See, Chris has it right. If there's only one person you'd want to be married to, then don't marry anyone else.
If he's telling the truth, that is. *ahem*probablynot*ahem*
"By the time she turns 37," Chris said confidently, "she'll come back. And I'll bet she'll marry me then. I know she wants to have kids."
Is there anyone who doubts that the surgeon did exactly the right thing in not marrying him?
It's funny how all this ridiculous advice ignores the fact that there are also men who really, really, desperately want to get married and have children. In fact, I think I've known more men who lay about pouting that they're going to spend their lives alone and childless than I have women. That has to do with the company I keep and the fact that I'm still young, but still.
you hang out with pouty men, you mean?
No, I hang out with chicks who aren't very traditional or marriage-minded. But yeah, there are some pouty ones; unfortunately, I have dated some of them.
OT: Looks like the Republicans are ready to get the general election campaign rolling.
Krugman's Monday column is capital W Weird. Key quote is
Supporters of each candidate should have no trouble rallying behind the other if he or she gets the nod.
Why, then, is there so much venom out there?
I won't try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody.
He proceeds to give no examples of this, and rather to discuss mistreatment of Sen. Clinton in the press. What this has to do with Obama's supporters is beyond me.
One of the problems with this is that he'll end up hurting his credibility on the mandate point by making it look personal.
This guy Chris must be a real whiz in his marketing job, what with all his keen insights into people. "I'll just wait this one out, because doubtless this smart, ambitious, good looking woman will have to come crawling back for my baby making sperm."
Well that's marketing for you --- he probably saw a study about high percentages of late-thirties childless women desperate to get married and start a family.
8:Several threads have pained me tonight, at ObsWi and Yglesias. There certainly is joy and pride and well some hope, if only of getting the nomination. But there is a triumphalism and the reek of vengeance and a moral crusade. Clinton and her supporters may be their enemy, as Hubert was the enemy in 1968.
I look forward to the Obammers celebrating with the torturers and liars and tax-cutters and mass-murderers and old-worlders over the conquest and destruction of the mutual enemy, Hillary Rodham Clinton. After all, the war is all her fault.
Yes, I am discouraged and sad and bitter. For Obama will give George and Laura big hugs and smiles and handshakes on inauguration day, as he sets to work with his friends in the Republican Congress to destroy the true problem of America, that scourge of dirty fucking hippies and vicious partisan Democrats.
Morning in America again.
Yes, I am discouraged and sad and bitter.
Shocking.
In connection with something else, I studied the Paris Commune of 1871 for a couple hours tonight.
The Parisiens lost a ridiculous war started by a corrupt and incompetent gov't and after the stravation seige and the shelling, were not in the mood to embrace the scoundrels, rascals, and fools who destroyed their city. They shot generals. And I am not talking the Germans.
After 8 years of these scum, these monsters and all the hate goes to Clinton and old Democrats, not to the Republicans. It makes me physically sick.
You go unity, motherfuckers.
After 8 years of these scum, these monsters and all the hate goes to Clinton and old Democrats, not to the Republicans. It makes me physically sick.
Yeah, Obama's acting all crazy and shit, like he's running against Hillary for something. Weird.
I studied the Paris Commune of 1871 for a couple hours tonight.
Also shocking.
One of the problems with this is that he'll end up hurting his credibility on the mandate point by making it look personal.
This is what is most horrifying, the rejection of Paul Krugman by the Obama supporters, because it shows there is really no point of purpose in discussing the Obama campaign(s) and there will be no reasoned examination of policy proposals in the Obama administration. If y'all will attack Paul Krugman's honesty, credibility, & integrity for this, any questions Krugman raises on serious matters or bills, well, I would advise Krugman retire for he might not survive Obama's first term.
You are either for Obama or a bad person, and you either want exactly what Obama wants or we don''t need you. Reason has left the building.
This is how fascism will begin in America, with unquestioning vitriolic masses acting out in the name of love. No wonder Republicans love Obama.
I can't believe I am see Democrats turn on Krugman. I can't believe what I am watching after 8 years of Bush.
I think washerdreyer claimed there was insufficient evidence given by Paul Krugman of Obamabot bad manners. Hey, maybe it doesn't exist? I think I will go over to Matt's and look
Abe,I think Krugman's column is a response to Frank Rich's on Sunday.
Seriously, though, he can go eat a dick.
Posted by ben | February 11, 2008 2:04 AM
Mr. Krugman, you are a hack. Kindly go fuck yourself, then drown in your own urine.Posted by Abe | February 11, 2008 1:51 AM
LOL ben. They're really crazy at talk left aren't they? It's because they are low information voters and that's why they support Hillary. That explains why everything they say is wild and crazy. Obama supporters are high info voters, and that's why we are smarter and know more than them. Simple equation. Obama supporters smarter than Hillary supporters.Posted by TLM | February 11, 2008 12:13 AM
Another school of thought says, the 1990s are over, and it's time to bring the country together, to solve problems instead of relentlessly enjoying gutter politics. More than the under-40 creative class appreciates this and it's elitism to suggest otherwise.
