When people have a hole in their life, they often fill it with angry politics.

[cpwill]

No. But...me lib you con...we must fight...boring.

Me Thinking Person. If you want be Tribal Person because you lonely and this how you get meaning in you life, maybe read OP Article again, think hard 'bout wiser ways to fill that hole.

 

[cpwill]

Yes I did read the article, but your response was to attack the messenger, not the message. That is a fallacious response, and I called you on it.

I ask again, what did you find wrong with the issue posted, as opposed to denigrating a person involved in raising it? After all, your OP seems to agree with him.

Apparently what he's got is "Ew, people who are different than me are all icky".

 

[JMR]

You know what - that is a fair critique. I have built an opinion of it based on reviews.

I am not sure, however, that this:

Clinton notes in the book many institutions responsible in some way for raising children, including: direct family, grandparents, neighbors, teachers, ministers, doctors, employers, politicians, nonprofits, faith communities, businesses, and international governmental groups. ​

obviates the point that Clinton wants government to take on roles best filled (certainly, at least, according to Sasse) by civic society.

"Civic" society without hospitals or schools or foster care agencies or shelters cannot raise healthy successful children. Like it or not, government plays a part in our lives, and is not the evil force that some on the right describe it as.


I haven't read Sasse's book yet, so it will be interesting to see how he imagines it can all work without government support.

 

[cpwill]

"Civic" society without hospitals or schools or foster care agencies or shelters cannot raise healthy successful children. Like it or not, government plays a part in our lives, and is not the evil force that some on the right describe it as.

Good point. Without the federal government, who will raise children, take care of folks, provide healthcare, or give us a sense of community? Who will love me, and give me someone to love, if not the federal bureaucracy?


:roll: No one is arguing for civic society without schools or hospitals, shelters, or foster/adoption services. If anything, conservatives decry the federal tendency to push civic institutions out of these spaces, an act which results in fewer providers and weaker civic society. It wasn't conservatives who cheerleaded the breakup of the family, or the increasing nationalization of all public questions.

I haven't read Sasse's book yet, so it will be interesting to see how he imagines it can all work without government support.

I understand he's deliberately light on policy depth when it comes to the "what should be done" section - not least because it's a premise of the book that most problems are not best solved by federal policy.

 

[JMR]

Good point. Without the federal government, who will raise children, take care of folks, provide healthcare, or give us a sense of community? Who will love me, and give me someone to love, if not the federal bureaucracy?


:roll: No one is arguing for civic society without schools or hospitals, shelters, or foster/adoption services. If anything, conservatives decry the federal tendency to push civic institutions out of these spaces, an act which results in fewer providers and weaker civic society. It wasn't conservatives who cheerleaded the breakup of the family, or the increasing nationalization of all public questions.



I understand he's deliberately light on policy depth when it comes to the "what should be done" section - not least because it's a premise of the book that most problems are not best solved by federal policy.

Your response seems a deliberate attempt to misstate my point, and the premise of Clinton's book. The "village" includes parents, grand parents, extended family, ministers, teachers, neighbors, AND agencies of the government. The government does not push out anyone providing services to families. And I challenge you to state who exactly "cheered the breakup of the family?" Some sinister "they" who are certainly not conservative?:roll:

 

[Hawkeye10]

How Loneliness Is Tearing America Apart

America is suffering an epidemic of loneliness.

According to a recent large-scale survey from the health care provider Cigna, most Americans suffer from strong feelings of loneliness and a lack of significance in their relationships. Nearly half say they sometimes or always feel alone or “left out.” Thirteen percent of Americans say that zero people know them well. The survey, which charts social isolation using a common measure known as the U.C.L.A. Loneliness Scale, shows that loneliness is worse in each successive generation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/23/opinion/loneliness-political-polarization.html


Wanted to see what others thought of this editorial by the president of the American Enterprise Institute. Chutzpah on his part, I believe.

I am right now thinking of missionaries who loved the work of working with the Heathen because it gave them ample opportunity to walk their sadism.

A lot of the New Left seems a lot like that....Empty, angry and sadistic.

