Are you all seeing an influx of reddit refugees?

The linked review is quite good, and the book in question raises some points that should be discussed on a wider platform. Unfortunately, flagamuffin's quip above perfectly exemplifies everything that is wrong with politics today and the very basis for the claims the author makes in his book.

The primary issue here is that a significant portion of the populace is mired in fundamental religious intransigence and political demagoguery. They are fed a constant diet of half-truths and outright fabrications, then naturally use those experiences as the basis for their votes. They vote with their feelings and (mis)perceptions of candidates and issues rather than on facts.

This nation is founded on the idea that its citizens are informed enough about major political issues to vote in rational manners. For example, Jefferson wrote, “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” Alexander Hamilton lamented, “The people commonly act more from their feelings than from their understandings.” John Adams wrote as much, “Evil, in humankind, lies in the lack of governance by reason over the passions.”

Ultimately, it is a fact that un- and misinformed voters are a major problem for us as a nation. Masses on both sides of the aisle exhibit the trait of refusing to take in new information and use it to modify their world views. However, this phenomenon disproportionately affects the people that self-identify as Republican. Reactionary, self-congratulatory platitudes like that which that above only serve to entrench that kind of mentality.

I'm not writing to defend the book. I find problems with it, and truly I have deep moral and practical concerns of what it would mean to attempt to restrict voting privileges. But I do think there is something deeply concerning with the fact that we have a huge percentage of people and politicians who are completely ignorant of the fields they command such as commerce, health care, the internet, and the environment; and worse, who deny basic scientific evidence in those areas and more. They aren't just ignorant of such things -- they are willfully, pridefully ignorant. They are either unwilling to put in the work necessary to educate themselves or unwilling to have their self-identities challenged in that they may have to change an opinion. Again, this trait disproportionate affects Republicans, who by their very nature cling to traditional attitudes and are reluctant to change.

For these reasons, I also reject any notion that voters don't need to be informed, i.e. that it's perfectly ok for people to vote selfishly. To do so ignores the fact that each of us occupies a very tiny part of a very big world. To live and vote like that requires an enormous faith in the political system that it will compromise the selfish desires of each constituency. Yet you will not have a functioning political system worthy of that faith if short-sighted buffoons are the ones running it because you put them there. Mass blocks of un- and misinformed voters turn political contests into cults of personality - giving jobs and publicity to who-ever says the most outrageous shit, who has the most charisma, who deals the sickest burns. Those are not character traits we need in our elected officials.

I never much cared for twitter. I subscribed to channels I thought might be useful like the DOT and the NOAA, but they still twit about pointless shit all day every day. Peter and the wolf.

Don't gamble more than you can afford to lose.

As I understand it, Venezuela is in this predicament because their president instituted extravagant, far-reaching social programs, all of which were funded by revenues from state-sponsored exports, chiefly oil. So, without attempting to write a lengthy essay here, that setup fell victim to a double whammy of 1) mismanagement of those resources and 2) continuing the social programs. Basically when the bottom fell out of the oil market, their revenue dried up, but the expensive social programs continued. It didn't take long before there was no money for basic services.

Self-professed libertarians and free-market anarchocapitalists use Venezuela as a prime example of social democracy as a failing strategy for governance. I don't find that appropriate because any rational person can see that there should have been a direct and immediate response to scale each program's reach to its per-period fiscal support. However, I do think Venezuela could be used as a case example that however the pathway, you don't want buffoons in charge of your country's most important things. In other words, I don't think that a greedy, short-sighted buffoon in private industry is any better than a greedy, short-sighted buffoon in government.

For several years I was firmly a part of the ever-strapped working class. Then I went to college and became part of the ever-strapped, over-educated working class! At one point I was working three jobs to afford living. I learned to cut expenses where I could - use (free) linux instead of a paid OS, no cable tv, no eating at restaurants, bike instead of drive, and so forth. And I'm not proud of it, but I downloaded pretty much all my music for free using Napster, Kazaa, and the like.

I have since made amends for that and now fully financially support the musicians whose music I enjoy. However I firmly believe that the argument, "If you can't afford it, you don't get to have it," shouldn't apply to certain things. Of course it makes sense that a person shouldn't have a European sportscar if they can't afford it, or they shouldn't have a large house in the suburbs if they can't afford it. But music is a whole other thing. The way Huxley writes about it is beautiful and perfect, and he shows just how important it is to our lives.

