🔥🔥🔥 Similarities Between Aristotle And Martin Seligman
New Marriage Law By Mao Zedong, K. The Similarities Between Aristotle And Martin Seligman is Amitabh Bachchan. An old friend of Similarities Between Aristotle And Martin Seligman who got by for some years as a semi-professional golf hustler Similarities Between Aristotle And Martin Seligman he used to caddy for Don Johnson, who was, Similarities Between Aristotle And Martin Seligman to my source, a gentleman Similarities Between Aristotle And Martin Seligman an excellent tipper. King George was not alone in this. All plate heat exchangers look similar on the outside. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience.
Plato, Aristotle, and Stoicism
George H. Bush was far from indifferent to political realities, but he was a politician of an increasingly rare kind: one who was not only a politician. In the Gulf War, he understood what U. But by , our presidential politics already had become surreal: George H. The charge was strafing Japanese lifeboats. There has always been an element of purely symbolic exchange in our presidential politics, from George Washington on, but by the s that economy of symbols had become almost entirely unyoked from the business of being president. That is the only way to understand the madness of handing power over from the experienced and capable hands of George H. Bush to such a man as Bill Clinton.
The symbolic presidency and presidential administration remain disconnected. That makes it impossible for a president to shut up and do nothing — even when that is the best course of action. The prevalence of symbolism over all else means that presidents are compelled to act — even when the action is pointless or destructive. Sometimes, that is an ill-considered tariff or a ridiculous promise about Mexico paying us to build a border wall. Sometimes, it is showing up at a disaster scene as though the presidential presence brought with it mystical healing powers rather than resource-consuming distraction.
Sometimes, it is the mystical laying of presidential hands upon a Skutnik during the State of the Union address. Che Guevara is an icon; Muammar Gaddafi is not, at least not outside of Libya. An icon can stand for a nation Mohandas Gandhi , a movement Susan B. Anthony , an ideology Adolf Hitler , a sensibility Le Corbusier , an era Marilyn Monroe , an episode Abraham Lincoln , a cultural current Hugh Hefner , an ideal Mother Teresa , and, of course, religions and religious tendencies. Like an artistic style, the iconic quality of an image is most easily detected when it is being copied: Elizabeth Holmes dressed up like Steve Jobs, not like Bill Gates, for the same reason that there have been many parodies of William F. Buckley Jr.
To borrow from Gertrude Stein, a woman who knew, there has to be some there there. It is a quality that you cannot buy, engineer, or even earn — celebrities who set out to make themselves into icons Lil Nas X almost always fail. They end up like the ironically named Madonna, who is a kind of vampire that has fed on a series of genuine icons, derivative to such an extent that her considerable originality is obscured by the enduring looks and personas which, in layers of pastiche, compose her image.
A reader, apparently not entirely familiar with your obedient correspondent, writes in with a sports-related question. But, it seems to me, the player in question will always have been a first round pick — it simply happened a while ago. In other words, previously. There is something to that. Surely it matters when a player was a first-round draft pick: I would imagine that the bidding starts higher for first-round picks than it does for first-round picks. Literally means literally — describing a thing that actually happened. As opposed to metaphorically. NM: Well, that does bother me. They told me what a writer she [Dunham] was. In it, you will discover 60 words for heroin and some very sad stories involving those words.
By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king. Pharaoh was very much on the pilgrim mind. Welcome to the Tuesday, a semi-fortnightly vexation. To subscribe to the Tuesday and receive it in your in-box, which I hope you will do, please follow this link. There are two kinds of people who support single-payer health care in the United States: Those who point to the British system as a successful example, and those who know something about the British system. Apples-to-apples comparisons are difficult to make, because both countries have multiple taxing jurisdictions high-income New Yorkers pay more than high-income Texans, and high-income Scots pay more than high-income Englishmen and tax things like investment income and profits from selling a residence differently.
That being said: Middle- to upper-middle-income Britons do pay higher national income taxes than do their American counterparts, but when state and local taxes are taken into consideration, the math looks different, with middle-income households in New York State, for example, liable in at least some cases to pay higher income taxes than they would in the United Kingdom. By way of comparison, taxpayers in Denmark typically pay nearly twice the income tax they would in the United States.
Overall, British income taxes are slightly but not radically higher than American taxes. So, comparable income-tax rates and all that sweet free health care — it looks like the British are getting a great deal, no? But, of course, it is more complicated than that. One in four NHS patients say that working with the state-run system has harmed their mental health. Meanwhile, residential and at-home care for the elderly, a growing concern in aging nations such as the United Kingdom , can be outrageously expensive. In some cases, those expenses can run into six figures. Mental-health care in the United Kingdom is poor though not as poor as it is in the United States and getting poorer as the number of available treatment spots are cut. There is a reason that, contrary to what you hear from American progressives, few countries in Europe or elsewhere actually have national single-payer systems.
Health care in Switzerland happens in an entirely private but highly regulated market. The new surcharge and the related reforms are meant to get social-care costs under control. And while the government of Boris Johnson is not always obviously competent, this is not a Johnson problem: British governments have been grappling with social care since the s. The timelines there are always kind of interesting to me: The welfare state in the United Kingdom took its modern form in , and, less than 30 years later, the country was a wreck. But now as we approach a half a century since the crisis that brought Margaret Thatcher to power, many of the basic problems with that welfare state remain unaddressed.