Many in Trump Country are angry at getting abused.

Lots and lots of anger.

Some justified.

Some not.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

The author of this editorial is the president of the American Enterprise Institute. An institution dedicated to advocating for unregulated capitalism without regard to how it affects the entire society. Ben Sasse, author of a book referenced in the editorial, is another right winger who believes in capitalism without regard to how it affects the rest of the nation.

Capitalism in and of itself isn't terrible, it's actually a pretty good system, until one advocates for making it the equivalent of a fundamentalist religious dogma, of course. Darwinian anarcho-capitalism is cruel and destructive.

Capitalism simply must be harnessed to serve the masses first, then the wealthy, and the good news is, the wealthy still get to BE wealthy, because the money will still be in their hands before nightfall, it's just that it will have passed through the poor man's hands first. The wealthy get the luxury of accumulating their wealth. The poor always spend their wealth, because they must in order to survive.

The thing causing all the tension is, the worker class (*poor by wealthy man's standards) are currently barely able to keep their head above water despite continual hard labor and struggle. This causes despair. Alleviating some of this despair is called "socialism" by the wealthy, which of course is one of "the big lies" because alleviating despair stimulates economic activity.

And the wealthy always benefit from a stimulated economy. In times of despair, the wealthy just insulate themselves and tell each other that the poor aren't grateful enough. Stupid members of the poor believe that this message was meant for them.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

You know what - that is a fair critique. I have built an opinion of it based on reviews.

I am not sure, however, that this:

Clinton notes in the book many institutions responsible in some way for raising children, including: direct family, grandparents, neighbors, teachers, ministers, doctors, employers, politicians, nonprofits, faith communities, businesses, and international governmental groups. ​

obviates the point that Clinton wants government to take on roles best filled (certainly, at least, according to Sasse) by civic society.

Then make yourself sure by at least reading the bloody thing first.
I despise Trump, but I've read every last one of his books.
I cannot stomach Bircherites of the Right but I own a nearly complete collection of JBS books, including all the essays and lectures written by Steve Bonta.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Now, the loneliness issue may not seem too serious to some people but, this article basically describes me. All I do is go to work, workout three times a week, go home, watch TV, and repeat. My best friend lives in Florida so we only actually see each other like one or two times a year. I have no other friends IRL otherwise. I get very anxious upon entering into social situations on my own and unless it's a family obligation I generally do not feel like participating in them. I know it's generally fine once I do join and that people are accepting of me when I do join in, but it's easier to just say no, even though I always regret it after I don't go. YES, I know it's not logical!

I think part of this has to do with the way that social media has brainwashed me into thinking that I cannot have fun at these seemingly unimportant, mundane, money-costing events that I actually have access to and that all different people I follow on social media and some friends from HS/College are jet-setting around the world to fancy conferences and exotic locations. Logically I know that these people have way more problems than I do, and that they are just putting their best foot forward online to make it seem like they are living it up, but it's tough when I barely do things that are even remotely picturesque. YES, I know it's not logical!

Where I work it's mostly old ladies who are married with families. (Even the single girls have kids and I'm not ready for that). So yeah there are large bouts of time in the early evenings or at night when I am watching TV and feel pretty lonely. I just deleted all my online dating apps because the people I "met" there were full of scams, flakes, losers, and bitches. I never really got a connection from any of the dates/meets as I'm the type of person it takes time to warm up to. So once those apps started going the route of picture perfect/catchy headlines A+. People like me were finished. The sparks never happened on a first date and I don't think I've ever felt them. EVER! YES, I know it's not logical!

Now, I'm no incel, I'm not suicidal, I don't hate the world. I love life in general and always have a smile on my face/joking around. I'm eternally optimistic that things will work out because when I do attempt to do stuff they generally do. I have a car, an apartment, a pet, a paycheck from a job I generally enjoy, a (pretty useless) degree, no jail record. I've kept myself out of doing drugs and drinking alcohol for all my life and I live a pretty clean, healthy and comfortable lifestyle otherwise... I don't know how the heck this has happened to me but I'm trying to sort it all out and it's not as easy as going out or joining clubs.

