Related, I decided to search the tubes for the ages of Ms. Sonmez and Ms. Lorenz, expecting numbers sub-30. Ms. Sonmez is 39. There seems to be a discrepancy about Ms. Lorenz’s age, because of fucking course there is, but we can safely say she’s at least 35.
As a lawyer, I very much appreciate the recurring point (made in several episodes now) that law students need to get their heads around advocating for people and companies they don’t 100% agree with. JFC, that is the entire point.
Same. Adversarial legal system ensures justice for everyone. People should make the connection quicker that "innocent until proven guilty" necessarily leads to "advocacy for everyone to prove guilt". Otherwise, if we only advocate for people on our team, other *innocent* people lack representation to defend their innocence.
It’s a profession that also requires some recognition that reasonable people can disagree and that an interpretation or argument that differs from you own can still be credible. We seem to be forgetting how to do that as a society.
"What happened to the man at the Safeway, what happened to Dustin Walker—these are parables of a sort of progressive-libertarian nihilism, of the belief that any intervention that has to be imposed on a vulnerable person is so fundamentally flawed and problematic that the best thing to do is nothing at all. Anyone offended by the sight of the suffering is just judging someone who’s having a mental-health episode, and any liberal who argues that the state can and should take control of someone in the throes of drugs and psychosis is basically a Republican. If and when the vulnerable person dies, that was his choice, and in San Francisco we congratulate ourselves on being very accepting of that choice."
I think so much of the problem is related to general municipal incompetence and corruption. Dealing with addiction is a different problem than dealing with drug use, since most drug users aren't addicted, though they're also dying because of the unregulated, poisoned supply that prohibition guarantees. And then there's this strange passage, understandably incoherent as it comes from a parent with a suffering son...
"Since she posted that comment, she’s become an activist, calling on the city to crack down on drug sales, put dealers in jail, *and arrest her son so he’s forced to become sober in jail*, which she sees as the only way to save his life...
"Not long ago, we met on a stoop by the Civic Center, where her son used to hang out. She hadn’t seen him in months, but she spoke with him periodically. She cried as she talked about his journey into drugs. She said he was a heroin addict. *He’d get sober after stints in jail, but it wouldn’t last.*"
Jailing people with addiction increases their chances of death and doesn't increase their chances of recovery. It's tragic to feel helpless when someone you love struggles with addiction, but they won't recover until they're ready. And confounding things even more is that most people who experience addiction do recover, and most of them do so without treatment. If they stay alive, that is. Prohibition and its "Iron Law" makes that much more difficult than it needs to be.
The Weigel/Somnez thing has been so painful to watch. Literally every one of Somnez' tweets is doing exactly what she's accusing others of in terms of harassment, hostile environment, etc. and I'm baffled that she hasn't been struck by lightning due to sheery hypocrisy.
The whole not having children because of “climate change” is a real topic of conversation with lots of very sad 30 something people who want to pseudo-intellectualize why they don’t have kids.
The truth often is they are stable enough to know they should not have kids while not being stable enough to actually have kids. It’s a copping mechanism for people who don’t want to face their reality and personal choices. It has the nice side effect of turning their personal failures into a virtue.
So much of the online political discourse can be summed up as sad millennials avoiding or justifying their personal issues based on current events.
It really sad because the subtext is that they kind of want to but make excuses. I used to think the marginal person should opt against kids. After having kids, I have totally switched positions. If you are thinking about it half seriously, you should just do it. But, I have siblings and friends who think the world is ending or some such nonsense. If they took the plunge they would see it for the wonder that it is.
"So much of the online political discourse can be summed up as sad millennials avoiding or justifying their personal issues based on current events." - Well stated. More sympathetic than I would say; which is that the discourse is summed up as the millennials laziness and the justification that is instead victimhood.
Some friends are like we will have a baby when we pay those student loans off, maybe they will move to the climate change. Married for nine years, just don't have much interest in having kids, like it seems like a lot of hard work. I find having a dog stressful, imagine a child is like a dog but it learns to talk back.
My husband and I are in a large social group where almost nobody else has kids. Over the years, I've watched a lot of my friends' mindsets morph from "I just don't want kids and fuck anyone who asks me about it" to "As a millennial, I am so beaten down by the economy that I can't afford my student loans, rent/a house, etc. so of course I can't afford to have a kid." It's been an interesting shift to observe.
Thank you! I came here after that bit solely to see if someone acknowledged that, like, 17 of his 20 credits are Child’s Play movies. I think Fiona’s first role was ALSO a Child’s Play movie. That series employed its director and stars for three decades.