Posted by David B. | February 10, 2008 10:40 PM
Glad to hear it, Dave.
Huh, I wonder if this is the same guy by that name who kept accidentally Facebook-friending me.
McManus runs afoul of Kevin's Law.
You've gotten sloppy Bob. No one is actually that hysterical. Not even you.
7: You're not giving them enough credit. This is the midterm election campaign of 2010.
A bunch of guys--some of them perhaps only tenuously connected to the 9/11 attacks--are going to be sentenced to death in a proceeding in which (1) evidence obtained from torture is admissable, (2) the defendants are not permitted to know, much less challenge, all of the evidence against them, (3) and the defendants were not afforded adequate counsel or the right to confront their accusers.
The next administration is going to be left to sort this shitpile out as it crawls through the appellate process, with the GOP going into the 2010 midterms screaming "The liberals are trying to let the murderers of 3,000 Americans off the hook!"
If you want a picture of the future, imagine Barack Obama's foot stomping on Paul Krugman's face -- forever!
23:What are you saying, I made the blockquotes up? I will be damned if I am going to embed links for every piece of trash. Look for threads at Yglesias over 100 comments.
Or are you meaning me? I may have to go get Dave Neiwert's bullet points, but I was never worried about fascism during the last 7 years.
The strongest early symptom is a energized enthusiastic youth movement with contempt for their elders, a desire for a "New Politics" and an eliminationist rhetoric.
What the Leader says is almost irrelevant. Fascism is bottom up, not top down.
McManus runs afoul of Kevin's Law.
Comment-trawling in random corners of the internet is all McManus does. Watch out, America - Barack Obama is Satan, because joey3049, infrequent Atrios reader, said so!
What are you saying, I made the blockquotes up?
I'm talking about 16 dude. A bit heavy handed, even for you.
I think Bob was on stronger ground back when he was arguing about Obama's secret Muslim economics.
27: careful, stras, when I said that, McM went on about feeling threatened. You need to make these comment threads a safe space for...well, whatever.
The strongest early symptom is a energized enthusiastic youth movement with contempt for their elders, a desire for a "New Politics" and an eliminationist rhetoric.
Right--have we forgotten the lessons of the sixties and the grim years of struggle against the youthful fascists that followed?
7, 24 -- I agree with 24, but the can of worms gets open the minute they indict. Those 6 guys are going to get lawyers -- uniformed officers who are going to take their oaths deadly seriously, despite implications for careers. And the Commission judges have shown they'd rather be seen as Spencer Tracy than Burt Lancaster.
It's a bad system, no doubt about it. But there are elements within the system that mitigate, to a degree, these negative features. (I don't have time to find a link right now, but Jess Bravin's article on this in the WSJ is worth reading.)
(That is, I don't agree with 24 about the adequacy of the appointed counsel. Those guys really are heroes.)
Chris sounds like a couple of guys I know, to the extent that many of them went through a must-find-a-wife stage and were far more desperate not to be "that guy" at the bar in his mid-thirties.
31 is just genius. "Never trust anyone over thirty" has turned into "Never trust anyone black/educated/white/rural/female/under 50 who voted for Obama."
Oh, come on, now, being "that guy" doesn't have to be shameful. You do have to be more judicious about your choice of bars, though.
The occasion of this thread cannot be permitted to pass without linking to this.
Chris's story fills me with sadness more than anything else.
Speaking of Obama, his campaign really seems to be taking the Clinton organization to school lately. The weekend was a bloodbath.
35: Yes, but they were worried about it. They were worried that women would wonder why they were 32 and not married. What was wrong with them? (Usually, nothing.) It's just that we almost never hear about it from guys, but for guys that want to get married, in my experience, there's just as much panicking.
anne says... The continual impossible attacks on Hillary Clinton by those who are supposedly hoping for a Democratic Presidency, have made it all but impossible to examine and when seemingly called for to criticize Barack Obama's policy positions and in so doing hope to reshape them. More important though has been the intimidating villifying of Clinton, especially the villifying of Clinton as a woman, that echoes years of such prejudiced and debilitating attacks.Posted by: anne | Link to comment | February 11, 2008 at 04:21 AM
31:Very very important, and the opposite of fascism, was the fact that the 60s movements did not coalesce around a single charismatic
leader. In fact, it is hard for someone who was actually there rather than reading RFK hagiographies, to name a leader or a half-dozen for the anti-war movement.
Neiwert has many bullet points. The Leader is critical. The Leader really must be somewhat vague and amorphous in his statements, because the connection is emotional rather than intellectual. The goal cannot be something as definable as "ending the war" It must be something like "Hope" or "A Better Tomorrow."