Tony Blair tried, and largely failed, to reform the system. Bush administration did when it tried to reckon with the financial imbalances of Social Security. Of course, a very rich country such as the United Kingdom has the resources to provide care for the indigent and the elderly. The British also want to have a private economy with lots of investment and trade, and enough left over for the occasional Spanish holiday. Choices have to be made. The NHS is chronically underfunded for the same reason U. Real investments require real money, but promises are free. And so money goes to where the votes are.
As it turns out, many of the key features of the ACA were never implemented. We see the same dynamic at work in areas other than health care; e. Canada has similar problems. These shortcomings are endemic. None of this is to say that the U. There are several different good ways to do health care. Many American progressives profess to admire the German way of doing things. But what the German model and the Swiss model have in common is a ruthlessly enforced individual mandate to purchase private health insurance; i. And that points to the fundamental issue that we never seem to get around to really thinking about. The case for single-payer health care, like the more general case for a health-care system with a larger role for government, is not at its foundation about economic efficiency, quality of care, or even access to care.
Some largely public systems perform pretty well on the efficiency and access criteria, and so do some largely private systems. Our health-care debate is not based in economics but in temperament — mainly risk-aversion. The great sources of stress in the American system are the threat of losing coverage and then incurring some massive medical costs, and the related issue of general price opacity. If you want LASIK eye surgery, you can get a quote, you can get three competing quotes, you can arrange financing if needed, etc. The same for many kinds of cosmetic surgery, some kinds of dentistry, and some other services.
Of course, not everything can be priced that way. But the lack of transparency, prices, and accountability is, I think, the root of our anxiety about health insurance and health care. A single-payer system such as the NHS is attractive to some people because it promises — often falsely — to relieve that anxiety. A single-payer system also introduces new problems and new sources of anxiety.
And so much of our debate ends up being a comparison between the British system and the U. Politically, that means exaggerating or emphasizing the defects of the system you like less and waving away the defects of the system you prefer. That is an unprofitable use of time and energy. What would be more productive, I think — especially for proponents of more liberal and market-oriented solutions on such issues as health care — is to understand and appreciate the stress and anxiety that some Americans believe could be alleviated with an NHS-style monopoly or similar system, and develop reforms that speak to these concerns — which are legitimate concerns and deserve to be treated as such — in a way that is more consistent with our values and with American practice.
Local norms and culture matter enormously in these things: I am a great admirer of the Swiss model of government, but I think it would be catastrophic to attempt it in the United States. I am not much of an admirer of the NHS, which I also think would go simultaneously up in smoke and down in flames, Hindenburg -style, if attempted in the United States. Often the Answer Is No. As you might have guessed, the headline says the opposite of what the article says. The report, by Shaila Dewan, notes that the police often are not prosecuted but does not argue that they should not be prosecuted.
In fact, the author seems to believe the opposite. This is one of the problems of getting news reporting too mixed up with agenda-driven opinion writing: Should is a word for opinion columnists, not a word for reporters. This sense of fast is, in fact, older than the sense of speedy. One idea is that fast in the sense of fixed came by extension to mean disciplined or resolved , a sense that fast maintains in English, and from resolved on to vigorous or energetic.
A religious fast , then, would be a demonstration of resolve, while running fast would be running with vigor and energy. The theme running through all these is commitment , but, as far as I can tell, no one really knows beyond a very vague sense how all these words fit together. A reader writes in with a classic: evacuate , which has come up repeatedly in the case of Afghanistan. This is one of the many things people learned from watching The Wire. RIP Michael K. Afghanistan was evacuated, the Americans and Afghan allies there were rescued.
Some of you have heard me tell the story of my first being offered a job by the Atlantic. I warned the editor, Jeffrey Goldberg, that there would be howls of protest, and not just howls but blubbering and ululations and hoots, all of them in protest. He scoffed. The more important half is still being carried out. Apparently, they listened. If you are curious about what some of those disaffected young men mentioned above are up to, you can find out therein. But the sobering — and terrifying — truth is that these horrific acts were not performed by uncivilized people from some barbaric backwater.
Osama bin Laden himself was an educated man he studied for a time at Oxford and valued education in others: Two of his wives had doctorates. Osama bin Laden was not raised in an environment of fanaticism — he helped to construct one. In that famous picture of him and his family on vacation in the s , there are plenty of bellbottoms and not a burqa in sight. These acts were not performed by barbarians — they were performed by intelligent men, in many cases by educated men, and by sincerely if perversely devout men, with the full consent of their consciences.
When we encounter people with radically different values from our own, we sometimes think of them as somehow less than human, as closer to animals than to us. That has led us to many mistakes in the Muslim world and will lead us to similar mistakes regarding China and other challengers to Western liberal values. To subscribe to The Tuesday, follow this link. To subscribe to the Tuesday, and I hope you will, please follow this link. And now Rolling Stone has done it again. The venerable pop-music magazine, which not long ago had to retract a splashy story about a vicious gang rape that never happened, has now been obliged to issue a correction — this should be a prelude to retraction — for a story about how gunshot victims wheeled into hospitals in rural Oklahoma are being left to bleed and groan in agony because the emergency rooms are overrun by cases of ivermectin poisoning.
As with the infamous rape case, this is a culturally electric event that. Oklahoma-specific ivermectin overdose figures are not available, but the count is unlikely to be a significant factor in hospital bed availability in a state that, per the CDC, currently has a 7-day average of 1, Covid hospitalizations. The story turns out to have been based on the claims of one doctor — claims that Rolling Stone never checked.