So it ain't just the angry ones.

Didn't you say that you're in your late twenties or early thirties?
If memory serves me right and that number was correct, then it's just a case of you needing to just put yourself out there.
Not "ready" because the single girls all have kids? I kinda doubt that. Many might but not all, especially if they're on the higher education track.

Sparks NEVER happen on a first date. First dates are the equivalent of "job interviews" unless you are BOTH so incredibly comfortable with the stress and tension that you can put it aside.

A handful of furtive first dates and you deleted everything? You don't WANT a relationship. Clearly you don't because you say on the one hand that you're the kind of person it takes time to warm up to but you're unwilling to INVEST that time either in yourself or in anyone else.
You're a walking talking contradiction.

Maybe, just maybe, you are the kind that cannot do this with an app.
There are a lot of "you" out there. They're called "people who did not HAVE apps back in the days before apps existed!!"

And yet somehow they managed to meet people, sometimes at the most unlikely places, even a laundromat or a supermarket or on the commuter train.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

"Civic" society without hospitals or schools or foster care agencies or shelters cannot raise healthy successful children. Like it or not, government plays a part in our lives, and is not the evil force that some on the right describe it as.


I haven't read Sasse's book yet, so it will be interesting to see how he imagines it can all work without government support.

Jesus H Fokking Christ, who are these people who fill those government jobs, non-human meat with eyes?
People who work in government jobs are people.

 

[HumblePi]

Interesting to see this given that on the way back home today I saw this billboard:

On November 4th, these billboards started showing up across the U.S. The sponsor is Fox Nation which will debut on Nov. 27th. It It will be cost $5.99 a month or $64.99 per year. Judge Jeanine Pirro has been advertising it on the Fox network. It's a streaming, advertisement-free longer version of Fox propaganda for those lovers of Fox propaganda and who can't get quite enough on Hannity, Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham's regular programs.

https://www.mediaite.com/online/fox-nation-targets-new-yorks-closeted-conservatives-with-billboard-campaign-feeling-left-out/

As Fox Nation gears up for launch at the end of this month, a new ad campaign has begun sprouting up across the United States.

The subscription streaming service, launched by Fox News for “superfans” of the network, has launched the new campaign with a series of billboards — three of which have gone up in New York — that provide a nod and a wink to an audience that might feel a little outnumbered in cities like Manhattan.

The New York billboards have gone up at the entrance to New York’s Midtown and Lincoln Tunnels, as well as along the West Side Highway. Billboards will also go up in Chicago, Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Phoenix, Tampa Bay and Orlando, a Fox News spokesperson said.

Fox Nation, set to launch Nov. 27 with a cost of approximately $65 per year, will provide original content from the network’s opinion hosts. Fox News’ primetime stars Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson will all be hosting shows on the streaming service, alongside a bevy of the network’s contributors and commentators. Think Tomi Lahren and Britt McHenry, and hold onto your MAGA hat.

 

[ipsofacto]

What is interesting about this editorial is that its author leads an institution which systematically bashes unions and other social organizations because they do not fit the free market idea of capitalism.
Ben Sasse, who wrote a book, also believes the government impedes wealth accumulation. Both are galling in their arrogance to advocate for the very things they've spent their professional lives destroying.

 

[Luckyone]

How Loneliness Is Tearing America Apart

America is suffering an epidemic of loneliness.

According to a recent large-scale survey from the health care provider Cigna, most Americans suffer from strong feelings of loneliness and a lack of significance in their relationships. Nearly half say they sometimes or always feel alone or “left out.” Thirteen percent of Americans say that zero people know them well. The survey, which charts social isolation using a common measure known as the U.C.L.A. Loneliness Scale, shows that loneliness is worse in each successive generation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/23/opinion/loneliness-political-polarization.html


Wanted to see what others thought of this editorial by the president of the American Enterprise Institute. Chutzpah on his part, I believe.

I have found throughout my life that people that have a lot of friends and a good social life rarely are complainers and the ones that don't, usually need to complain just to be heard, which is something everyone wants in life.

You certainly latched n to something with your post.