It's funny how all this ridiculous advice ignores the fact that there are also men who really, really, desperately want to get married and have children.
apart from the "Chris" bits, yes it does.
Those 6 guys are going to get lawyers -- uniformed officers who are going to take their oaths deadly seriously, despite implications for careers.
No disrespect was intended to the men and women who will advocate for the accused. What I meant by "inadequate counsel" is that the administration has overlooked no opportunity to hamstring the defense. Having failed in their initial attempt to deny the accused legal representation at all (by attempting to substitute "assistants" who were expressly prohibited from acting as advocates for the accused and with whom communications were not privileged), the administration has stacked the deck against the defense JAGs with undisguised threats of career reprisals, restrictions on contact with their clients, denial of necessary resources such as translators, limitations on sharing evidence with the accused, etc.
It is no knock against the defense lawyers to say that no adequate defense is possible in these circumstances.
39: iiinteresting. I thought men's greater reproductive flexibility would blunt that a bit.
I thought men's greater reproductive flexibility would blunt that a bit.
Men still get old and ugly, even when their gonads keep working.
They do, stras, as I know all too well, but (my anecdata suggest) guys can be, say, in their late 30s and still think, plausibly, that they'll meet someone and have kids, where for women that's a time of increasing risk. My thought is just that the window stays open longer for men.
Men still get old and ugly, even when their gonads keep working.
I was about to write "Speak for yourself, stras," and then I realized this would convey an unintended ambiguity.
40: We should totally set up a McmanusBot that randomly reposts negative comments about Obama supporters from other blogs, followed by dark speculation about crypto-fascism and the '68 convention.
My thought is just that the window stays open longer for men.
Certainly to the extent that income is a proxy for marriageability in men and youthful beauty is a proxy for marriageability in women*, it makes sense that men's peak earning years (45-55) come later than women's physical peak (20-30).
*I'm not saying this is universally true, or desirable, but no one should deny that there is some truth to this.
47: I prefer the artisanal quality of handmade trolling over any machine-produced product. Veblen would have understood this.
Doesn't "that guy" no longer go to bars but instead trolls for wives on the internet, specifically EHarmony?
I prefer the artisanal quality of handmade trolling over any machine-produced product.
Does "trolling" imply that you don't actually believe the statement? Or is it just that you're making the statement--which you may believe is true--for reasons unrelated to convincing someone that it's true? I was never really clear on this.
43: One must control for them being my nerdy undergraduate friends, which makes them now successful lawyers and businessmen, but also largely Catholic. Which probably knocks about ten years off of most calculations like this. Still, even with the adjustment for that set of neuroses, they're the ones that are worried, not my girlfriends.
The thinking of the guys goes: We're successful! We have money! We have no women! Maybe women can smell the nerdiness on us! Maybe they know!
Hey, I've got a trollish opinion to give, and I haven't read the article or threads:
Every day of your marriage is going to be a compromise anyway, so why not do a little compromising before the wedding, too.
Cala, that reminds me of a guy I knew in grad school. Even though he wanted to meet the Catholic ladies, he would never go to the campus Newman Center because he insisted on a more conservative church nearby, where he met a lot of old widows.
52: that's a good question. I think that our concept of trolling has vague boundaries.
Does "trolling" imply that you don't actually believe the statement?
I think one can be sincere and argue in good faith, and still be a troll. At Redstate, I suspect it would be trolling to say "Lowering tax rates in the U.S. generally lowers tax revenue."
To expand on 56: I think the questioning of shared community assumptions is at the root of trolling - obligating people to argue about things that are widely seen as settled matters.
I think trolling has something to do with making a comment more to get a rise out of someone than to engage in some kind of good-faith exchange of ideas.
55: The weird thing is that none of them are particularly strict Catholics. It's a combination of the usual post-education "now where the hell am I supposed to meet people" problem plus some vestigial Catholicism that lowers the expected age of marriage about three years.
58: You'll take that back when you see Michelle's beaten, swollen face! Snarf.
Does the reasonableness of the shared community assumptions play a role here? It doesn't seem to me that saying "Lowering tax rates in the U.S. generally lowers tax revenue" should count as trolling anywhere. The problem lies on the side of the community, not the poster.
One guy I dated was especially aggressive about pursuing me, in a way I should have been more suspicious about. At some point, he explained that he had only really had one long-termish relationship before, with a young woman who dumped him because her mother had a long talk with her saying, "He seems like a perfectly nice guy, but you have to wonder about someone who's thirty-five and never been in a long-term relationship before."
He told me this story like, "Isn't that ridiculous? How am I supposed to ever get married and have kids if that's how women think about men who haven't already been in LTRs?" and I was thinking, "Ah! I'm safe and won't actually be trapped in a long-term relationship! Woo-hoo!"
Yes, I had told him I didn't plan on marrying. He was hoping I'd get old enough to feel the pull to want to.