Nowadays people have outlets that didn't used to exist for free music or at least the ability to listen - youtube, bandcamp, soundcloud - plus some viable commercial services that are affordable and allow you to tune the flow of music to your own tastes. Being a part of a previous generation that did not have those options, if I'd had to go through my hardscrabble years with no music to listen to except the over-produced, tone deaf commercial shit that's shoved down our throats by pop radio, I'd have thrown myself off a bridge. Music is not simply a product to be consumed. It is integral to life itself.

Thanks very much for taking the time to write cogently; however, you're drawing a false equivalency between the two major parties. It's true that Democrats have plenty of examples of political shenanigans, illegal activities, and general selfish, elitist behavior. But Republicans have been doing all the same things for longer and more egregiously, so much to the point that they've institutionalized it. They've become a mockery of themselves and in the process mock the very foundations of compromise and rational discourse. You really have to dig deep to find clear examples of Democratic shenanigans, whereas Republicans outdo themselves on a weekly basis. For instance in the present, two of the top political stories aside from the presidential nomination process are Rick Scott (R-FL) embarrassing himself again, NC (R legislature, R governor) embarrassing itself again, both with stupid-headed legislation based not in fact or practicality but in religious and moral demagoguery; and more Republican obstructionism in re refusing to consider Supreme Court nominees. Jonathan Bernstein has written some good material about the unprecedented number of judge and department head positions that are currently vacant because of Republican stonewalling.

I don't wish to write more in direct response because you're incorrect or heavily biased on almost every example (you can't blame the failure of Detroit on any one person; the ACA was debated at length and was subject to Republican obstructionism not Democrat "bullying;" there are no "disasters" in California or Illinois; an article from the WSJ saying that rich people pay too much tax? color me shocked; etc.), and I just don't have the time for that. I will say though the one thing we agree on is that the process is corrupt and broken. Regular people like us can try to understand and argue rationally, but ultimately why cut each others' throats? We can never be fully sure whether we've been lied to about certain facts and elements of history by our so-called leaders. Plus the entire political process is designed to minimize contributions and effects by common citizens anyway. The rise of anti-establishment candidates on both sides of the aisle is a sign that citizens are sick to death of 'business as usual' politics. It's clear to everyone now that the interests of the establishment are 180 degrees from the interests of the common person. Rich elites were able to spin Occupy Wall Street as a bunch of lazy, disaffected, drug-addled young people and bums, crisis averted. They were able to both bail out the banks and keep all their cronies out of jail. But their inability to firmly entrench their desired presidential candidates this year has them quaking in their shoes.

I avoid funds like "retirement 2035" or whatever. I have money in a small collection of mutual funds like TISPX FCNKX and GCBLX. I've recently discovered spartan index funds e.g. FXSIX.

You just gave me the most amazing idea for a new "body swap" movie.

As a landlord, I've offered tenants the following deal to get out of leases early: 1) they sacrifice the remaining month's rent, the following month's rent, plus the security deposit, and get out scott-free immediately; OR, 2) I advertise for a new tenant immediately, and the current tenant continue paying rent up to the day the new tenant takes occupancy, at which point the remainder of that month is refunded on a pro-rated basis, they get back their security deposit, and are free of the lease.

Both are entirely legal in my state. Option 1 is actually written into the standard state lease explicitly. Option 2 is if you have faith in me (the landlord) and the awesomeness of the property, and maybe like to gamble a bit.

Honestly though with just one month to go, even if your landlord offered you my option 2, you might get back a week or two worth of money at the most. It was a long shot for you to find someone to rent for just one month in the first place. Even so-called 'short term' leases are padded. I'd just pay the month and never look back.

I'd be amenable to that but I work for the 'other color blue.' You ever come up this way, there's a fantastic sushi place nearby.

Yes but the days of 5Ks and 10Ks are far behind me. I might be up for the Beer Mile in Raleigh but I don't like witbier (the 2015 choice).

Chapel Hill? Small world.

I agree.

I've been doing crosswords and other word games for 20+ years. Cryptoquotes might be my favorite, but I always come back to crosswords. I never did like sudoku though.

Alas.

For example, one big reason that our rates are skyrocketing is that it is becoming illegal for CareFirst and all other health insurance companies to deny someone with a preexisting condition. ... This is just plain stupid; it violates the entire point of insurance and will result in people gaming the system.