 

[cpwill]

Then make yourself sure by at least reading the bloody thing first.

Nah. I have enough reading on my plate that I don't need to carve out the time to reassure myself that - yes - Hillary Clinton wants to expand the federal governments' role in our lives. I can see that through a lot more recent material.

I despise Trump, but I've read every last one of his books.

I read precisely one. It was a magnificent piece of self-aggrandizement, as one would imagine - though I can't even remember which one. The one thing I took away from it as pertains to being successful was noticing details, and making sure a team doesn't start to slip in the small things.

I cannot stomach Bircherites of the Right but I own a nearly complete collection of JBS books, including all the essays and lectures written by Steve Bonta.

He's hardly a Bircher, but read any Jonah Goldberg, out of curiosity?

 

[cpwill]

The government does not push out anyone providing services to families.

New York Shuts Down Catholic Adoption and Foster Services.
Catholic Services in Adoption Ends in Illinois

Etc, so on, and so forth. It's threatening to become a problem Hospitals, too; though the state of California (thankfully) just lost a case at SCOTUS over a similar issue with pregnacy centers.

That's just the most obvious, recent examples. The government absolutely has a crowding function, both directly and indirectly.

And I challenge you to state who exactly "cheered the breakup of the family?" Some sinister "they" who are certainly not conservative?:roll:

Those who thought it meant liberation from all those old, patriarchal, fuddy-duddy hetero-norms. Many - many - others simply refused to think that it might come with negative consequences, and attacked those who claimed it would as (alternately) sexists, racists, and/or old-fogeys.

 

[Grokmaster]

How Loneliness Is Tearing America Apart

America is suffering an epidemic of loneliness.

According to a recent large-scale survey from the health care provider Cigna, most Americans suffer from strong feelings of loneliness and a lack of significance in their relationships. Nearly half say they sometimes or always feel alone or “left out.” Thirteen percent of Americans say that zero people know them well. The survey, which charts social isolation using a common measure known as the U.C.L.A. Loneliness Scale, shows that loneliness is worse in each successive generation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/23/opinion/loneliness-political-polarization.html


Wanted to see what others thought of this editorial by the president of the American Enterprise Institute. Chutzpah on his part, I believe.

 

[TheParser]

The thread title seems to make sense.

People with meaningful relationships are simply too busy and happy to waste time indulging in angry political tirades.

Maybe those celebrities who are always opening their big mouths do not have anyone who really loves them, so they are making up for it by getting "love" from ordinary people who thank them for their political tirades.

And this may apply to ordinary people who spend hours mouthing off on the Internet. (Oops!)

 

[JMR]

New York Shuts Down Catholic Adoption and Foster Services.
Catholic Services in Adoption Ends in Illinois

Etc, so on, and so forth. It's threatening to become a problem Hospitals, too; though the state of California (thankfully) just lost a case at SCOTUS over a similar issue with pregnacy centers.

That's just the most obvious, recent examples. The government absolutely has a crowding function, both directly and indirectly.



Those who thought it meant liberation from all those old, patriarchal, fuddy-duddy hetero-norms. Many - many - others simply refused to think that it might come with negative consequences, and attacked those who claimed it would as (alternately) sexists, racists, and/or old-fogeys.

I think it very sad that many Catholic agencies absolutely refuse to comply with the law. We cannot allow social services to be withheld from those the that Catholic agencies deem undeserving. That is why they are put out of service, and replaced with agencies that follow the law.

I see you will not answer "exactly who cheered" but instead allude to the left. That's OK, I got your drift the first time.

 

[cpwill]

I think it very sad that many Catholic agencies absolutely refuse to comply with the law.

Sure. The state isn't pushing you out of providing services to those in need - wouldn't dream of it! We're just making it illegal for... you know... you types to be involved

Darn, dirty, WrongThinkers. If they wanted to be involved in helping others, they just shouldn't be who they are and try to help others, amiright?


That's a neat redefinition of "anyone". From "anyone" to "anyone I agree with".

e cannot allow social services to be withheld from those the that Catholic agencies deem undeserving

Sure. If only there was, oh, I dunno, a bunch of other government and non-government entities in the same space. Too bad Catholic adoption agencies are the only ones that exist.

