy from her diet has basically changed her life.
So. I enjoyed eating all of the healthy stuff, and endured the lack of Diet Pepsi and alcohol, and thought the essential oils smelled alright. At home, we don't cook very much. How much of this stuff reflects the placebo effect, and how much should I actually consider trying to implement? Keep in mind that I'm lazy, still a beginner in the kitchen, and don't want to waste effort and money on something that is unlikely to really help.
*All of the campers and many of the staff have or have had cancer. This past week has been amazing.
Heebie's take: I don't think it's crazy to eliminate a category of food from your diet for a week or two and see how you feel. I assume the goal here is feeling better during recovery, and that nobody is entertaining claims that these dietary shifts will help fight cancer itself.
My own observations on myself are that eating carbs and sugar makes me really want more sugar, whereas eating fat and meat leaves me satiated. (Basically nothing ever moves the needle on the scale, but I operate on the assumption that my vigilance is what it takes to stave off even more weight gain.)(I'm sure you meant a broader set of health indicators than just weight.)
Over a decade, and none of you thought of this joke.
I JUST CAME ACROSS TRUMP'S WORST NIGHTMARE IN MISSISSAUGA pic.twitter.com/XIgOSjcReR— sana™ (@sanazub) August 27, 2016
Aw hell, I came across these American Redoubt folks when I was researching places to live a few years ago. It's not mentioned in the article, but this seems to be their bible. I should have been smart and started a business to sell them bunker kits and LifeStraws.
The piece isn't too long and does a nice job of conveying the impression I had of them from message boards: in some ways reasonable people--not always motivated by hate or anger--who happen to be living in an alternate reality.
If you haven't taken a moment to read the Trump Campaign twitter Saga, you need to do it. I can't pick a favorite one.
(I love the author's rhythm - dropping the punchline up front and then relishing the awkward aftermath.)
(It's so long I'm having trouble finishing it.)
the general "don't leave my sight until you're 16 at which point here's your 2 ton death machine" phenomenon is very weird to me
I think the question contains the answer. Parents are completely responsible for their childrens' safety, and all parents have, at the very least, a background buzz of worry about their kids at any moment. Rites of passage are ostensibly about the child becoming an adult, or more adult-like, and therefore involve some element of independence and danger, but I think that danger is also for the parents, in that they have to accept that death might also come for their children, and the parents have to take a step back from the task of keeping it at bay.
I thought everyone knew this, but apparently not. Also, nice to see it mentioned that driving slightly too slow is more dangerous than slightly too fast, which anyone who drives regularly on American highways could have told you.
More: Why are traffic fatality rates in the US significantly higher than in Western Europe. Is it that Americans are dumber (plausible), that more open space equals higher speeds and two-lane country-road death traps (my hypothesis), something about our traffic planning (busy intersections with no arrow for left turns, for example) or something else?
For a multi-day protest of about 3000 people, this has gotten very little coverage. I mean, it's not like the importance of taking over a national wildlife refuge or protesting the Feds not letting your cattle graze on their land, but maybe it can aspire to that kind of importance.
Via E. Messily
Nick S. writes: Claire McCaskill talks about how much she invested in helping Todd Akin win the Republican primary in 2012
Akin's track record made him my ideal opponent. ...
Using the guidance of my campaign staff and consultants, we came up with the idea for a "dog whistle" ad, a message that was pitched in such a way that it would be heard only by a certain group of people. I told my team we needed to put Akin's uber-conservative bona fides in an ad--and then, using reverse psychology, tell voters not to vote for him. And we needed to run the hell out of that ad.
It started to work. Our telephones were ringing off the hook with people saying, "Just because she's telling me not to vote for him, I'm voting for him. That's the best ad for Akin I've ever seen!" A man wrote a letter to the editor of the Springfield News Leader: "I think it's time for someone who may be too conservative. Thank you, Senator McCaskill, for running that ad. You have helped me determine that my vote needs to go to Akin."
... I was more than ready for a celebration. That day--August 7, 2012--felt like my own election, even though I had no opponent in the Democratic primary. Never before had I been so engaged and so committed to another's race.
... I understood the enormous risk I had taken: I had spent millions trying to control the outcome of the Republican primary. If it worked, some would call it political genius; if it failed, and especially if I went on to lose in November, it would be called the stupidest thing I had ever done. I was fully aware of the risk and would have felt terrible if Todd Akin had become a United States senator. On the other hand, if you went down the list of issues, there was not a dime's worth of difference among the three primary candidates on how they would have voted if they had become senators. Getting Todd Akin as the opponent in the long run made it more likely that Missourians would not be represented by someone who held those extreme views.
via Brad DeLong
Heebie's take: That is so conniving! I couldn't find the actual commercial online, unfortunately.