Because the story is about 1 ivermectin, and, more important, 2 Oklahoma. The doctor is affiliated with a medical staffing group that serves multiple hospitals in Oklahoma. Another journalistic Hindenburg goes down in flames at Rolling Stone — oh, the buffoonery. Like most of the phony hate crimes and fabricated racial and sexual insults that have for years been an epidemic among young Americans, especially on college campuses, the Rolling Stone rape hoax was a neurotic casserole of familiar ingredients: social and romantic disappointment, weaponized envy, prejudice, mental-health problems, and a progressive-activist culture in which the effort to discredit and abominate cultural enemies — more often than not dishonest — takes the place of argument.
These things follow a pattern: When Lena Dunham made up a story about being raped while a student at Oberlin, her fictitious villain was not a member of the chess team or the president of the campus Sierra Club chapter but a swaggering College Republican; when North Carolina Central University student Crystal Mangum made up a story about being gang-raped, the malefactors were the Duke lacrosse team; the UVA hoax author, Jackie Coakley, falsely claimed that she was gang-raped by members of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity as part of an initiation ritual. When feminist activist Judy Munro-Leighton made up a story about being raped, she chose as her assailant Brett Kavanaugh, who was at the time a Supreme Court nominee in confirmation hearings.
Jussie Smollett alleged that he was assaulted in the wee hours by. None of those fabricated rapes was presented as a mere crime of sexual violence — a crime that happens every day in these United States, disproportionately affecting not college women who are, in fact, less likely to suffer rape than are women the same age who are not in college or well-heeled activists but poor women in isolated urban and rural communities, women with little education, women on Indian reservations, illegal immigrants, etc. The stories and the data associated with some of these places are shocking. Not really. In reality, the kind of women our newspaper editors and magazine publishers care about are college students, white tourists abroad, and celebrities.
But the most important variable in these hoaxes is not any of the personal qualities of the fictitious victims but the cultural resonance of the fictitious attackers. If you want to see a Native American leading the nightly news, put him in front of some white high-school kids wearing MAGA hats. Magazines such as Rolling Stone , the major newspapers, the academic establishment, and the professional-activist class are not staffed in the main by people who grew up on Indian reservations or in dysfunctional mountain villages, people who dropped out of high school, people who have been incarcerated, or other people from the margins.
Their interests, anxieties, and obsessions are those associated with their class. And so these made-up rape stories are not stories about rape — they are indictments of fraternity culture, or jock culture, or Southern institutions, or Republicans, or anybody else who wanders into the cultural crosshairs of the hoax artists. The Oklahoma ivermectin story works in the same way, fitting into a prefab politico-cultural narrative that is not strictly speaking connected to the facts of the case at hand. No one questions tales of victimization involving people they assume to be, always and everywhere, victims. No one questions tales of depravity discrediting people they believe to be depraved. Of course the corpses of those rubes in Oklahoma are piling up like cordwood — Joe Rogan has to be stopped!
This reflexive prejudice deforms journalism in ways that are not limited to seeing the occasional work of pure fiction published as news. As I have written before, this same tendency is why the same media kingpins who claim to be the tribunes of the poor and the forgotten will publish about 53 articles on the admissions policies at Harvard or the University of Texas law school for every one article they put out about the high-school dropout rate in Milwaukee. Rolling Stone is not alone in this. Writing about the problems of the unionized public-sector work force in big Democrat-run cities does not push the right buttons for your average Washington Post reporter or editor — it does not lower the status of a perceived enemy but instead threatens a perceived ally.
Only a minority of Americans are college graduates, but the people who run Rolling Stone and the rest of the major media are in large part people who have powerful emotional connections to campus life. It is obvious enough. For progressives who see those who do not share their political priorities not as having different views but as enemies , publishing a made-up story about deranged gang-rapists at UVA pushes all the right buttons: white privilege, rich-jerk privilege, male privilege, Southern brutality, maybe even Christian hypocrisy if you can figure out a way to shoehorn it in there.
You can be sure that if someone had come forward with an unsubstantiated, loosey-goosey story about having been gang-raped by the staff of Rolling Stone , that claim would have received a good deal more scrutiny — not only at Rolling Stone , but at any mainstream-media outlet. Not because they are personally connected to Rolling Stone staffers, but because they live in the same world as Rolling Stone staffers. Southern fraternity members and college athletes are natural bogeymen to the media-staffer demographic, and so claims about them, however outrageous, are treated sympathetically.
Oklahoma, on the other hand, inspires more fear among big-city progressives than the terrifying prospect of. The Rolling Stone story got picked apart in about five minutes as soon as it encountered the lightest skepticism. The Duke lacrosse story required a criminal investigation. These people simply must have the best of everything, including the pleasure of congratulating themselves on how far they have come and the adversity they have overcome. That is the emotional foundation of our victimization Olympics. This is a problem of political bias, but political bias is part of a larger cultural bias, a particular social orientation. Rolling Stone has always been left-leaning, but it also was for many years the home of great writing from conservatives, notably P.
But we have closed ranks, socially, in recent years, for a variety of reasons , many of them just blisteringly stupid. This has coincided with certain social and economic changes that have undermined the quality of American journalism. The test of a political claim in our time is not whether it is true or false but whether it raises or lowers the status of our enemies. It is, of course, a little bit amusing that those at the commanding heights of our media are so blinded by prejudice that they cannot see the plain evidence that they are blinded by prejudice. Class prejudice is a bigger part of that than is generally appreciated, but there are other kinds of prejudice at play. It is complicated, because many other kinds of prejudice are intertwined with class prejudice: religious prejudice, notably, but also racial prejudice and linguistic prejudice.
Making our media even more of a monoculture — more intellectually and politically homogeneous — is going to make this even worse. You do not have to be of a certain background to write about people from that background, and you do not have to have personal experience with any particular social situation to write intelligently about it. But you have to do the work, which is a lot more difficult and a lot less enjoyable than simply indulging your own prejudices and hatreds.