 

[JMR]

Sure. The state isn't pushing you out of providing services to those in need - wouldn't dream of it! We're just making it illegal for... you know... you types to be involved

Darn, dirty, WrongThinkers. If they wanted to be involved in helping others, they just shouldn't be who they are and try to help others, amiright?


That's a neat redefinition of "anyone". From "anyone" to "anyone I agree with".



Sure. If only there was, oh, I dunno, a bunch of other government and non-government entities in the same space. Too bad Catholic adoption agencies are the only ones that exist.

If the "you types, Wrong thinkers" would acknowledge the law of the country they are attempting to serve, things might be different for them. I suspect you agree with their stances, and therefore defend their "rights." Would you respect the "rights" of other religious organizations that violate the laws of the country? I imagine not.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that Catholic agencies are the only ones that exist. Did you try a simple search to confirm that?

https://www.americanadoptions.com/adopt/national_adoption_agencies

 

[cpwill]

If the "you types, Wrong thinkers" would acknowledge the law of the country they are attempting to serve, things might be different for them.

Sure. All folks have to do is be forced to violate our religious faith. Luckily there's no Amendment in the Constitution or anything that deals with that.

I suspect you agree with their stances, and therefore defend their "rights."

I'm not a Catholic, actually, and am fine with birth control, etc. But I think that the idea that we want to reduce the number of people taking care of orphans or providing healthcare to others is insane. Because you don't like what the provider's faith, you are willing to screw over the poor.

But, can we at least retire the talking point that government doesn't shove other providers of services to the poor out of the space. It is perfectly fine with doing so, when those providers are members of an "other".

Would you respect the "rights" of other religious organizations that violate the laws of the country? I imagine not.

It would have to be a pretty severe right they were violating for me not to. I'm not Amish, but I think forcing them to send their children to State School and interact with the things they don't believe in would be incredibly abusive. I'm not atheist, but I think laws requiring statements of religious faith or support for such are abusive and dangerous and wrong. I'm not a Muslim, but I would oppose a law that forced a Muslim grocer to carry pork, or banned them from traveling to Saudi Arabia for the Hajj. I'm not native American, and think drugs are wrong, but if they need to smoke peyote to go on spirit journeys, that's their faith. If a Jewish adoption agency wants to specialize in placing Jewish orphans with Jewish couples in order to make sure that they are raised as Jews that's fine. If a Muslim orphanage wants to specialize in placing Muslim orphans with Muslim couples in order to make sure they are raised as Muslims that's fine. In both those cases, not only is the number of orphans reduced, and the number of children being cared for increased, but the children are being placed in a scenario less culturally shocking to them in a time when every other part of their life is in flux. Ditto for Catholicism, Protestantism, or heck - Atheism, if they wanted to get in on it.

The point isn't to force everyone to bow down to my moral preferences, the point is to take care of orphans. Our modern, progressive Puritans seem to miss that.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that Catholic agencies are the only ones that exist.

Uh. That must be true. Otherwise your statement that:

We cannot allow social services to be withheld from those the that Catholic agencies deem undeserving​

Would be completely non-sensical, since the Catholic agencies would not have the ability to withhold services from those they deem undeserving (and, I'm not sure how you got that, in the first place), as other agencies would be available to those individuals.

 

[JMR]

Sure. All folks have to do is be forced to violate our religious faith. Luckily there's no Amendment in the Constitution or anything that deals with that.



I'm not a Catholic, actually, and am fine with birth control, etc. But I think that the idea that we want to reduce the number of people taking care of orphans or providing healthcare to others is insane. Because you don't like what the provider's faith, you are willing to screw over the poor.

But, can we at least retire the talking point that government doesn't shove other providers of services to the poor out of the space. It is perfectly fine with doing so, when those providers are members of an "other".



