Which means I'm pretty much done until the start of the Fall semester. :) Two A's for sure, and possibly/probably an A in the third class pending results.
I'm going to go hunt some Pokemon for a bit, and try to get a really good Articuno.
I don't think I've heard a political analysis like this before, and new takes are actually pretty rare IMHO. Most pundits and news agencies are just recycling the same tired old arguments. Probably part of why we all stop listening to each other.
I'm sharing this because I really liked the distinction between being a "real man" and being a "good man".
When I think of the men in my family - fathers, uncles, brothers - and friends who enjoy the benefits of fatherhood and family, who I've never questioned as to whether they were a "real man", and I sometimes wonder how we got this limiting notion that a "real man" is all about screwing lots of women and one-up ping everyone.
I know some of it is just America, too. Consider how weird we find it that men in the middle east often hold hands. Like that picture of President Bush holding hands with the Saudi king.
What really sucks is I find it hard to believe that these so-called "real men" (who seem so weak and fragile compared to the men I know. Like showing affection somehow threatens your masculinity?!? You must not be very confident about that, if so) are truly happier with such a one-dimensional, rigid, narrow role that cuts them off from any real connection.
I was reading an article about the Amazon Echo, and saw a link to the article below. I was curious about it, mostly because Windows is still the primary desktop /business /office /school platform. That is, much though I love my mobile if I'm going to do any serious typing I want a mouse and a keyboard. (Maybe someday they'll create little portable computer modules that you can plug and play in phones, tablets and desktops. Or virtually project a mouse and keyboard so you really can work off your phone. Or, heck, maybe we'll all be cyborgs in the future, with implanted computers that can project displays on our eyeballs and read our intention to type. I started to envision verbally talking to a voice assistant to write emails and papers, but honestly I type faster than I speak and I don't think that's realistic. Unless everyone forgets how to type, which I suppose can happen.)
Anyways, although I was skeptical about the article I was struck by the notion that his criticism here could apply to our political parties. Okay, first the article:
In our political system, the parties cater to their base (and the wealthy donors and lobbyists that fund them). The perception is that they do this at the expense of the whole, which I generally agree with.
Used to be, politicians knew they had to cater to the base in primary elections, then shift to a more general appeal for the election itself. Getting those independents and swing voters was key to winning.
I'm not sure I believe that happens any more. That is, both parties seem to have given up on swing voters and instead focus on a) energizing their base and b) discouraging turnout from the other side's supporters.
Some of that is our own fault, of course. Too few Americans don't even bother to vote (much less vote in the primaries, which you pretty much have to if you don't want to get stuck yet again choosing between the lesser of two evils with whatever horrible candidates the hardcore party bases pick).
Still, the parties, whenever they suffer a defeat and claim to be determined to figure out what went wrong (which has happened with both parties in my lifetime. Yet somehow they always recover, and the other party never maintains dominance), seem to do exactly what this article criticizes Microsoft for.
That is, in trying to figure out what to do better, they generally go to the base. Their loyalists. The ones that weren't going to defect in the first place. And annoying though it is for those party loyalists who feel taken for granted, they aren't the ones the party needs to appeal to in order to do better next election.