All these relationship anecdotes are making me sad, sad, sad.
The problem lies on the side of the community, not the poster.
The problem lies in the relationship of the poster to the community.
bob, I think there's an inherent problem with saying:
1. Obama supporters are mean to Hillary because
2. they are a bunch of proto-fascists.
Seems like sort of a pot-and-kettle thing going on here.
Everybody gets a little excited about candidates they favor, compared to candidates they are against. The proto-fascists ain't in the Democratic Party, though.
(I do share your concern about the Humphrey-ization of Hillary. But then, I think the Humphrey-ization of Humphrey was a bad idea, too. Not everyone agrees.)
Also: I don't doubt that Krugman has had a hard time of it for his modest questioning of Obama's program. When he says that most of the nastiness he sees comes from the Obama camp, I have no doubt that this is simply a factual statement.
I agree with m. leblanc above that lots and lots of dudes are super-invested in the marriage/kids thing, but people talk about it less as a male stereotype because their #1 strategy seems to be finding a woman who wants none of that and waiting them out over the course of a protracted, loveless relationship, prolonged unnaturally by the formation of relationship-centric social ties and obligations.
I posted on McMegan's site intermittently for awhile, until I realized that her priors were so different than mine, and I was so dubious about her approach and presentation, that anything I said there would be trolling, and not fun trolling either.
Trolling people I have some common ground with and some respect for is much more gratifying.
63: would fighting with mcmanus make you feel better, stras? I know it's generally tiresome and pointless, but just this once maybe it'd be okay.
I've come around to the point of view that I've been an unintentional troll before; hence my conviction that intent ought to be removed from the definition.
I think that in any online community, you'll see a tug-of-war among participants that is, in part, designed to define what constitutes trolling.
This is just an extension of normal adult social practice: There are perfectly reasonable things that one does not say in some groups.
You're also encouraging trolling as we speak, pf.
66: I agree with your & m. leblanc's observations, but I don't find that strategy to be universal. Most of my friends have gone through a pattern of holding onto one relationship well past its expiration date, usually because of mutual friends, and then going through a short cranky/rebound period, then dating a number of people quickly before settling (ah, ah, ah!) on the person they end up marrying. If one person is marriage-minded and the other isn't, it tends to break up quickly.
I've lost my love for pig-wrestling, Sifu.
But if pig-wrestling gets desperate, it might still marry me.
Yeah, I don't think the strategy tends to be very effective.
and then going through a short cranky/rebound period, then dating a number of people quickly before settling (ah, ah, ah!) on the person they end up marrying.
You say that like it's the end of the process. Wait ten years and watch it repeat.
When he says that most of the nastiness he sees comes from the Obama camp, I have no doubt that this is simply a factual statement.
Right, because it's the Obama staffers who've been caught forwarding emails about how Clinton is a secret Muslim.
Clearly, pig-wrestling and I are in for a post-breakup rebound.
76: I intended to make a much more limited claim - just that I bet Krugman has personally caught a lot more shit from Obama's supporters.
To the extent that the campaign has been a nasty campaign, the bulk of the nastiness from a campaign has come from Clinton's camp. So I agree with you.
In addition to falsely generalizing his own experience, Krugman errs because he conflates the media (and its nastiness toward Hillary) with supporters of Obama.
Sadly, some of my ideas about marriage and child rearing have gotten more traditional as I've gotten a bit older. My criteria have narrowed instead of expanding. In my case I think that's just being realistic.
The kind of person I'd be willing to marry if we don't plan on having kids is different from the standards I'd have if we do. I'd really need a lot of help to manage a household adequately. That means that I'd probably need a full-time nanny and someone to clean the house a couple of times a week. Given my temperament, I'm unlikely to be able to earn that kind of money myself, so I'd have to marry somebody pretty damn financially secure. Probably the ideal mate would be somebody working a 50 hour week with some independent source of income too.
Those are pretty narrow criteria, and it's really quite likely that I'll never find someone like that to have kids with, but that would be okay. Part of me would probably like to have kids, but I know that I shouldn't absent a ton of help. If we aren't going to have children, then I can be a lot more flexible.
What is the etymology of "troll", anyway? Does it allude to the ugly creatures that hide under bridges and waylay the unwary? Or to "trolling" for fish with a hook and line off the back of a boat? Or something else entirely (cf. cerf/surf)?
Trolling for fish, I believe. The fish are people who respond to your comments seriously.
my ideas about marriage and child rearing have gotten more traditional as I've gotten a bit older....I'd probably need a full-time nanny and someone to clean the house a couple of times a week. Given my temperament, I'm unlikely to be able to earn that kind of money myself, so I'd have to marry somebody pretty damn financially secure.
Careful, BG, I think that's how Caitlin Flanagan started out.
83: I know, it's absolutely terrifying.
I can barely manage being married. Putting a small person in that mix would just be a bad idea.
1) I have not been involved at all in the last four threas.
