We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
1. The parenting essay has a lot of reality. My daughter (nearly 20) has been a bit of a tantrum artist from about 5 and my son (nearly 18) has Asperger's. Parenting is a roller coaster, all right, and those elements increase the amplitude and frequency.
2. Open carry but can't be loaded? H'm. That almost compels the use of a semi-auto. My pistols are single-action revolvers and need some time to load. And yes, the two questions are a) why are so many bad people willing to use guns in crimes? and b) why do citizens think they need to guard themselves?
3. The bail-out article is a sane point of view. I have qualms but it's presented very differently than the usual perspectives from either left or right.
I have a question about modern day parenting: if unconditional love is a component of raising an individual who in turn will love others and value freedom, how can we expect a generation of narcissists to be good parents? The entire essay was about how everything else makes parenting bad: economic restraints, social values, the children themselves. No where did the author discuss the possibility that the two adult individuals involved are the true obstacles. Two things always bring out the true side of an individual: money and child rearing.
This is a brilliant point. I've read many responses to that NY Mag essay and yours is very illuminating. I completely agree with you!
My own parents were narcissists and growing up (they also divorced) was a struggle for me; I learned to be tough, and above all to take care of myself. They were not the type of narcissists who were over-focused on their kids as an extension of ego; rather they ignored us (it was a different time). I suppose that's better for us, in the long run than this new thing.
My own peers over-focus simply as an extension of ego. The pressure on my daughter's classmates is beyond intense. She is in second grade. It's out of control. I have always considered my children to be individuals - not perfect, and not extensions of my ego, but young people with their own agency who are nevertheless in need of direction. This is not a common thought process.
I have been extremely happy to parent them, as has my husband - we had many years of infertility to go through, so that may have colored our views. We're on the other side of a horrible nightmare now, and every day with these guys is a blessing, hard work or no. I've never considered any work to be too hard or beneath me. Neither of us have ever had that luxury.
Howdy Black Orchid
Even the most joyous of parents (and I wish you all joy) will have days when the kids would go cheap -- to a gypsie -- with a post-dated check. I think that was the real point of the article: parenting is real-life, not a TV show. It's neither "Father Knows Best" nor "Roseanne".
Yeah, it's a "simple explanation" of why the banks had to be bailed out. You left out one word to clarify the statement, however. It should have read "simple minded explanation." Seriously, the author has to be a paid employee of one of the TBTF banks to have written such transparent drivel. If in fact protection of the "depositors" was the target, that could have been much more effectively and efficiently accomplished through the FDIC... while the equity and bond holders took their richly deserved haircuts as the failed businesses - and business models - were reformed and restructured. As it is now the taxpayers - and their offspring - have $trillions of new debt to service and the Corporate State just marches on wrecking havoc right and left. You may wish to read the article at the end of the link to see how far some people will go to justify the indefensible.
I agree -- deposit insurance protects the depositors, and in fact the FDIC frequently figures out a way to protect all of the deposits, even those over the insured limit, just to calm the market. None of that means that the bank's equityholders necessarily need to be bailed out. The FDIC is quite capable of kicking them into the gutter, and typically does.
Having said that, I'm not sure to this day whether it wasn't a good idea to inject a lot of liquidity and keep a lot of very large banks from failing all at once in late 2008 -- not because I have tender feelings for their shareholders or highly compensated managers, who take their chances with insolvency, but because grinding a credit system to a halt that abruptly is something whose consequences we could hardly imagine. We may never know whether the impact of what we did was worse than what we'd have gotten otherwise. Certainly TARP was used as an excuse to spend everything under the sun later because "the Republicans did it first," and that subsequent spending may turn out to be more damaging than the massive bank failure would have been. Hard to say.
TARP got a big bipartisan vote, and although I was queasy about it at the time, I wasn't so sure it was wrong that I was willing to carry signs in the street.