Unhappily, our so-called journalists are by the day less willing to do that work — and have fewer incentives to do it — which is why they keep getting snookered by interchangeable lies from a cast of interchangeable liars. A note to our progressive friends: This is your version of Q-Anon — falling for obvious, ridiculous lies because you want to believe the worst about people you hate.
Where I come from, a shoehorn is not a shoehorn — it is a shoe spoon. But, depending on where you are, it may be a shoehorse , shoespooner , shoe schlipp , or shoe tongue. It is a damned interesting word: Shoe horn in its literal sense dates back to at least the 15th century, but its modern metaphorical sense goes back only to the 19th century. For some period of time between the coining of the word and the emergence of the modern metaphorical senses, shoehorn had a different metaphorical sense: cuckold.
My guess is that the horn part explains that. The connection between horns and sex has been around a lot longer than English has, and the popular tradition connecting horns and cuckolds goes way back into the history, and the pre-history, of the British isles. But the connection is not exclusive to the Western world: Horns have been used for centuries in folk medicine as aphrodisiacs — as the rhinoceros horn still is in China, among other places. Simmons and Elias Koteas works magnificently to deliver a moody and complex mystery with juicy twists. Don Johnson. Introducing was a little joke, but also an announcement of his intention of reviving his career. Which he did. An old friend of mine who got by for some years as a semi-professional golf hustler said he used to caddy for Don Johnson, who was, according to my source, a gentleman and an excellent tipper.
We are going to have vaccine mandates, at least narrowly tailored ones for medical personnel and those in similar work. So, we are going to need a secure and reliable system for monitoring vaccinations. The one we have is kind of a joke. Shoe-schlipping kept to a minimum. I am writing this on Labor Day, which is, in my view, kind of a disreputable pinko holiday, even if it originally was instituted to preempt the deeper red festivities of May 1. Oh, I know, we conservatives are supposed to be building the Populist Right-Wing Farmer-Labor Party these days, but I do not think that I have very much to contribute to that particular project. I am inexpressibly grateful to the friends and readers who have made that possible, something I do not say nearly often enough.
Welcome to the Tuesday, a weekly newsletter about politics, culture, and, more often than you might expect, Vikings. To subscribe to the Tuesday — and I hope that you will — please follow this link. Why is it that the political life of China or Russia seems in some important way simpler to us than does the politics of the liberal-democratic world? Probably, we are mistaken, and the political reality in Beijing or Moscow seems — but only seems — simpler than the situation in Washington, London, or Brussels.
Oversimplification is a very efficient way to make yourself stupid. There is not much tension between nationalist ambitions and individual liberty in China or Russia because individual liberty is so lowly regarded as to barely enter the conversation, while the rule of law is whatever the national powers need it to be at any given moment. This line of thinking infests both parties, and entices both left-wing activists and right-wing activists in the direction of executive aggrandizement, government by executive order, and presidential unilateralism rather than government by legislation, compromise, and bipartisanship.
It is a homogenizing politics of larger lumps: We the People vs. We trace our modern democracies to Greek and to a lesser extent Roman models, but Western parliamentary forms owe at least as much and probably much more to the consensus-oriented politics of the Germanic tribes that left their cultural marks everywhere from Iceland and the British Isles to Lombardy and beyond. It may seem strange to use the word egalitarian to describe societies that practiced slavery and human sacrifice — as in the case of the Vikings mentioned last week — but consider that in the first half of the Viking age, there were no kings as such, and no formal hereditary aristocracy, either. In Norse society, the jarls may have enjoyed rank and title jarl survives in the modern English earl , but they usually did not enjoy any special formal political power — the power they had came from their followers and from their ability to use their prestige and their wealth to shape public opinion and shove consensus in one direction or another — something not entirely alien to our modern democratic practice.
But as these primitive tribal societies became more complex and sophisticated — and as the scope of political questions became national rather than local — they found that they required new modes of government. Like the Americans living under the Articles of Confederation, they came to believe that they needed a more robust national state and, especially, a more active and permanent executive who could focus sustained attention and effort on long-term national interests, something that could not be achieved through ad hoc alliances of tribal chieftains and regional magnates or other similarly temporary and fragile instruments of cooperation. A great deal of what pretends to be political philosophy is in fact only rhetoric put into the service of pretending that these goods and interests are not in conflict.
The formalities and character of these elective kingships varied over time and between peoples: Certain Gallic tribes elected kings for one-year terms, while most other elected kings held office for life. In Venice, the doges were in effect elected monarchs with constitutionally limited powers. Among the egalitarian Swedes, the early kings were elected at an assembly open to all free men with relatively open terms for candidacy, but in later practice both electors and candidates were restricted.
Societies that had developed for generations without any sort of monarchy, much less a hereditary monarchy, eventually came to believe that they could not function without such a thing. King George was not alone in this. Alexander Hamilton was a calculating nationalist before he was a Broadway sensation, and his political orientation was very much informed by monarchists such as Jacques Necker finance minister to Louis XVI and by his own view that the English system of government was the best the world had to offer. While the great statesmen at the constitutional convention were debating the relative merits of the Virginia Plan and the New Jersey Plan, Hamilton saw serious deficiencies in both and proposed instead a model of government that was in its main points the English model adopted to American circumstances: a popularly elected commons, an indirectly elected senate with untitled lords serving lifetime terms, and — most radical to the modern American mind — an elected king.