This sentiment is inhumane. "If you get hurt or catch a disease, too bad." The dollars don't matter here. We have to provide care for everyone. Who can plan ahead for catching necrotizing fasciitis or being in a bad auto accident or some other horrible thing? And just because you had the misfortune to be stricken with some horrible thing means you should lose the ability to participate? Even a chronic condition like diabetes, you know, with real wages down in comparison to all expenses going up, it shouldn't be surprising that a person might forgo health insurance in favor of rent, food, shoes, etc. Not surprising, and certainly not contemptible.

This kind of 'free market' thinking should be exposed for the fantastically immoral nonsense that it is. Of course there are going to be people that game the system, no matter what system is in place! But to deny legitimate expenses of lesser extents in an effort to stem illegitimate losses at greater extents is itself "just plain stupid." It is appropriately metaphorically cutting off the nose to spite the face - a self destructive overreaction with nothing more at its heart than spite.

It is not a legitimate question. It is a question that is meant to bind me up in an useless argument about moral boundaries. I made clear with my topmost comment where I stand on that issue.

Morality is not at all irrelevant when discussing health care. My whole point is that there are some things that supercede fiscal considerations.

Also you make it sound as if Dems and Repubs are equally guilty of ideology, but that's not correct. The ACA in its present form is a compromise of a compromise ad absurdum. Obama and Congressional Democrats didn't even start with something ideal - they started with something reasonable and had to go from there. What we have now is the minimum that they could get through legislation. Of course it's not perfect but it's a step in the right direction.

I really loved Rachel Dratch's "Debbie Downer" sketches. Also Jimmy Fallon's "leather guy" skit, and Norm MacDonald's "Who's More Grizzled" gameshow. And more recently, "The Californians."

I went there looking for Three's Company -- was not disappointed. I grew up watching that show with my parents. I thought my life would be like Jack Tripper's.

I say glibly at parties, "Asperger's is the new ADD." What I mean by it really is that these days, when school systems and some mental health practitioners encounter a kid who's obviously problematic but doesn't fit any clear criteria for other diagnoses, they label that kid as having "autism spectrum disorder." The rationale goes that at least that way the kid can get some specialized help.

I don't want to sound like a gun nut but this is hardly a "backfire." It's been legally verified that it's perfectly acceptable for citizens to buy guns in this manner. I argue that regardless of whether a gun is bought by the police or bought by someone else, the goal is still achieved: a weapon is moved out of an environment in which it is unwanted, potentially unused and hazardous, and into one in which it (hopefully) will be handled respectfully and safely.

Plus, despite the official politically correct and sensitive statements, gun buyback programs are very clearly intended to reduce the pool of guns available to people who are statistically more likely to use them for nefarious purposes. When someone brings a rare and special piece, you can bet the police will keep it as a memento just as much as any private collector or businessperson. It's those special pieces that these interlopers seek to purchase. All the usual gang-banger favorites and such end up going where they are intended anyway: into the furnace.

That was a nice listen! Better than a lot that I hear on NPR lately. Actually it's a coincidence that today was the first time in almost a year that I went for a run. After suffering plantar fasciitis then a ruptured lumbar disc, I'm happy to report that I'm in no more pain after the run that I was before it. And it's true: running stinks, it's boring and hard, but after I tough my way through it, I do feel that uplifting feeling (that they talk about around the 9 minute mark).

It is a valid concern along with other possible maladies that might follow anewed use of muscles and structures atrophied from decades of misuse or disuse. I was very careful about starting toe-running, going at a very light pace for only 30 seconds each day to start. But it's also worth considering that I was about 37 years old at the time, and had been lifting weights for some years so was somewhat heavy for my frame. I don't really know what I could have done differently. Maybe done it outside on trails instead of an indoor track. Maybe then I would have developed a good feel for how to be truly light-footed instead of merely landing on forefoot.

I have to admit, I was expecting some different clip art with the article.

There's an adage: "if you loan someone money and never see them again, it was probably worth it." It's not just a clever observation about materialistic users. It's a way of saying that some transitions in life have defined costs, and those costs may sting at the moment but they are ultimately worthwhile and even necessary.

In other words just let it go man. You had some good times with reddit, but it's time to move on.

I followed Taoist philosophy for a while - and it worked very well for me, kept me in balance - until I found out there is a Taoist religion, complete with its own rituals, pilgrimages, recitations and such. That took the wind out of my sails. It gave me the distinct sense that most people are followers, not thinkers; that they prefer to be spoon-fed dogma that agrees with what they already believe rather than to think critically for themselves; and that they prefer habit and comfort over truth. It is a realization that haunts me to this day, like a war wound that heals over but nags at you the rest of your life.

1st corinthians 13:11