Nick S writes: One of the eternal questions about Hillary Clinton as a campaigner. Why is it that she inspires respect more than affection, and does that reflect poorly on her (as either a person or a politician)? Three links:
Vox asks a number of prominent feminists for their comments about Clinton, and gets a number of responses like these (in response to the prompt, "On what having Hillary Clinton as president would mean for feminism and politics") which, whether positive or negative, are not what I would call affectionate.
Kathleen Geier: Hillary Clinton's true feminist legacy remains to be seen. In any case, it will have little to do with whether she succeeds in shattering the glass ceiling of the presidency. Instead, it will rest on whether she enacts the kinds of feminist public policies that could be game changers for working women.
In a recent fivethirtyeight chat it is fascinating to watch Claire Malone wrestle (in real time) with her sense of how gender stereotypes have shaped Clinton's career:
clare.malone: I think the "right" answer for other candidates if they had an email problem would be really opening up on a different front -- trying to sell a narrative of the candidate as a full human being, a person with a great personal story. A person who can command a crowd. Clinton can't or won't do that. She has basically made it clear that we only get to know her so much, and in some ways I think that inaccessibility (which is central to her persona now) has made the emails worse than it would for another candidate.
I think we do have to acknowledge that when we say that Clinton is a historically disliked candidate (as measured by her unfavorables), she's historically disliked in no small part because she's lived a life antithetical to what a lot of Americans expect out of women. She's not here to make you feel good and cuddly -- she's a woman of ambition who makes a lot of men feel emasculated, quite frankly (and to be clear, that's their problem).
There's an interesting contrast in the Wired magazine endorsement of Clinton which, interestingly, takes a moment to defend and endorse the messiness of politics.
Now, it's true: Engineers, the heroes of WIRED, often misunderstand politics. They tend to confuse political problems with technological ones (because those are the ones they know how to solve), and they get impatient with the inefficiency, ugliness, and open-endedness of governing. If you think WIRED's ideal future is an engineer's future, you've misread us, and I apologize for being unclear. Making policy based on ideas, science, evidence, and compromise--as we believe Hillary Clinton will do--is not an approach to building a fully optimized system. When human beings are involved, optimization is asymptotic; you aim for it but never reach it. Clinton's approach is merely prudent.
It's also skillful. Among those who've worked with her, Clinton is renowned for how well she listens and works in teams. And of course her inauguration would start to remedy a certain hiring bias that the nation's HR department--the electorate--has displayed over the past 241 years.
That last perspective is closest to my own, and yet, taken out of the context of this election there's a hint of Broderism in the elevation of "compromise." That makes me think that, in people's judgements of Clinton we may be seeing the convergence of three different elements. First that, as Claire Malone put it, Clinton, "lived a life antithetical to what a lot of Americans expect out of women" and that lead directly to her being inaccessible. Secondly that the current media (and social media) landscape rewards a certain kind of faux-intimacy. Thirdly that, as a reaction to the 90s (and the Bush administration) Democrats have much less patience with the idea of compromise and more of a desire for candidates who represent a clear ideological vision. I think the first of those factors makes it significantly more difficult for Clinton to fit the demands of the other two.
As an example, take Kathleen Geier's comment, quoted above. One could imagine many candidates for whom somebody would say, "If they could get elected running on such an explicitly feminist platform that would be a significant victory." But Clinton doesn't inspire that reaction, she gets, "I don't care what she says, can she deliver meaningful policy change. That is both a completely reasonable position and also somewhat begrudging. I think that fact reflects both that memories of Clinton's support for Welfare Reform, for example, makes a lot of people skeptical about her policy instincts. But I also think, on a more symbolic level, that Clinton does not come across as a politician with strong ideological commitments and that is both a reflection on her personally and of the fact that she's spent so much time as a public figure being attacked (including many deeply sexist attacks). One of the things that people take a sign of ideological commitment is the willingness to take strong stands without apologizing, and it feels like Clinton has spent a lot of time either apologizing or (more frequently) dodging demands for apologies in a way that makes her look insular rather than forceful.
Heebie's take: My prediction is that Clinton will win, comfortably, but not quite the landslide that Obama vs Trump would generate. But then once in office, Clinton's numbers will climb, in the opposite pattern of Obama's, compared to campaigning.
I've said this before, but Obama's ultimate brilliance is as a campaigner, and his problem has always been that he stopped campaigning to govern, ie "you should never stop courting your wife" sort of thing. He never sold his choices very well to the public, and the choices he made were not necessarily the ones you'd think that Campaign Obama would have chosen.
In contrast, I do believe that thing about how Clinton's popularity surges when she's holding office, and crashes when she's aspiring to more power, and I think the pattern will continue: once she's instated and the dust settles, her popularity will surge.
We've talked vagendas and we've talked mandom, but only now can we finally talk about this: