dajafi wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:...I don't think shacking up is a great idea, I think divorce is a much bigger social problem than I used to think, I think the two parent family is better than a single parent family for raising children...

Depending on how you're defining "shacking up," there might be something of a disconnect between the first bit here and the rest.

I see cohabitation mostly as a durable test of compatibility a couple understakes before marriage. Being a child of divorced parents myself, I probably wouldn't have been willing to get married were my then-girlfriend, now-wife not amenable to living together first. I think this is pretty common nowadays; certainly it was among my friends, even discounting for the fact that NYC housing arrangements often push couples to cohabitate before they're necessarily "ready"... as they did with my now-wife and me a year before we were on a lease together.

(All that said, if the premise that cohabitation isn't something done with the shared assumption that if it goes well, they'll subsequently get hitched, that's a different story.)

As I understand it, the traditional objection to cohabitation was that the couple was "living in sin," a concept that I think would seem quaint to most today. I get the social cohesion and child-rearing arguments against permanent coupling without marriage; is there another piece I'm missing?

(And yes, I'm pursuing this in part because I don't want to think about the miserable two innings of baseball I just watched, and also because I don't much feel like working.)

Oh, wow. Day game. Didn't even realize. I guess I'm better off though.

My position on living together has nothing to do with sex. And it's not like "Omigod you did that?" because I did it for several years, and it was pretty clear in retrospect that the relationship would've ended sooner, when it should have, had we not had to deal with apartments and shit (sort of the flip side of the housing issue you raise). I just think too many people take the step and don't realize that in lots of ways it's a bigger commitment than an engagement. That is, moving out is practically more traumatic than breaking off an engagement, especially if you basically need a roommate to carry half the rent.

TenuredVulture wrote:

dajafi wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:...I don't think shacking up is a great idea, I think divorce is a much bigger social problem than I used to think, I think the two parent family is better than a single parent family for raising children...

Depending on how you're defining "shacking up," there might be something of a disconnect between the first bit here and the rest.

I see cohabitation mostly as a durable test of compatibility a couple understakes before marriage. Being a child of divorced parents myself, I probably wouldn't have been willing to get married were my then-girlfriend, now-wife not amenable to living together first. I think this is pretty common nowadays; certainly it was among my friends, even discounting for the fact that NYC housing arrangements often push couples to cohabitate before they're necessarily "ready"... as they did with my now-wife and me a year before we were on a lease together.

(All that said, if the premise that cohabitation isn't something done with the shared assumption that if it goes well, they'll subsequently get hitched, that's a different story.)

As I understand it, the traditional objection to cohabitation was that the couple was "living in sin," a concept that I think would seem quaint to most today. I get the social cohesion and child-rearing arguments against permanent coupling without marriage; is there another piece I'm missing?

(And yes, I'm pursuing this in part because I don't want to think about the miserable two innings of baseball I just watched, and also because I don't much feel like working.)

Oh, wow. Day game. Didn't even realize. I guess I'm better off though.

My position on living together has nothing to do with sex. And it's not like "Omigod you did that?" because I did it for several years, and it was pretty clear in retrospect that the relationship would've ended sooner, when it should have, had we not had to deal with apartments and $#@! (sort of the flip side of the housing issue you raise). I just think too many people take the step and don't realize that in lots of ways it's a bigger commitment than an engagement. That is, moving out is practically more traumatic than breaking off an engagement, especially if you basically need a roommate to carry half the rent.

wow TV I have no idea what you're alluding to but I can say that smoothette and m'self "went steady" for 6 yrs before officializing

I like the non-contractual origins of our mutual enterprise

fuck contracts after all

pacino wrote:i doubt most people get more socially conservative as they age...it's probably more that younger people move the goalposts.

This is a good observation and I think you make a really good point. I hadn't considered it from this angle. I still think hindsight and experience that comes with age plays a big part as well (to the effect of what TV is fumbling on about with his audience).

I wouldn't argue that people become more conservative as they get older because of social issues overall. I think that has to do more with accumulation of wealth and less to do with the social side.

TenuredVulture wrote:My position on living together has nothing to do with sex. And it's not like "Omigod you did that?" because I did it for several years, and it was pretty clear in retrospect that the relationship would've ended sooner, when it should have, had we not had to deal with apartments and $#@! (sort of the flip side of the housing issue you raise). I just think too many people take the step and don't realize that in lots of ways it's a bigger commitment than an engagement. That is, moving out is practically more traumatic than breaking off an engagement, especially if you basically need a roommate to carry half the rent.

But this is a two-sided coin too. I'm not especially proud of this, but I might well have broken up with my girlfriend were it not for the aggravation of moving. It helped push me to resolve the problems in the relationship, and now we've been married for more than five good years.

dajafi wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:My position on living together has nothing to do with sex. And it's not like "Omigod you did that?" because I did it for several years, and it was pretty clear in retrospect that the relationship would've ended sooner, when it should have, had we not had to deal with apartments and $#@! (sort of the flip side of the housing issue you raise). I just think too many people take the step and don't realize that in lots of ways it's a bigger commitment than an engagement. That is, moving out is practically more traumatic than breaking off an engagement, especially if you basically need a roommate to carry half the rent.

But this is a two-sided coin too. I'm not especially proud of this, but I might well have broken up with my girlfriend were it not for the aggravation of moving. It helped push me to resolve the problems in the relationship, and now we've been married for more than five good years.

So you're saying I should have stuck it out even longer way back when?

TenuredVulture wrote:

dajafi wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:My position on living together has nothing to do with sex. And it's not like "Omigod you did that?" because I did it for several years, and it was pretty clear in retrospect that the relationship would've ended sooner, when it should have, had we not had to deal with apartments and $#@! (sort of the flip side of the housing issue you raise). I just think too many people take the step and don't realize that in lots of ways it's a bigger commitment than an engagement. That is, moving out is practically more traumatic than breaking off an engagement, especially if you basically need a roommate to carry half the rent.

But this is a two-sided coin too. I'm not especially proud of this, but I might well have broken up with my girlfriend were it not for the aggravation of moving. It helped push me to resolve the problems in the relationship, and now we've been married for more than five good years.

So you're saying I should have stuck it out even longer way back when?

I think I'm saying there's no one right answer for this sort of thing.

</typicalliberalrelativism>

This article on "what should Obama do to reverse his political fortunes?" ranks very high on the unintentional-comedy scale. Spoiler: for every contributor, the answer is "he should do exactly what I always say anybody should do."

I still think the answer is "pray to every deity in the listings that the economy improves by 2012." Though in terms of both substance and messaging, what Bob Kerrey wrote sounds pretty good to me too. Probably because they're the same things--invest in human capital and innovation, get serious about the structural problems in the budget--that I always say anybody should do.

I think at this point Obamas best chance is that the repubs nominate someone too far to the right, which seems like a legitimate possibility with the way things have been going.

Obitiuary from former campaign worker urges vote against Harry Reid

In the Las Vegas Review-Journal, the obituary printed Tuesday for McCourt notes her dissatisfaction with the job of the 70-year-old Reid. According to her family: “We believe that mom would say she was mortified to have taken a large role in the election of Harry Reid to U.S. Congress. Let the record show Charlotte was displeased with his work.”

I'm not sure "mortified" was the best word choice.

I'm linking this Douthat articlefor doc to tear apart like a lion on fresh meat, or Ryan Howard on a get me over fastball. If he doesn't, though, I will.

dajafi wrote:I'm linking this Douthat articlefor doc to tear apart like a lion on fresh meat, or Ryan Howard on a get me over fastball. If he doesn't, though, I will.

The article is kind of dumb, and there's some shoddiness in how it describes the statistics, (how many future farmers from Arkansas apply to Harvard?) but having been on both sides of the fence, I don't think Douthat is entirely off base.

There's no doubt that recruitment policies at highly selective private schools are designed to perpetuate an elite status--and along those lines, Douthat should have mentioned the most distorting of all policies, legacy preference.

TenuredVulture wrote:

dajafi wrote:I'm linking this Douthat articlefor doc to tear apart like a lion on fresh meat, or Ryan Howard on a get me over fastball. If he doesn't, though, I will.

The article is kind of dumb, and there's some shoddiness in how it describes the statistics, (how many future farmers from Arkansas apply to Harvard?) but having been on both sides of the fence, I don't think Douthat is entirely off base.

There's no doubt that recruitment policies at highly selective private schools are designed to perpetuate an elite status--and along those lines, Douthat should have mentioned the most distorting of all policies, legacy preference.

Having not read the book-length study (is he trying to establish credibility by mentioning how long it is???), all the stats he claimed seem to be admissions statistics and variables translated into a additive scorecard or regression predictive model. I don't see a reason to doubt them.

Legacies are worth mentioning, and legacies are probably in the higher income brackets that are already being favored; it wouldnt surprise me if much of the advantage in admissions rates that rich whites have over poor whites is explained by legacy admits from the former group.

swishnicholson wrote:Obitiuary from former campaign worker urges vote against Harry Reid

In the Las Vegas Review-Journal, the obituary printed Tuesday for McCourt notes her dissatisfaction with the job of the 70-year-old Reid. According to her family: “We believe that mom would say she was mortified to have taken a large role in the election of Harry Reid to U.S. Congress. Let the record show Charlotte was displeased with his work.”

I'm not sure "mortified" was the best word choice.

Actually, they missed a rare opportunity to NOT misuse the "literally" qualifier.

Werthless wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

dajafi wrote:I'm linking this Douthat articlefor doc to tear apart like a lion on fresh meat, or Ryan Howard on a get me over fastball. If he doesn't, though, I will.

The article is kind of dumb, and there's some shoddiness in how it describes the statistics, (how many future farmers from Arkansas apply to Harvard?) but having been on both sides of the fence, I don't think Douthat is entirely off base.