It will be objected probably, that such an Executive will be an elective Monarch, and will give birth to the tumults which characterise that form of Govt. He wd. It marks not either the degree or duration of power. If this Executive Magistrate wd. There is an echo of that old pre-monarchy Norse practice in the earliest days of the American republic, which was open but more democratic in rhetoric than in practice, in which a genuinely egalitarian ethos coexisted with a system of government in which local magnates and chieftains exercised an outsized influence, putting some considerable distance between equality under the law and equality in fact.
There were monstrous similarities, too, notably slavery-based agriculture. But it is not kingship, of course, that has distinguished American political life: It is the constitutional form — or it was, until about five minutes ago. Thomas Friedman has a lot of bad ideas, but single-party police-state brutality is not among them. But right now we have a system that can only produce suboptimal solutions. The word monkey is one of those words that are just funny, and it seems to be as funny in Polish as it is in English. Why is — nk funny? No one knows. It just is, and groups of — nk words, rhyming or not, are funnier still: funky monkey, spank the monkey, junk in the trunk, rinky-dink, drunk as a skunk, yank the crank, etc. Speaking of kings, elected or hereditary, they are not coronated — they are crowned at a coronation.
It contains many interesting stories, but not many Vikings. Other news from Ohio :. And lower backs, apparently. Simpson Bush recounts the time at an expo in the Twin Cities that two women approached her, lowering their pants just enough to display matching flying pig tattoos. In the 19th century, we had the Yellow Peril — Chinese immigrants and their opium. In our time, we have the. Of course fentanyl is a real thing. So are illicit Chinese drug factories and Mexican cartels.
In , nearly 70, Americans died of opioid overdoses, mostly from fentanyl, a figure that was up sharply from the 50, opioid overdoses in Nearly 1 million Americans have died from drug overdoses of all kinds since For comparison, alcohol-related deaths in the same time frame amount to about two-and-a-half times that number. But as we have seen with everything from homelessness to violent crime, interested parties will reliably exaggerate things that are real problems, and, at times, will simply fabricate stories about them. It is physically impossible to overdose on fentanyl from the kind of exposure Deputy Faiivae experienced while being recorded on body-cam video.
He was wearing gloves and long sleeves while handing bagged quantities of drugs. The same is true of inhalation of airborne particles: A study of workers in legal fentanyl factories found that at the highest concentrations found in those facilities, they would have to take off their protective gear and spend hours standing in a little haboob of opioid particles before even absorbing a clinical dose of the stuff, much less a life-threatening overdose. The charitable explanation of what happened with Deputy Faiivae is that it was a mistake.
The less charitable explanation is that it was a hoax. Think on that: A law-enforcement officer was, if this story is to be believed, almost killed in the line of duty, and the law-enforcement agency for which he works neglected to perform the most elementary investigation. The guy was dosed with Naloxone, a powerful drug used to counteract heroin overdoses.
But the rest of the overdose protocol — breathing support, for instance — was completely ignored. Deputy Faiivae did not display any of the typical symptoms of a fentanyl overdose. Vakharia, deputy director for research and academic engagement at the Drug Policy Alliance. It gets people scared and angry, and this mobilizes people to support expanding police budgets, to make sure there are cops on the street, to spend any amount of money — whatever is needed to find these drugs and the people selling them and get them off the street.
It is a mistake to take police or prosecutors at their word in any matter — but especially in this one, where the record of fabrication and misinformation is so long and shameful. It is lies and nonsense and self-serving dishonesty. Police departments will lie to you for the same reason a presidential campaign will lie to you: for money, power, and status. We should be clear-eyed about this.
Conservatives tend to understand this easily when it comes to government schools or the IRS but are instinctively protective of police and military agencies. But a bureaucracy is a bureaucracy is a bureaucracy, and the same dynamics of institutional self-interest operate in all of them to some degree. On top of the usual interest in salaries, benefits, and pensions, police departments suffer from a terrible addiction: Police are hooked on being thought of as heroes.
And some of them are heroes. But most of them are, most of the time, something closer to tax-collectors. It is what it is. But that job has to be done honestly and competently, with high degrees of transparency and accountability. An open society cannot tolerate police who stage crimes or fake on-the-job medical traumas for public-relations purposes. There are, of course, utopians and ideologues, who insist that legalization is all upside and no downside, that it will end criminal cartels and produce enough tax revenue to provide free false teeth to every needy mouth from sea to shining sea.
But that does not capture the fullness of opinion or analysis. But the legal-prostitution business in Nevada is very limited and very highly regulated, and, hence, much more expensive and less easily accessible than is illegal prostitution. It has had very little discernable effect on street-level prostitution in Las Vegas prostitution is not legal in Las Vegas, in spite of what some poorly informed tourists believe or throughout the rest of the state.
From that point of view, Colorado is sort of Pahrump writ large: an improvement for those who buy and sell marijuana on the legal market, but not large enough to overcome the economic forces of the black market — or, more precisely, of the various black markets. As many libertarian-leaning critics predicted, organized-crime penetration remains an issue in the upstream supply chain, where it is relatively easy to divert a few hundred pounds of legally grown marijuana here and there for very profitable black-market profit margins, and legalization creates special problems in nearby prohibition states.
Those idiots getting arrested bringing Colorado marijuana into Nebraska are not getting caught with amounts that can legally be purchased in Colorado, but often with hundreds of pounds or more. This is no surprise: The presence of Las Vegas and a thousand smaller gambling destinations has not eliminated illegal gambling in the United States. There remain black markets in alcohol, tobacco, and other legal products, driven in part by taxes and regulations.