It would have to be a pretty severe right they were violating for me not to. I'm not Amish, but I think forcing them to send their children to State School and interact with the things they don't believe in would be incredibly abusive. I'm not atheist, but I think laws requiring statements of religious faith or support for such are abusive and dangerous and wrong. I'm not a Muslim, but I would oppose a law that forced a Muslim grocer to carry pork, or banned them from traveling to Saudi Arabia for the Hajj. I'm not native American, and think drugs are wrong, but if they need to smoke peyote to go on spirit journeys, that's their faith. If a Jewish adoption agency wants to specialize in placing Jewish orphans with Jewish couples in order to make sure that they are raised as Jews that's fine. If a Muslim orphanage wants to specialize in placing Muslim orphans with Muslim couples in order to make sure they are raised as Muslims that's fine. In both those cases, not only is the number of orphans reduced, and the number of children being cared for increased, but the children are being placed in a scenario less culturally shocking to them in a time when every other part of their life is in flux. Ditto for Catholicism, Protestantism, or heck - Atheism, if they wanted to get in on it.

The point isn't to force everyone to bow down to my moral preferences, the point is to take care of orphans. Our modern, progressive Puritans seem to miss that.



Uh. That must be true. Otherwise your statement that:

We cannot allow social services to be withheld from those the that Catholic agencies deem undeserving​

Would be completely non-sensical, since the Catholic agencies would not have the ability to withhold services from those they deem undeserving (and, I'm not sure how you got that, in the first place), as other agencies would be available to those individuals.

How I got that in the first place is that according to your own link, the Catholic Agency was closed because it refused to offer its services to many families, and in doing so broke the law.
I do not dislike the Catholic faith, actually most of my family is Catholic. But I can recognize when faith based organizations try to operate in the secular world, they have to go by the laws. I remember back when my brother was born in a Catholic hospital whose practice was to save the baby at the cost of the mother's life. Those kind of religious beliefs cannot intrude in the public sphere. There is a separation of church and state for very good reason. If Catholics, like Amish, wish to indulge their faith at every moment, than they cannot operation in secular society. Amish seem to get that.

 

[cpwill]

How I got that in the first place is that according to your own link, the Catholic Agency was closed because it refused to offer its services to many families, and in doing so broke the law.

Yeah. The government pushed agencies helping the poor and children out of the space of helping people... because it didn't like what the Catholic church believed, and the Catholic Church isn't going to change it's beliefs because a government told it to.

So, your claim that the government does not do this sort of thing.... is incorrect.

Just as your claim that the Catholic agencies have the ability to deny anyone the ability to adopt - there are plenty (though their numbers will be shrinking, the more government refuses to have anyone who isn't it in the space) of non-Catholic Adoption Agency options, just as Jews have plenty of non-Muslim Adoption Agency options, and Catholics have plenty of non-Jewish Adoption Agency options.

I do not dislike the Catholic faith, actually most of my family is Catholic. But I can recognize when faith based organizations try to operate in the secular world, they have to go by the laws.

Sure. And laws can violate the Constitution. And laws can stop non-governmental entities attempting to help orphans from doing so.

If Catholics, like Amish, wish to indulge their faith at every moment, than they cannot operation in secular society. Amish seem to get that.

Interesting. I know quite a few Trumpkins who feel very similarly about Muslims, and quite a few southern baptist who feel very similarly about Gays. After all, if homosexuality is against the law (and, with the anti-sodmoy laws, it was), then they just shouldn't be gay where anyone can notice, or out in public. To banishment, with them.

 

[PleasantValley]

How Loneliness Is Tearing America Apart

America is suffering an epidemic of loneliness.

According to a recent large-scale survey from the health care provider Cigna, most Americans suffer from strong feelings of loneliness and a lack of significance in their relationships. Nearly half say they sometimes or always feel alone or “left out.” Thirteen percent of Americans say that zero people know them well. The survey, which charts social isolation using a common measure known as the U.C.L.A. Loneliness Scale, shows that loneliness is worse in each successive generation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/23/opinion/loneliness-political-polarization.html


Wanted to see what others thought of this editorial by the president of the American Enterprise Institute. Chutzpah on his part, I believe.

...it's all Trump's fault, right?

 

[ipsofacto]

...it's all Trump's fault, right?

It's written by a right winger. What do you think?