The Frankish Reich

I am finding it hard to find the words to explain just how stupid this line of "reasoning" is. So let me try an example: - I am indicted for Conspiracy to Traffic Cocaine based on an agreement with a known trafficker to buy "100 kilos of white vitamin powder.: - There is an old recording of me and that same trafficker from 2010, outside the statute of limitations, in which I say I want to buy "100 kilos of coke" and the trafficker says, "let's just call it white vitamin powder from now on to be safe." I say o.k, agreed. Everyone would say that 2010 recording is the smoking gun the prosecutor needs. Everyone.

I'm pretty sure the discussion would be more spirited if the event went forward ... ... and on the larger issue: I am no Trump fan, and while I'm just not into boycotts of any kind, all things being equal I'd probably avoid staying/playing at a Trump-branded property since I'd rather not enrich him even by a fraction of a cent. But I wouldn't be bothered if Poyer had decided to go forward with the tournament at Doral. By the way: I've been to Doral in the summer. Brutal. Just brutal. I think I'd rather be invited to the Buffalo Winter Solstice Golf Tournament.

John, this is what I've always wondered about the UC system (and I've lived in California before). - The UC system is superb. Really, still the best state university system in the country. - It has multiple campuses. For historical and geographical reasons, some (Berkeley, UCLA) are in ridiculously high demand. Others (particularly Merced nowadays) much lower demand. - But admissions is still handled on a campus-by-campus basis. Wouldn't the racial/ethnic composition look different if we considered the UC system as a whole, rather than the campus-by-campus focus?

Somehow I thought "courageous" would mean we play on with the sponsors and participants we still have. "Courageously retreats."

Thanks. But I've gotta admit: I'm confused. So Poyer is a Trumpie because he was playing in a Doral charity tournament? Not a Trumpie because he opted out? I need the exec summary first. EDIT: OK, Warren Buffet allowed me to read the BN without a paywall. So here's what I see: "Jordan Poyer says he won't be silenced, courageously cancels golf tournament at Trump Resort lest he have to explain why he chose to play there" Profiles in Courage, 2023 edition.

Somewhere south of Virginia: I tried to ignore you, but I just can't do it! Let me post something, please! Not my reasoned opinion (I don't do that, or don't have one). I know: I'll post something from the other side with one of those "ooh, look, I think I can misconstrue this so that I get to call someone racist!! And no, I won't look to see what the other side is saying - that would require me to stop "ignoring" the NYT feed. I know, I'll piggy back on Jordan Peterson or his bastard child, some guy named James Lindsay!! That'll make me look smart ... right, mom, I look smart, don't I? I'm ignoring all the wrong people and following all the right people just like a lost puppy.

I'll focus not on law, but on the more sociological aspects. Affirmative action as we understand it came from a bygone age - an age in which "minority" and "black" basically meant the same thing. 1. The United States is a different place now. To the extent anyone was harmed by affirmative action policies in the 1970s, it was white applicants. Now the record is clear that the greatest harm falls on another minority, Asian American students. This led to a contradiction that couldn't be resolved within the old fashioned affirmative action context. It was doomed by demographic change. 2. The nature of the black and hispanic populations is also different. Many admission slots that count for "black" or "hispanic" students go to kids of very recent immigrants from Africa or South America. These were not the descendants of enslaved black people; in fact, they may be kids of Nigerian physicians who immigrated to the United States, or kids of an Argentinian CEO who were born and raised here. I have a lawyer friend. His father is an Irish/Polish American. His mother is a first-generation hispanic (from Mexico) American. His daughter is hispanic by any definition, born of a 1/2 hispanic father and a non-hispanic white mother. She has an "Anglo" Irish name, certainly doesn't reject her 1/4 hispanic ancestry, but really has no connection to the kinds of children of southwestern American hispanics who have historically faced discrimination, including New Mexicans who were on that land long before any Anglo people arrived. I'm sure she checked the "hispanic" box on her college applications, and that it was perfectly fair for her to do so. But she really doesn't increase "diversity" at all at any college she goes to - she's a blond haired kid with an Irish name from an upper middle class professional family. Again, a contradiction that was bound to result an a policy change. So that blunt remedial weapon of affirmative action is dead. Let's hope that universities and companies try to rethink what merit really means and to devise admission/hiring programs that work for the America of the 2020s and beyond. Thanks ... always good to hear from someone who actually has first-hand knowledge.

https://www.scotusblog.com/

Haha. And that's my point! We are ridiculously wealthy by their standards.

Probably needs it's own topic. Coming in 3, 2, 1 ...

Temptation. The family's 3 cars are now 11, 10, and 5 years old ...

Yeah, i do want one. But see... delayed gratification. Some day, when (I hope) college costs are a thing of the past... https://www.axios.com/local/denver/2023/06/24/casa-bonita-employee-pay-tips-reopening 30 bucks an hour but no tips at the new Casa Bonita (the guys from South Park bought this closed Colorado institution where Cartman crashed a birthday party). And the servers who signed up are pissed! They thought they'd be making more on average with tips. Jobs, jobs, everywhere ...

I will not allow my envy to show. You frickin' BMW a-hole.

When I was in my 20s, trying to make a career with a field with poor economic prospects, I finally gave in and went to law school. It took time, but I got there. It took a plan, and it took ... patience. Counseling (1) having a plan; and (2) being patient is probably the best thing we can do for our kids. And again, it really isn't that hard. I'll use some easily available numbers. I've worked for the federal government, and I knew many young couples where both had federal jobs. Let's say you're a GS-9 administrative assistant married to a GS-11 in a law-enforcement type job. In Buffalo now, you make a combined $130,000. As I said earlier, you can focus on saving for a fairly low downpayment and buy the perfectly nice, small starter home (by today's standards) that I grew up in for under $2000 per month. And those jobs go begging for applicants! But they're you-gotta-be-there-in-person-40-hours-per-week jobs, and a lot of young people think that's for losers ...