There are licensed gun dealers and illegal gun traffickers, licensed bus operators and outlaw bus operators. And, no surprise, there is some real overlap between the unlicensed gun merchants and the unlicensed bus outfits. We should expect that there will always be illegal marijuana sales — for example, sales to minors. It took decades to break the grip of organized crime on Las Vegas. It will take some time for corporate producers to squeeze the cartels out of the marijuana market — and it is possible that they will never squeeze illegal producers out entirely, because it is relatively easy to grow marijuana. Note that fentanyl is produced both legally for medical purposes and illegally for recreation and profit.
Our experience with that strategy so far suggests very strongly that it is not the most reliable one, and that it brings along with it some fairly terrible unintended consequences, on display in San Diego and elsewhere. Viking is one of those unusual words whose date of entry into English is known precisely — it was introduced in by the Reverend John Jamieson, the great scholar of Scottish literary history, best known for authoring the Etymological Dictionary of the Scottish Language. The word Viking appeared nowhere previous in modern English or in Middle English. But the Old English word wicing goes back in the records centuries farther than does its likely Old Norse cognate, vikingr , though some scholars are not convinced the words are directly related.
Sandwich was a sandy bay , and by extension the settlement that grew up on that bay, before it was an earl or his lunch. And while there are some sandy bays in the Sandwich Islands, which we now call Hawaii, they were named in honor of the finger-food guy, who was also First Lord of the Admiralty. In that sense, vikingr is maybe a little like the modern English camper. The people who go on camping trips are campers, and the people who went on viking trips were vikingrs, and, eventually, Vikings.
Amit Katwala has written an essay about name discrimination in Wired , in which he notes that he was named after a famous Indian actor, whose name he goes on to spell a couple of different ways, all of them wrong. The actor is Amitabh Bachchan. Amitabh Bachchan is one of the most famous men in India, someone with approximately percent face-and-name recognition. But, outside of India, he is anonymous enough that he can fly commercial mostly unnoticed, as Jay Nordlinger reports after having encountered the movie star sitting quietly by himself in the Zurich airport. Think of it as a course of treatment to cure you of populist sentimentality, if you suffer from that malady.
A History of Private Life, Vol. III: Passions of the Renaissance. Part of a series exploring private life from ancient Rome to modern times. Terrifically interesting and insightful. Welcome to the Tuesday, a weekly newsletter about bringing the heat. Those of you who follow the climate discourse will already know that these reports are handed down with a great deal of ceremony and that they are received as though they had originated at Delphi, Hira, or Corinth. Not that the report is all rainbows and sunshine. Well, sunshine. It continues the longstanding IPCC trend toward certainty: that the consequences of climate change are going to be catastrophic; that the current disturbance in the climate system is the product of human action, largely the consumption of fossil fuels; that a radical change in the whole pattern of human life is required to slow down climate change and prevent its becoming even more dire.
As is proper, much of the report consists of technical scientific discussion that will be of very little practical use to the lay reader, even those with reasonably good general-science education. But then, this has always been more of a sola fides matter, at least for the general public. A word that does not appear in the report is democracy. And democracy is the specter that haunts climate activism. Climate change is not a new issue. It is an issue that seems to grow in urgency each year if we judge by taking the temperature of the political rhetoric. But it is an issue that does not seem to grow in urgency each year if we consider the actions of governments, democratic and otherwise, around the world. The first meeting about climate change was held in , and by the end of that decade much of the basic science of climate change was in place.
At the same time, other theories of climate change — notably that anthropogenic aerosols would lead to catastrophic global cooling — also were part of the discussion and, at times, dominated it. But by the s, the climate-change discourse had taken on, more or less, its modern form: saw the failed Rio Conference, witnessed the creation of the Kyoto Protocol and the first Prius to roll off the assembly line — the climate agenda has always been, in no small part, a shopping list — and much of the debate by that point consisted of arguments over the validity of evidence. I do not think that climate change is a hoax or a plot or anything like that, though it often functions as a pretext for groups with other, generally illiberal, agendas.
I suppose that I also should note for the record that, as announced a few months ago, I will be doing a project on climate change in partnership with the Competitive Enterprise Institute over the course of the coming year. Climate change as a potential public-policy issue has been with us since the s, while climate change understood in at least some quarters as an urgent public-policy issue has been with us since at least the s. And in that time, the major governments of the world have decided to do. There has been a great deal of talk, agreements entered into and abandoned — and then reentered into, at least notionally, in the case of the United States and the Paris agreement.
We have seen some progress: In the United States, emissions not only of carbon dioxide but also of other greenhouse gasses such as methane and nitrous oxide have declined, if the Environmental Protection Agency is to be believed. Wind and solar have made a difference in electricity, too. Beyond the American scene, you can take your pick of democratic models — Western Europe, Scandinavia, India, Japan — and you will see similar results.
The United States is a bit of a rhetorical outlier and a bit less inclined to keep up appearances by going through the motions with international agreements that no one has much interest in or intention of enforcing. Norway is producing about as much oil today as it did a decade ago, and about as much as it did in the late s, though well under its turn-of-the-century peak. The United States is producing more. As in the United States, the biggest change in countries such as France has been the displacement of coal in electricity generating by natural gas, along with wind and solar. Because progressives are at heart utopians, they have a difficult time acknowledging tradeoffs.
On Mondays, Wednesday, and Fridays, climate change is the most important consideration in the world. And so it is practically impossible for the Left to think intelligently about the tradeoffs involved. We use the word democracy as though it signified something sacred rather than merely procedural. But it does not make democracy any less precious to forthrightly recognize that it is one value in a world of values that are sometimes complementary and sometimes rivalrous. Progressives ought to be grappling with the fact that one of the things they put forward as a nonnegotiable and absolute good — democracy — is at odds with something they insist is an existential threat to human civilization — climate change.