2) I did have something worthless to say on-topic in this thread, but was taken aback by washerdryer's off-topic post at #6.
3) WD might not have been trolling in that it might be a shared assumption in this community that Paul Krugman is a deranged dishonest Clinton hack without integrity or credibility, using his platform to destroy Obama out of a personal and unprofessional, and utterly baseless animosity.
If No 3 is a shared assumption or prior of the Unfoggedetariat, and I had understood that contempt for Paul Krugman was a pre-requisite for commenting, than I would indeed have been trolling.
Cala is only interested in threesomes with tall people. Gotcha.
Vote Clinton... or you hurt Saint Krugman's feelings.
Krugman is a hero and Frank Rich is a hack, but I guess I haven't stared at Hypnotoad long enough to realize that Krugman is always right, and never, ever motivated by personal animus.
And this, of course, was McManus's first post in this thread, driven by nothing more than a desire to defend Professor Krugman's virtue:
I look forward to the Obammers celebrating with the torturers and liars and tax-cutters and mass-murderers and old-worlders over the conquest and destruction of the mutual enemy, Hillary Rodham Clinton. After all, the war is all her fault.
Yes, I am discouraged and sad and bitter. For Obama will give George and Laura big hugs and smiles and handshakes on inauguration day, as he sets to work with his friends in the Republican Congress to destroy the true problem of America, that scourge of dirty fucking hippies and vicious partisan Democrats.
Morning in America again.
86:Fuck. Washerdreyer is at 8, not 6.
Part of the question, I suppose only for me, is how so many people I have respected in the past have become willing to make grossly slanderous statements about Paul Krugman, to whit, that Paul Krugman has let a personal animosity toward Obama destroy a reputation for integrity he has spent a lifetime building.
It is a puzzlement.
Primary season makes me sad, because it makes everyone crazy. Reading the comment threads at liberal weblogs becomes very painful.
85: if you wait a while, the marriage will start working smoother and then you can have some small people. (If that is what you want.)
The advice I'm planning on giving my kids is
(1) Date someone for at least a year before moving in with them
(2) Live with them at least a year before getting engaged
(3) Be engaged at least a year before getting married.
(4) Be married at least three years before having kids.
(5) Don't even think about starting the whole process until you are 25.
Molly and I actually rushed (1) and (2), but things worked out anyway.
The kind of person I'd be willing to marry if we don't plan on having kids is different from the standards I'd have if we do. I'd really need a lot of help to manage a household adequately. That means that I'd probably need a full-time nanny and someone to clean the house a couple of times a week.
Alternatively, you adjust your standards about what a clean house means. I suspect that having kids gets scarier as you get older.
When you are young, you are idealistic (or stupid) and have no idea about money and what kids do to you. As you get older, you realize how expensive and time consuming the little rug rats are.
The truth is that you survive and adjust.
After a few days here trying to inspire intelligent, issue-centered discussion on Obama/Hillary, Ari posted this request on his site:
I'm curious to see endorsements for both candidates. Come to think of it, I'd like to read the most interesting endorsements for any of the candidates who have been or still are in the race, Democrats or Republicans.
Outrageous!
91: Dude, bob, w/d just pointed out that Krugman made a claim and didn't back it up with any kind of evidence.
90:Well, what sort of conclusion should I draw from the fact that hundreds of people who 2 years ago considered Paul Krugman a "hero" and nearly the most honest man in journalism have suddenly decided he is a man who works out his personal grudges in his column, and disingenuously.
I suppose it would be possible that those hundreds of very intelligent respectable people are correct, and Paul Krugman has morphed into Bill Kristol or David Brooks.
Or perhaps those hundreds of people, in some sort of group interaction, have had their individual judgement impaired. And what could have affected so many people? And what sort of group interaction leads people to attack what were their most loyal allies? Etc Etc. There is a logical chain here.
Yeah. Semi-troll. This one brought out the assholes in full force at volokh, with the kick-off from Eugene himself in reasonotroll mode.
I will add to 93:
6. Marry the right person.
7. Only birth the well-behaved children.
8. Learn to compromise on the things that don't matter. (ie everything)
9. Sleep is not that important.
10. A little drink at night can help the day seem much better.
I hate to break it to you, Bob, but Saint Paul of Krugman hasn't exactly spent a lifetime fighting as some lion of the left. He was and is an economic neoliberal whose tone - not his politics - became considerably more strident and partisan with the ascent of Bush II. (See also: Brad DeLong.) He's not some benchmark of liberal purity, or the Pope of the Left, handing down infallible pronouncements on progressive policy. He's a centrist economist who had the good sense, several years ago, to take Bush to task on war and tax policy when very few others with his platform were doing so.
I can barely manage being married. Putting a small person in that mix would just be a bad idea.
"A baby is a hand grenade tossed into the middle of a relationship" -- Nora Ephron.