There's no doubt that recruitment policies at highly selective private schools are designed to perpetuate an elite status--and along those lines, Douthat should have mentioned the most distorting of all policies, legacy preference.

Having not read the book-length study (is he trying to establish credibility by mentioning how long it is???), all the stats he claimed seem to be admissions statistics and variables translated into a additive scorecard or regression predictive model. I don't see a reason to doubt them.

Legacies are worth mentioning, and legacies are probably in the higher income brackets that are already being favored; it wouldnt surprise me if much of the advantage in admissions rates that rich whites have over poor whites is explained by legacy admits from the former group.

One problem with the book length study might be its examination of only 8 institutions, which given the fact that we're really talking about admissions policies is a pretty small number to examine.

It's also the case that schools think about their financial budgets when they recruit. Recruiting students from elite private secondary schools will mean you're targeting students less likely to need financial assistance to attend.

I think however the statistics are besides the point. I would imagine a bright conservative Christian (regardless of income level) might find an elite northeast private school a rather unwelcoming place.

And low income students regardless of ethnicity or "cultural" background will also have a tough time making an adjustment.

Curiously, GW Bush's 10 percent plan he instituted at Texas really did address the issue in interesting ways--the very upper income students from the elite high schools in affluent parts of texas who generally benefit in the college admissions games were the one who now found themselves at a disadvantage, at least as far as admission to UT-Austin and Texas A&M College station. Beneficiaries included the rural and other low income whites who previously did not benefit from traditional affirmative action programs.

The strangest thing in Douthat's wording is this sentence: "The most underrepresented groups on elite campuses often aren’t racial minorities; they’re working-class whites (and white Christians in particular) from conservative states and regions." This seems an attempt to manufacture grievance. What is the possible meaning of 'white Christians in particular'. Almost all whites self-report as Christian, apart from those who are Jewish. It is hardly a secret that these particular elite institutions have had quite restrictive Jewish quotas, basically forever. So the argument that white Christians are somehow uniquely impacted, seems bizarre and false. Do these schools prefer white atheists? No evidence for that is provided or even suggested.

Then he throws in the additional qualifier 'from conservative states and regions'. I'm guessing he'll find a lot of the blue-state whites who are admitted come from old-line conservative Republican families and that this group will encompass most of the 'legacy' admits.

It sounds like he wants to say, but is somehow afraid to say, that he thinks Evangelical Christians from the South are underrepresented. First, if this is what he means by the Christians in question, why not just say so, since his statement as written is nonsense. Taking what he appears to be trying to say, one reasonable explanation is that these students self-select away from the big, bad, liberal elite schools. Sort of like saying the bible colleges discriminate against blue state Christians and Jews.

It's hard to even judge what admission scores he's talking about. A lot of the blue states use primarily the ACT test, rather than SAT. Top 1% of your class in Scarsborough and in Fayetteville aren't exactly the same. Then again, standardized tests still tend to assume the white cultural experience and put minorities at a bit of a disadvantage.

allentown wrote:The strangest thing in Douthat's wording is this sentence: "The most underrepresented groups on elite campuses often aren’t racial minorities; they’re working-class whites (and white Christians in particular) from conservative states and regions." This seems an attempt to manufacture grievance. What is the possible meaning of 'white Christians in particular'. Almost all whites self-report as Christian, apart from those who are Jewish. It is hardly a secret that these particular elite institutions have had quite restrictive Jewish quotas, basically forever. So the argument that white Christians are somehow uniquely impacted, seems bizarre and false. Do these schools prefer white atheists? No evidence for that is provided or even suggested.

I agree that there's a manufactured grievance here. But as far as I know, there are few schools anymore that have quotas for Jewish students. And by Christian, I think he could mean students who attend church at least once a week. This would probably eliminate almost all of your Presbyterians and Episcopalians, and lots of your Methodists and Catholics. That is, I don't think the article hinges on defining Christian as Southern evangelical.

But there are lots of conflating factors here--region being among them. The make up of the student body at Rice (an elite institution by anyone's reckoning) is probably a lot different than Notre Dame, which is probably in turn different from what you'll find at Princeton.

In any event, the article Douthat linked is more interesting. But it's really about college. Douthat's problem I'm now realizing is pointing to the admissions standards at elite institutions as a cause for division and mistrust among a large segment of Red State America, and that's a stretch. Moreover, it's more likely that the causal arrow doesn't go from elite schools exclude conservative low income whites ergo conservative low income whites don't trust the elite to low income whites (particularly those from red states) don't trust elite northeasterners and therefore aren't well represented at those elite institutions.

Well, students who attend church once a week is also a novel definition of Christian. Also noted that the hard data quoted in the article is 13 years old.

Krugmanmakes a valid point. But I think he takes it too easy on pundits. They're just awful, and wrong. I wish I could be one.

WV is going to have a special in November AND Capito can run for the Senate seat and her House seat at the same time. I don't think she will beat Manchin, but she can beat Manchin. Allowing her to run for reelection at the same time is lovely.