There are times to overrule the will of the people as I wrote, democracy is one good among many competing goods , but attempting to forcibly reorganize the material life of the entire human race without consent or buy-in is to leap headlong into certain disaster. To accomplish this would require a program of coercion unprecedented in human history. Believing that this would be done with the very best of intentions does not provide a moral get-out-of-jail-free card. On the matter of climate, progressives insist that President Biden must achieve his climate goals even if the democratically elected representatives in Congress disagree — even though it is Congress, not the president, that has the power to make law.
Why do we elected congresses and parliaments if not to make decisions of precisely this kind? The fact that progressives have not got their way on this issue is not an indictment of democracy — it is a reflection of the fact that different people have different priorities. And so the missives keep coming, from IPCC and from other quarters. The subject is. Goodness, gracious. Theranos, soon to be back in the news, is an unfortunate corporate name in that it sounds like some kind of evil cult — which, in its way, it was. Portmanteau here is a metaphor that has taken on a separate life of its own: A portmanteau is a suitcase with two equal halves, and a metaphorical portmanteau is a word into which parts of two other words have been stuffed.
Here is Clarence Page writing in the Chicago Tribune. It is a column that is mostly about how surprised he is to find himself agreeing with a column I wrote a while ago. Column-writing is a funny business, especially in August. There is more bunkum catalogued. I have written a great deal about trust in institutions. Trust is not just something nice to have — it is an immensely practical consideration. Trust is the lubrication that makes an open society work. As our politics descends more deeply into dishonesty, distortion, and hysteria, the decline in trust will very likely prove more catastrophic than the state of the climate or the state of our public finances.
How to go about getting that done? Somewhere between persuasion and coercion lies the middle way. Kay Ivey is the Republican governor of Alabama, one of the states with the lowest vaccination rates. Exemplary right-wing radio dope Phil Valentine, who, like most right-wing radio dopes, had played some pretty enthusiastic footsie with anti-vaccine activism and related conspiracy kookery, later found himself on oxygen in a critical-care unit with a bad case of COVID, and now has dipped a toe into the pool of regret. The Right, which has embraced theatrical self-harm as a kind of weird performative political ritual, is the political home of most but by no means all vaccine skeptics and mask skeptics, and hydroxychloroquine quackery, etc.
Conservatives, including many libertarian-leaning conservatives, traditionally have been comfortable with such measures as registering young men for possible military conscription and placing limits on certain kinds of business transactions or travel during emergencies or out of concern for national security. During World War I, the United States drafted three men for every two volunteers, and the generals sent , Americans to their deaths in the service of interests that were quite remote from our own national interest. We drafted 10 million for World War II and 2. It is a peculiar libertarian principle that accepts marching tens of thousands of Americans to their deaths at Meuse—Argonne but balks at seeking to encourage wider vaccination by taking some active measure — presumably some measure short of the prison sentences given to draft resisters.
But the libertarian principle here is very subtle indeed. Representative Holt is a vocal supporter of a new Iowa law that forbids private businesses to require customers to prove that they have received the COVID vaccine. Some businesses, as you may have noticed, have put up signs asking that non-vaccinated people continue to follow such protocols as wearing masks and observing physical distancing. But there is no practical way to enforce that. Perhaps there are other businesses that wish to limit their clientele to those who have been vaccinated, though I am unable to find any serious or widespread effort at that.
Such businesses may be operating from an excess of caution — or they may simply be marketing themselves to the more cautious among us. Who knows? Conservatives made such arguments against, to take one very prominent example, the Civil Rights Act of How is it that the libertarian principle that bucks at requiring restaurants and hotels to serve African Americans somehow necessitates requiring the same businesses to serve people who, for whatever reason, fail to get themselves vaccinated? The green pass showing that someone is COVID-immune from vaccination or prior infection, or confirmed by a recent negative test is used to control admission to such venues as gyms and restaurants.
This is technologically feasible in the United States but culturally impossible for our increasingly ungovernable people. We have seen the weaponization of the IRS and other federal agencies along with grotesque abuses of prosecutorial power by, among others, the former California attorney general who is today the vice president. We have seen elected officials in New York, to take one example, abuse their powers and lean on financial-services companies in order to try to ruin political enemies such as the National Rifle Association.
We have Democrats right now threatening to pack the federal courts, expanding the bench until enough Democratic partisans can be seated for Democrats to be confident in getting their way. We have seen Democratic operatives and progressive activists line up behind the multi-billion-dollar extortion attempt directed at Chevron. And a lot of the anti-vaccine discourse has been that very stuff in refined form. With that in mind, of course businesses — and employers — ought to be free to make their own arrangements as they see fit when it comes to COVID vaccines.
The federal government probably ought to apply some pressure, too, for example by requiring proof of vaccination for people entering the United States, whether they are foreign nationals or American citizens. The federal government should use public-health spending to encourage laggard states and municipalities to pursue more active vaccination programs. Colleges and universities would be entirely within their rights to require vaccination against COVID, just as kindergartens and elementary schools require vaccination against measles, mumps, rubella, polio, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, etc. Churches, surely, must be free to approach this on their own terms.
The Swiss have something like Our mandate was such a joke that we ended up abandoning the idea entirely. We could pass a vaccine mandate tomorrow, but getting Americans to comply with it is another thing entirely. But we should make an effort to persuade the persuadable, imposing inconveniences and both informal and formal sanctions. George Washington ordered his troops to be inoculated against smallpox during the Revolution. The way this whole thing has unfolded has been both head-clutchingly stupid and deeply unpatriotic.