Saint Paul of Krugman hasn't exactly spent a lifetime fighting as some lion of the left.
WHAT? (bursts into tears and flees the room)
99: See, I thought I was giving workable advice that would actually substitute for a principle like (6).
Helpychalk gives great advice in #2 & #3.
It takes two solid years to know exactly how annoying the other person will be. (or you will be.)
90:Well, what sort of conclusion should I draw from the fact that hundreds of people who 2 years ago considered Paul Krugman a "hero" and nearly the most honest man in journalism have suddenly decided he is a man who works out his personal grudges in his column, and disingenuously.
The conclusion you should draw, Bob, is that your perception of the "facts" may be somewhat clouded. Deep breaths.
I know we have plenty of time, but thinking of myself as a first-time mom at 32 just seems so much older than my mental image has it. My mother was on her fourth kid by then. My mental image is stupid, but it is becoming stupider because all my friends are having babies.
I think trolling has something to do with making a comment more to get a rise out of someone than to engage in some kind of good-faith exchange of ideas.
zomg i'm a total troll!!!1
Alternatively, you adjust your standards about what a clean house means. I suspect that having kids gets scarier as you get older.
Will, I'm really a slob, and I have a terrible time organizing physical space. My standards are basically not having a ton of dishes piling up in the sink, no fruit flies over rotting fruit, and you shouldn't be able to rub dirty soap scummy stuff off the bathtub when you take a bath. I am not talking about keeping an immaculate house. There should also be enough food in the house to feed the little people consistently. I often don't manage to feed myself properly. Being responsible for a littler person (I'm pretty small myself) is a pretty scary thought. One of my friends pointed out to me that kids are fairly stressful, and I know that you're well aware of that, Will.
Will in 99: 9. Sleep is not that important.
See, this is flatly false. I am quite dangerous after a few days of sleep deprivation, where sleep deprivation is defined as less than six hours of sleep. Sometimes it hits on the very first day, but if I only get 4 hours of sleep one night, I will certainly feel it a day later.
I am much more impaired when I'm tired than when I'm tipsy from alcohol.
I hate to break it to you, Bob, but Saint Paul of Krugman hasn't exactly spent a lifetime fighting as some lion of the left.
It's a measure of how much the U.S. has changed that Krugman really is, in 2008, some kind of out-there leftist. He certainly hasn't changed.
But stras, you omit the fact that Krugman's shots at Obama - which primarily involve healthcare - come from Obama's left.
106: My great grandmother had her only child at 40.
93 is great advice, although R moved in with me when she was only 23, and we seem to have worked out OK.
*knock wood*
Bostoniangirl, you're fine. My wife manages to not starve our kids when I'm not around, and she made a pretty good attempt at living exclusively off of cold cereal in college.
108:
I dont think the slob part matters, BG. I am a messy, messy person who comes from messy, messy people. As far as food, the buggers learn to eat by themselves fairly soon.
The stress part is another story. I am surprised that more of us do not kill our children. Respite, family, neighbors, and alcohol really help. Plus, kids learn to play with other kids and give you a break.
In all seriousness, it isn't that bad.
I am not suggesting that it is bad to not want kids. I strongly believe that we pressure people too much to have kids.
Having kids is a big nonlinearity in one's life. It is very difficult to say ex ante how you'll find it. In particular, trying to see how the kid would fit into your present everyday life is a mistake. So are efforts to generalize from facts about oneself like "I really need 8 hours of sleep a night" or "I like to watch a lot of movies" or "I can't work before eleven."
The upside to this uncertainty is that if you can justify having kid in the abstract, it'll likely be much better than you imagined. This is because the general negatives of having a kid -- sleeplessness, extra work, diapers, etc -- are much more estimable ex ante than the positives. This is because the negatives one can envision in the abstract carry over well to reality, but many of the positives you think about only become viscerally apparent when you have your own, personal, actual real best baby ever.
There is only one Lion of the Left Judah. Krugman ain't it.
115: So having kids is like being paralyzed, in that one is unable to estimate accurately one's happiness after the event?
I have really mixed feelings about urging people to reproduce. One the one hand, it makes no political or moral sense to feel an obligation to reproduce. There are too many people already.
On the other hand, I have a very visceral, personal feeling that you miss out on some important part of what it means to be a human being if you don't reproduce. We are mammals. We should bear our young alive and suckle them at our breasts (or at least, tend the fire and cook the mammoth meat while the women folk suckle the babies at their breasts.)
When Molly was in labor with Caroline we had to walk outside from one building to another at the birthing center. When we stepped out the door, a neighborhood dog joined us and escorted us all the way to our destination.
I like to think that she just recognized a fellow mammal doing what mammals do, and wanted to help out.
will and Gonerill describe my experience, also. Before my first was born, a friend said: "You won't even remember what it was like before." This was true.
Having kids is a big nonlinearity in one's life.