Re: population crisis. It actually is a potential crisis. But the crisis is under population. First part of it would be a population that skews too old, and doesn’t have enough productive, tax paying members of the workforce. Could happen quicker than we think. This epic piece on Mike Solana’s Substack gets into it -
"The word cops are marching under the banner of political correctness. The culture of victimization is hunting for quarry. American English is in danger of losing its muscle and energy. That's what these bozos are doing to us[3]"
Seeing as Chesa came up for the third or fourth time in a row of this pod, I just want to steelman the categorical, anti-recall sentiment. I spend a lot of time being the lone person in the room who does not have progressive instincts on certain topics, so I hear the arguments. The best one is that most campaign finance laws do not apply to the process of signature gathering needed to whip up a recall campaign. This argument has not convinced me personally, but I’m not sure I’ve heard it mentioned on any episodes. FWIW.
Another interesting dynamic, which FiveThirtyEight touched upon, is that that recalls are relatively simple: Do you want this person to stay or go? Chesa wasn't running against another actual person, just a referendum on his own performance. FiveThirtyEight claims that this dynamic sets a slightly lower bar than ordinary elections.
yes, but in most elections you have a choice between two (or more) people you don't like that much. Here the choice is much clearer, is he doing a shitty job?
If you want to open another can of worms, he would never have won if the other three DA candidates we’re not all moderates and split up the vote. The beauty of our ranked choice system.
MW, great rant on Sonmez. Another great Fifth Column bumper sticker: "Shut the fuck up, you have to adult now."
Related, I decided to search the tubes for the ages of Ms. Sonmez and Ms. Lorenz, expecting numbers sub-30. Ms. Sonmez is 39. There seems to be a discrepancy about Ms. Lorenz’s age, because of fucking course there is, but we can safely say she’s at least 35.
Actually, Monday was her 40th birthday (she said it in a tweet). She spent the whole day attacking her colleagues on Twitter.
Breaking fucked-around-and-found-out update:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/felicia-sonmez-exits-washington-post-amid-week-of-infighting/
"Time is a scarce fucking resource."
Stated at the 1 hour and 49 minute mark of the podcast...
Hour 10 of the overall 13 hour predicament with the audio. Substack needs to give them some audio equipment money.
I for one miss the 2+ hour marathon episodes.
Michael Moynihan is on a podcast hosted by Peter McCormack - came out today https://overcast.fm/+LCsG-X0Rs
As a lawyer, I very much appreciate the recurring point (made in several episodes now) that law students need to get their heads around advocating for people and companies they don’t 100% agree with. JFC, that is the entire point.
Same. Adversarial legal system ensures justice for everyone. People should make the connection quicker that "innocent until proven guilty" necessarily leads to "advocacy for everyone to prove guilt". Otherwise, if we only advocate for people on our team, other *innocent* people lack representation to defend their innocence.
It’s a profession that also requires some recognition that reasonable people can disagree and that an interpretation or argument that differs from you own can still be credible. We seem to be forgetting how to do that as a society.
On San Francisco, I recommend reading Nellie Bowles recent piece in The Atlantic:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/06/how-san-francisco-became-failed-city/661199/
I actually found it pretty sobering from a libertarian perspective.
Any plans to have her on the show to talk about it?
My favorite passage from her piece.
"What happened to the man at the Safeway, what happened to Dustin Walker—these are parables of a sort of progressive-libertarian nihilism, of the belief that any intervention that has to be imposed on a vulnerable person is so fundamentally flawed and problematic that the best thing to do is nothing at all. Anyone offended by the sight of the suffering is just judging someone who’s having a mental-health episode, and any liberal who argues that the state can and should take control of someone in the throes of drugs and psychosis is basically a Republican. If and when the vulnerable person dies, that was his choice, and in San Francisco we congratulate ourselves on being very accepting of that choice."
I think so much of the problem is related to general municipal incompetence and corruption. Dealing with addiction is a different problem than dealing with drug use, since most drug users aren't addicted, though they're also dying because of the unregulated, poisoned supply that prohibition guarantees. And then there's this strange passage, understandably incoherent as it comes from a parent with a suffering son...
"Since she posted that comment, she’s become an activist, calling on the city to crack down on drug sales, put dealers in jail, *and arrest her son so he’s forced to become sober in jail*, which she sees as the only way to save his life...
"Not long ago, we met on a stoop by the Civic Center, where her son used to hang out. She hadn’t seen him in months, but she spoke with him periodically. She cried as she talked about his journey into drugs. She said he was a heroin addict. *He’d get sober after stints in jail, but it wouldn’t last.*"
Jailing people with addiction increases their chances of death and doesn't increase their chances of recovery. It's tragic to feel helpless when someone you love struggles with addiction, but they won't recover until they're ready. And confounding things even more is that most people who experience addiction do recover, and most of them do so without treatment. If they stay alive, that is. Prohibition and its "Iron Law" makes that much more difficult than it needs to be.