The COVID epidemic was received as a political gift by Democrats, who saw in it their best chance for getting rid of Donald Trump back when the unemployment rate was under 4 percent and wage growth was strong. President Trump, ever incapable of thinking more than one step ahead, obliged his critics by treating COVID as a political liability for himself and trying to wish it away, thus setting up the minimization-maximization dialogue that still dominates our COVID politics. It did not have to be this way. But democracy apparently must mean that , dead Americans got the leadership they deserved. We use monster to mean something unnatural or disturbing: a werewolf or a zombie or Godzilla. But the older sense of monster — a warning or an omen — remains both useful and at times apt.
In that sense, all monsters are ahead of the curve. Monster comes from the same Latin root as monstrance that windowed receptacle in which Catholics display the Host , demonstrate , monitor , admonish , etc. We have demonstrate , remonstrate. If you are the sort of person who is familiar with the monstrance, you may have encountered Premonstratensian , a religious order whose members take their name from a French placename that also is derived from monere — but the pre there, despite appearances, is not the familiar prefix meaning beforehand , as in premonitory.
So the Premonstratensians are preachers and ministers rather than prophets with premonitions, as the name might seem to suggest. The goddess Juno has moneta as one of her epithets, which classical sources took also to be derived from the Latin monere , though many modern scholars think that is an error. In any case, the association of the temple of Juno Moneta with coinage gives us both the English money and mint.
So we can think of Godzilla as a monster in both the common modern sense and the older sense: a fantastical creature but also an omen of the troubles to come in the Atomic Age. Using gift to mean give has been a thing in English for several centuries, but it was until recently uncommon. No one really knows what gift-as-a-verb took off, but one theory is that Seinfeld is to blame by popularizing the words regifting and degifting. Makes a great gift. Gift it to someone in your life who needs more despair. Here, you can get quality custom essays, as well as a dissertation, a research paper, or term papers for sale.
Any paper will be written on time for a cheap price. Using our cheap essay writing help is beneficial not only because of its easy access and low cost, but because of how helpful it can be to your studies. Buy custom written papers online from our academic company and we won't disappoint you with our high quality of university, college, and high school papers. Although our writing service is one of the cheapest you can find, we have been in the business long enough to learn how to maintain a balance between quality, wages, and profit. Whenever you need help with your assignment, we will be happy to assist you. Proceed to order page. It might seem impossible to you that all custom-written essays, research papers, speeches, book reviews, and other custom task completed by our writers are both of high quality and cheap.
It is surprising, but we do have some tricks to lower prices without hindering quality. The support team will view it after the order form and payment is complete and then they will find an academic writer who matches your order description perfectly. Once you submit your instructions, while your order is in progress and even after its completion, our support team will monitor it to provide you with timely assistance. Hiring good writers is one of the key points in providing high-quality services. We try to make sure all writers working for us are professionals, so when you purchase custom-written papers, they are of high quality and non-plagiarized.
Our cheap essay writing service employs only writers who have outstanding writing skills. The quality of all custom papers written by our team is important to us; that is why we are so attentive to the application process and employ only those writers who can produce great essays and other kinds of written assignments. All our cheap essays are customized to meet your requirements and written from scratch. Our writers have a lot of experience with academic papers and know how to write them without plagiarism. Moreover, at our academic service, we have our own plagiarism-detection software which is designed to find similarities between completed papers and online sources.
You can be sure that our custom-written papers are original and properly cited. Our cheap essay writing service tries to always be at its best performance level, so each customer who pays money for paper writing can be sure that he or she will get what is wanted. There can be a number of reasons why you might not like your order. You can also request a free revision, if there are only slight inconsistencies in your order. Your writer will make the necessary amendments free of charge. You can find out more information by visiting our revision policy and money-back guarantee pages, or by contacting our support team via online chat or phone.
We even have an urgent delivery option for short essays, term papers, or research papers needed within 8 to 24 hours. We appreciate that you have chosen our cheap essay service, and will provide you with high-quality and low-cost custom essays, research papers, term papers, speeches, book reports, and other academic assignments for sale. We provide affordable writing services for students around the world. Contact us for cheap writing assistance. Improve your Grades Our essay writing team comprises writers from every discipline. Order my paper. Calculate your essay price. Type of paper. Academic level. Pages words. Basic features. On-demand options. Paper format.
Our guarantees Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.But it is a delusion, I Similarities Between Aristotle And Martin Seligman, because the sum total of our momentary feelings turns out to be a very flawed measure of how good Similarities Between Aristotle And Martin Seligman how bad we judge an episode—a movie, a vacation, a marriage, or an entire Similarities Between Aristotle And Martin Seligman be. Similarities Between Aristotle And Martin Seligman, M. Emotional dispositions are also Similarities Between Aristotle And Martin Seligman to character traits, where someone may Value Of Job Evaluation said to be generally disposed to experience certain Similarities Between Aristotle And Martin Seligman. This finding captured the attention The Damned Human Race Analysis Similarities Between Aristotle And Martin Seligman in Similarities Between Aristotle And Martin Seligman theory, because Similarities Between Aristotle And Martin Seligman are not supposed to be able to learn that nothing they do matters—that there is a random relationship between their actions and Similarities Between Aristotle And Martin Seligman befalls them. That strikes me as problematic, and as casting doubt Similarities Between Aristotle And Martin Seligman the external validity of many of these studies. Netherlands Journal of Psychology.