As Gonerill proposes, I certainly underestimated both the degree to which this was true, and the degree to which I would be able to cope.
So having kids is like being paralyzed, in that one is unable to estimate accurately one's happiness after the event?
No having kids is like smelling of sour milk and poop most of the time, and noticing around 4:30pm that you've had a piece of banana on your shirt collar all day.
of course 122 was the perspective of another outsider, Cala
I am much more impaired when I'm tired than when I'm tipsy from alcohol.
I think we have our solution!
Gonerill is correct. Having children is far better that people imagine. The horrible things from the outside are really not that horrible. My daughter is a pain in the butt a lot of the time. But, wow, is she ever worth it! One little goofy grin makes me forget the entire day of opening every drawer in the house in a mad desperate search for markers.
No having kids is like smelling of sour milk and poop most of the time, and noticing around 4:30pm that you've had a piece of banana on your shirt collar all day.
You're not really selling it to me, Gonerill.
Wittgenstein, PI II 223:
"If a lion were to talk, he would say 'Mmmmm.... tasty looking!', and we would be wrongly offended."
It's a measure of how much the U.S. has changed that Krugman really is, in 2008, some kind of out-there leftist. He certainly hasn't changed.
I don't think this is quite true -- read "Peddling Prosperity" (from the mid-90s), and you'll see a guy saying:
1. Reagonomics is a crock.
2. But even that didn't hurt the economy too much.
3. Clintonomics -- the idea that the country is like a big coprporation -- is bogus too.
4. Basically, politicians on both sides need to sell a message to the voters, while real economists try to understand complex issues that don't lend themselves as well to political campaign slogans.
This deliberate evenhandedness has gone out the window with the Bush years. As a side note, I don't find Krugman's attacks on Obama convincing at all.
I have really mixed feelings about urging people to reproduce. One the one hand, it makes no political or moral sense to feel an obligation to reproduce. There are too many people already.
On the other hand, I have a very visceral, personal feeling that you miss out on some important part of what it means to be a human being if you don't reproduce.
Rob really nails my feelings on this issue. I appreciate my time away from my kids. But, my kids are my major source of meaning in my life.
Brandi never wanted kids. She still doesn't want to birth kids. She is freaky neat, easily stressed, and never had a maternal urge. When we met, she only had beer in her fridge.
But, she would tell you that my kids have added tremendous value to her life.
Given my temperament, I'm unlikely to be able to earn that kind of money myself, so I'd have to marry somebody pretty damn financially secure. Probably the ideal mate would be somebody working a 50 hour week with some independent source of income too.
My thoughts on mates exactly, especially the independent income part.
So some of you want a guy with a trust fund, who will help with the kids, but is not a douchebag. Have you tried the park? He probably goes there in his spare time to ride unicorns.
You're not really selling it to me, Gonerill.
OK, how about this pitch.
If I wanted to desperately enough, I could start hanging around provate clubs and the like. I was somewhere recently where I was asked whether I needed to work or if I had an independent income.
So some of you want a guy with a trust fund
A bit of advice.
A high earner is better than a trust fundie.
Earnings get divided in divorce. In Virginia, a trust fund would not.
If I wanted to desperately enough, I could start hanging around provate clubs and the like. I was somewhere recently where I was asked whether I needed to work or if I had an independent income.
Wow, you ive in the 19th century?
Other people's kids (as demonstrated by the Filckr links) are cute, but I don't want to birth my own. And I agree with will's Brandi - I don't feel any maternal instinct, but I could see dating someone with kids and becoming attached to them. I've also thought about adopting, if I feel like I missed out on having kids when I am older.
131: You need a nickel or pencil in "grinner" for scale. That kid looks tiny, as if he's sitting in your shirt pocket. Cute, though.
I think we have our solution!
My Dad's tried the alcohol solution; it didn't work out so well.
Pasdquoi:
Forget adopting. What skills do you bring to the table? BR and I have some room.
BG:
I regretted that as soon as I posted it.
It's a good thing shivbunny doesn't read this blog because he would be asking for a moratorium on cute baby pictures on the grounds that I start making little whimpering noises about how cute babies are.
Um, no skills? Although my nephews were highly impressed with my Wii ability.
That kid looks tiny
He's in one of those giant running strollers.
Gonerill, the person whose guest I was was so rich that he had never needed to work, and I was at a concert at a private club. This was a more bohemian club, so there was a mix of people, but there were plenty of people who were about to head south for the winter. One couple was heading down to South Carolina, and they'd had a private concert in their house; they'd put the musicians up in their guest house.
Have kids early; that way they're out of the house while you're still young.
Have kids early; that way they're out of the house while you're still young.
hahahahahaha I never thought you could be so naive. Where is the jaded BPhd that I love???
What is exactly is Wii? My church is hosting a game night, and they recently purchased a guitar hero and a Wii. I only learned about guitar hero this past Thanksgiving, but I'm still behind teh times in not knowing what Wii is. Is it pronounced like "We."