They will eat generic cheese so that you may drive a Mercedes EV.

I don't mean to criticize people for noticing when their personal economic circumstances today relative to what they were a few years ago are worse. That's obviously true for many people. I'm just suggesting that when we talk about macro trends and the things that drive policy, we keep in mind that the median standard of living is far, far better than what we've seen in any previous time period.

This is old, but good evidence of how our expectations have changed over time: https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/new-us-homes-today-are-1000-square-feet-larger-than-in-1973-and-living-space-per-person-has-nearly-doubled/#:~:text=Over the last 42 years,2%2C687 square feet last year. Nearly double the square footage per person than when I was a kid! Sure, there's skimpflation now. My potato chip bag is only 10 ounces, not 12. But the median American is ridiculously better off than they were 50 years ago when you take into account how many additional amenities the average person has: housing, internet, flat screen TVs in every room, better vehicle stock than ever before (what happened to all the rusty old cars I used to see straight through the 80s?), etc., etc. EDIT: it's hot outside today. I had to flip the thermostat to "cool." I'll probably run the A/C in the car. There was no air conditioning in homes when I was a kid! And I didn't have a car with A/C until I was well into my 30s. It's so hot I may cook outdoors. On a really nice gas grill. No waiting half an hour for the charcoal to get hot enough. Just press a button and go. Side burner to warm up the baked beans. Life is good!

And there you have it. But I have a right to a 1500 calorie Chipotle burrito for dinner. And for a late-night chip and dip snack. And Lay's, not the store brand.

People just have more expensive tastes than they used to. Costco $4.99 rotisserie chicken and ridiculously huge $12 mac and cheese = feed a family of 4 for $17. We had a comment in another thread ("how much did you pay for gas and groceries?) where one poster was complaining about the high cost of steak. You know how many times we ate steak for dinner when I was a kid? Not to mention the high cost of travel to places I never went when I was a kid. You can buy my 1300 square foot Buffalo childhood home for a monthly payment of under $2000. I work with a lot of 20 and 30 somethings decrying the out-of-reach cost of a home here in Colorado. We have an office in Buffalo. I ask them: why not move to Buffalo? At our pay rate, you could easily afford the home my parents had at your age." They are not interested. They don't want to live in Buffalo, and they think they deserve a nice suburban McMansion or a totally rehabbed historic home in a nice urban neighborhood.

It's no different than what I always hear from the right: "Liberals want to boycott travel to Florida over gay rights issues, but they're perfectly fine with taking a safari trip to Kenya, where being gay is a crime." Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind I guess.

You are correct. But the point: which one has the highest IQ? I doubt there's any real debate. It's Clinton now, it was Clinton then, it will be Clinton next year. Would she make the best President? America said "no." This is an interesting debate. Me in 1980: how could anyone vote for Reagan? He's dumb! Me in 1988: maybe being smart (or smarter than the opposition) isn't really that important in a president. Me in 2008: Good Lord, a dumb President can get us in a lot of trouble

https://www.mastercardservices.com/en/reports-insights/economics-institute/travel-industry-trends-2023#:~:text=Travelers are increasingly seeking unique,2019 as of March 2023.&text=The economy's mixed signals create,both leisure and business trips. Again, revealed preferences. In general, travel spending (very highly discretionary, with business travel way down it's mostly leisure travel) way up, spending on "things" down. Willingness to spend (whether savings or borrowing/on credit cards) typically = optimism about the future. Off-topic, but interesting: leading foreign travel destinations for Americans - 1. Mexico. By a lot. We can agree that most Americans, and an overwhelming majority of Republicans, think Mexico isn't even trying to stem migration through its countries by huge groups of Central Americans, Venezuelans, etc. So where's the boycott on travel to Cabo?

Well, true. Still: Clinton is clearly the most "intelligent" of the 3. The loser of the 3, but the most intelligent. So we are concerned about intelligence of our Presidents and whether Biden is slipping (quickly or gradually) because ... why?

The Democratic election machine seems to have noticed something (and remember: they're pretty good at this!). There's polling on popular sentiment, and that still shows pessimism about the economy. I'm no economist, but I read a lot on what economists called "revealed preferences." In other words, what people tell you vs. how they actually act. And here's a couple things: - the "Greed vs. Fear Index" - this is mostly a stock market measure; are investors (institutional and individual) betting on gains or losses? And it is squarely in the Greed zone now. - Consumer spending vs. Savings - if people are really (not what they say, what they do) concerned about an uncertain economic future, they save more and spend less. And the trend now? Spend, spend, spend! On the purely anecdotal level, I just got back from a trip to Europe. Packed. To. The. Brim. With. Americans. Biden and the Dems were running away from the economy. It was all fear about abortion rights, fear about Trumpism, etc., etc. I suspect some focus groups have them taking some initial steps in the other direction, trying to turn those revealed preferences into voting booth preferences. It's a dangerous game this early in the season since a spike in inflation or the unemployment rate can undo all of that. But still, it's a thing, and it's happening.

All true. And that's why no one really knows anything about how the 2024 elections will go. A "soft landing" is now a much more real possibility than it was six months ago, and that would no doubt give the Dems a huge boost. But a recession is (in my estimate) still more likely, with a malaise factor giving rise to a throw the bums out mentality. November 2024 is still 16 months away, who knows where we'll be?