The Weigel/Somnez thing has been so painful to watch. Literally every one of Somnez' tweets is doing exactly what she's accusing others of in terms of harassment, hostile environment, etc. and I'm baffled that she hasn't been struck by lightning due to sheery hypocrisy.
If I were to bet, Somnez is bipolar.
Either that, or bisexual. She definitely gives off strong bi vibes.
And during Pride Month.
I mean, she’s one or the other, AMIRITE?! Hahaha, says the unfunny comedian…
The whole not having children because of “climate change” is a real topic of conversation with lots of very sad 30 something people who want to pseudo-intellectualize why they don’t have kids.
The truth often is they are stable enough to know they should not have kids while not being stable enough to actually have kids. It’s a copping mechanism for people who don’t want to face their reality and personal choices. It has the nice side effect of turning their personal failures into a virtue.
So much of the online political discourse can be summed up as sad millennials avoiding or justifying their personal issues based on current events.
It really sad because the subtext is that they kind of want to but make excuses. I used to think the marginal person should opt against kids. After having kids, I have totally switched positions. If you are thinking about it half seriously, you should just do it. But, I have siblings and friends who think the world is ending or some such nonsense. If they took the plunge they would see it for the wonder that it is.
"So much of the online political discourse can be summed up as sad millennials avoiding or justifying their personal issues based on current events." - Well stated. More sympathetic than I would say; which is that the discourse is summed up as the millennials laziness and the justification that is instead victimhood.
One of my mantras is, "it's never the right time to have a baby." If you wait until the time is perfect, you never have kids.
Some friends are like we will have a baby when we pay those student loans off, maybe they will move to the climate change. Married for nine years, just don't have much interest in having kids, like it seems like a lot of hard work. I find having a dog stressful, imagine a child is like a dog but it learns to talk back.
My husband and I are in a large social group where almost nobody else has kids. Over the years, I've watched a lot of my friends' mindsets morph from "I just don't want kids and fuck anyone who asks me about it" to "As a millennial, I am so beaten down by the economy that I can't afford my student loans, rent/a house, etc. so of course I can't afford to have a kid." It's been an interesting shift to observe.
Brad Dourif also known as the voice of... Chucky!
Thank you! I came here after that bit solely to see if someone acknowledged that, like, 17 of his 20 credits are Child’s Play movies. I think Fiona’s first role was ALSO a Child’s Play movie. That series employed its director and stars for three decades.
Dourif gives a good performance in Exorcist III with George C. Scott.
Re: population crisis. It actually is a potential crisis. But the crisis is under population. First part of it would be a population that skews too old, and doesn’t have enough productive, tax paying members of the workforce. Could happen quicker than we think. This epic piece on Mike Solana’s Substack gets into it -
https://www.piratewires.com/p/vanishing-people-the-population-crisis?r=7yndb&utm_medium=ios
Great article, shared it with multiple people, all breeders like myself.
“Maybe in Hebrew it made sense” is the name of my memoir
Sure enough, there is a Wikipedia page on the “Water Buffalo” incident
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_buffalo_incident
And this from 1993:
"The word cops are marching under the banner of political correctness. The culture of victimization is hunting for quarry. American English is in danger of losing its muscle and energy. That's what these bozos are doing to us[3]"
We should never use reasonable and Ezra Klein in the same paragraph, besides him being a condescending prick.
A reasonable prick
Seeing as Chesa came up for the third or fourth time in a row of this pod, I just want to steelman the categorical, anti-recall sentiment. I spend a lot of time being the lone person in the room who does not have progressive instincts on certain topics, so I hear the arguments. The best one is that most campaign finance laws do not apply to the process of signature gathering needed to whip up a recall campaign. This argument has not convinced me personally, but I’m not sure I’ve heard it mentioned on any episodes. FWIW.
Another interesting dynamic, which FiveThirtyEight touched upon, is that that recalls are relatively simple: Do you want this person to stay or go? Chesa wasn't running against another actual person, just a referendum on his own performance. FiveThirtyEight claims that this dynamic sets a slightly lower bar than ordinary elections.
yes, but in most elections you have a choice between two (or more) people you don't like that much. Here the choice is much clearer, is he doing a shitty job?
If you want to open another can of worms, he would never have won if the other three DA candidates we’re not all moderates and split up the vote. The beauty of our ranked choice system.
I think that’s a fair point
Do the campaign finance laws apply to the actual recall campaign itself?
Pull out for climate change
https://ideasonideas.substack.com/p/anatomy-of-a-joke-part-2-the-washington?s=w I literally woke up and dissected the actual joke. It's okay, but I think "sexist" is so far off. It's a stereotype joke.