"Wii" is pronounced "I can't believe you have a Wii! Awesome!"
146: Yeah, that argument always sounds good: Have kids early, you'll be broke but have more energy and in your forties/fifties they'll be gone and you can do what you want. Sort of like if you didn't have them at all. Except that way you have your 20s and 30s too. And less with the penury.
and in your forties/fifties they'll be gone and ,,
This part is also probably wishful thinking.
Wii's a video game console, and it's awesome, and I have one, and I have no time to play.
||
Writing this chapter would be easier if my interlocutors weren't making such stupid arguments.
|>
86.2 I don't in general abide by any standard of topicality at unfogged, but of course will with regards to Becks' request, though I can't resist responding to some of the rest of this thread.
One of the problems with this is that he'll end up hurting his credibility on the mandate point by making it look personal.
I stated that too passively. What I should have said is that when I cite to Krugman's criticism's of his health care plan as the main thing I'm worried about with Obama, my friends who don't follow politics for fun and who more closely (though not that closely) fit the mold of the stereotypical Obama supporter (think that he'll usher in a new era of good feelings, that there's something very important about not taking money from lobbyists and PACs, etc.) don't give Krugman the credibility I'd like them to, and this column, which contains an unsupported attack, isn't going to help.
But now that I know that a bunch of Yglesias commenters said stupid things in reaction to this column, I realize what a fool I've been. There's no reason that Krugman would see most of the venom coming from Sen. Obama supporters other than it being objectively the case that that's where it came from. It couldn't be that given Krugman's demographic profile he's going to run into a good deal more Sen. Obama supporters than Sen. Clinton, and given that he's a prominent liberal who's been writing negative columns about Sen. Obama, some of them are going to react poorly and attack him.
Writing this chapter would be easier if my interlocutors weren't making such stupid arguments
That's a section heading right there.
149: Yes, pronounced "we." It is the newest Ninetendo gaming system - much more interactive than your normal games. You play by using a remote pointed at the TV, so many of the games mimick real life. You swing your arm to bowl, play baseball, golf, etc. just like you would normally. More fun than just pushing buttons.
However, Guitar Hero is also awesome. Except the crappy songs get stuck in my head.
This thread has been derailed now by babies, not politics.
Rock Band is even more fun than Guitar Hero.
I think that I need one of these Wii to improve my visual-spatial capabilities.
Writing this chapter would be easier if my interlocutors weren't making such stupid arguments
I find the hardest part of that kind of discussion is proving to the reader that, yes, the person I'm arguing against really is that stupid. I'm not attacking a straw person here. This is a published argument with a hole you can drive a semi through.
One of the nicest compliments I ever got on a paper I wrote was "You know, sometimes you just have to shoot fish in a barrel. There sitting there, and no one has shot them yet."
I had a weird time dating someone with kids for two years. It was really obvious what an odd trade-off it was. When they were around, it was constantly stressful. On one hand, they were the most adorable and adoring little guys I'd ever met, and they fought one another and their father for my affection and attention. They loved asking me questions and getting me to read them things. I have a few tear-inducing memories of things like the Christmas morning when the seven-year-old came and woke me up at 5am because he just couldn't sleep and wanted me to read sentimental kids' books with him under the covers. One of them was so disturbingly touching that both of us started crying and couldn't stop. "This is my favorite book," he sniffed. "It's just for special occasions."
Stuff like that really does get me---I'm not made of stone. But most of the time, having them around was just battle after battle about everything---cajoling them to put coats on or stop whining or not throw food into the fireplace or quit hitting one another in the head with sticks. I really don't think I could stand that all the time. Not just the stressful part, but the emotional up-and-down of it---even a handful of visits with them a month was a lot more stimulating than I could reasonably take. It felt like being bipolar or something, and I couldn't get used to it.
AWB, I did the same thing for a while (dated a parent) and your description is just about spot-on for me.
161: It's more like 'yes, yes, you scored a little-bitch point against the big bad van In/wagen, while completely missing the larger point which has survived largely unscathed, and me pointing that out is boring, and you've given me no good hook for this argument, nor any help in figuring out what my position will be, because you are a little bitch.'
Have you tried the park? He probably goes there in his spare time to ride unicorns.
Chris Abraham "was found in the company of a brood of Unicorns and is believed to have been bred for his skills in magic."
I want to try Rock Band, but I only know one distant acquaintance who has it. It would be kind of like showing up at the neighborhood kid's house you didn't really like just to use their swimming pool.
You've given me no good hook for this argument, nor any help in figuring out what my position will be, because you are a little bitch
Topic sentence.
It was really weird when Max pointed out that his older boy (who looks a lot like him) kept appearing in photographs making a face that is unique to me. There he'd be, in Venice, sitting on a bench, pursing his lips in thought in the AWBish way. I think it freaked Max out.