DonkeyCigars

The book was not nearly as telegraphed and was well crafted in a lot of ways, but with thrillers/mysteries it's nearly impossible to do something truly original that we haven't seen before and don't have at least some present-awareness as we watch of all the potential tropes or techniques. So that makes it hard to not see all the indicators and not always the fault of the creator, if you are hard-boiled men like us. IMO, anyways.

$800/month in child support means this guy is tacky and poor. All adds up.

We are on the same page right to the last line where you get emotional and lose control of your impulses again. Conflict can be good. Disruption can be good. Change can be good. Just depends on if you are the winner or the loser. Since you seem to care about what I personally think of this now, as of the last month or so I would say that I've landed on the position that CRT is not my battle and I have no interest in fighting for or against CRT. If there is a sea change and this becomes the new thing, I'll go along to get along, as we all should do.

There doesn't seem to be a difference. The change you are talking about is only going to happen through transfer of power. People aren't going to willfully change (as if 2016-today has taught us nothing). It will be an outcome of conflict. By the way, not all conflict and tension is bad and there is constructive and positive conflict that leads to things like, ultimately, a transformation or change. Read any management book to find out more!

I'm making no claims or proposing solutions-- that is your projecting them on me. I'm merely stating that, based on what you prompted me to read (thank you again, btw), I had an "aha moment" on why this is a political hot button issue in Summer of 2021. It's an observation. Those generally come during the discovery and fact-finding phases before critically thinking about a solution. edit to add: as usual, bad_teammate gets it, read his next post.

I make no claims of just or righteousness, by the way. Racism is ordinary and not remarkable-- sure, fine, no disagreements there. But CRT is making the argument or the case, to what end? That's why it's divisive, because it empowers and informs positions whose aims are to engage in conflict. That's why I think it's so divisive. In a vacuum, sure, there's nothing to see here.

So much this. But you know-- never interrupt your opponent when they are making a mistake, as ole Napoleon Dynamite once said.

I read it, thanks for sharing. I think I've landed on the idea that CRT is so divisive politically because ultimately at the heart of it, it is a tool to enable people to create societal conflict. You can say it's "good conflict" or whatever, but it's definitely an attempt to reframe thinking and to wrest power and grow strength of factions. Some, namely those with the power and privilege, will naturally be opposed to that. Others, those who are seeking to gain advantages from an under-advantaged or disadvantaged position will be for it. Thus the conflict. I said this in another thread: Because at the end of the day American society has been defined and set in motion by a subset (let's use the 80/20 rule) of 20% of white, male stakeholders and cascaded down to the 80% over the years, any gains in equality is going to be at the expense of a faction of people with comfort and privilege and wealth due to laws and culture that have been codified over 250 years. Again, because it seems like CRT is a tool to enable people to create and succeed in conflict with those in power, thus it makes sense why it is seen as a negative thing for the white hegemony/patriarchy and seen with fear. It's almost ridiculous if you think about it, to expect humans with human nature to be proactive in giving away comfort and privilege and power because after all it is, hard fought and won-- which is why America was founded in 1776 and not with indigenous people or whatever else. To the victor go the spoils and history is written by the victors, etc. My opinion is this is all much ado about nothing; CRT or nothing else will change anything materially because it will be shouted down by people in power and it will be socially distanced/politely ignored by non-racists (note: I did not say anti-racists). Only blood in the streets will create change, and then the 80% will create their own version of history from their own perspectives. Same as it has always been.

Man, so I just happened to read this crazy article about how the writer of The Woman in the Window is as pathologically insane as the characters in the book. He lied about his mom dying, he's lied about his degrees at Oxford, he lied about spine surgery and having cancer and faked emails to bosses to get better jobs, etc. It's completely nuts: https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/2/4/18210595/dan-mallory-woman-in-window-aj-finn-new-yorker-profile That said, I had to pick up the book and read it. Surprisingly, this guy is a pretty talented writer. His sassy-smart tone worked well I think with this woman protagonist, but it got to be a bit one note. Even when one note is really good, you need other notes to keep it feeling fresh, you know? So, I thought about halfway through the book, let me check out the first half of this movie on NFLX, and compare. Unfortunately the first 30 minutes into the movie, it was so sloppily telegraphed that I guessed the twist. That was kind of a bummer. So, I just quit the movie and finished with the book. It was a fine book, an interesting thriller which I thought was commendably structured. I enjoyed the books call-backs and pastiches to Hitchcock and the dozens of black-and-white movies that obviously influenced this story. The writing was well done which was needed because the story was a bit reductive. Anyways, read about this kook who wrote the book though, if you've seen the movie. Crazy how he was just writing about what he knew (e.g. creating fake google gmail accounts, etc.): https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/feb/05/bestselling-author-of-the-woman-at-the-window-lied-about-having-cancer

your dad is a writer?

Cool story, Hansel. Thanks Olaf.

Oh listen to this above ^^ Clang Clang Clang goes the troll-y! Nothing is funnier than you getting called out for being a troll all day yesterday, then retreating under your troll bridge with your "fee fees" as you call them, and now coming back because you think everyone forgot you were exposed as a troll.

https://nypost.com/2021/06/09/columbia-professor-says-parents-should-pull-kids-out-of-nj-school/ A prominent black Columbia University professor has called on New Jersey parents to pull their kids out of a prestigious Bergen County, NJ, prep school after an English teacher resigned over what she called a “hostile culture of conformity and fear” created by critical race theory. “All hail Dana Stangel-Plowe, who has resigned from the Dwight-Englewood school, which teaches students ‘antiracism’ that sees life as nothing but abuse of power, and teaches that cringing, hostile group identity against oppression is the essence of a self,” John McWhorter, who is also a contributor to The Atlantic magazine, tweeted Tuesday. “Truly antiracist parents, in the name of love of their kids, should pull them from the Dwight-Englewood school as of next fall,” McWhorter continued. “Only this will arrest these misguided Elect parishioners from their quest to forge a new reality for us all.” In a resignation letter posted Tuesday on the website of the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism, English teacher Stangel-Plowe accused Dwight-Englewood administrators of “failing our students” by embracing critical race theory. “[S]tudents arrive in my classroom accepting this theory as fact: People born with less melanin in their skin are oppressors, and people born with more melanin in their skin are oppressed,” she wrote. “Men are oppressors, women are oppressed, and so on. This is the dominant and divisive ideology that is guiding our adolescent students.”

Wah, please neg bomb and ban Donkey because I don't like his views and cannot separate his views from any conversation ever! This is more pathetic than when people go to twitter and try to get things cancelled and it doesn't work.

Gotcha and I like that doctors saying. I'm not so political and not trying to say we aren't in the midst of a normal re-opening spike, I'm just quoting an interesting article that seems to cast an eye on the possibility that we will be dealing with some inflationary pressures above and beyond supply-chain disruptions. Why does this matter and why this thread? Namely because I'm interested in hearing what people smarter than me think it could mean for Biden's stated and aspirational legislation-- what does it mean for both the volume and sheer amount of spending and the kind of spending? Further, it seems to me that politically the quicker you can get some of this legislation passed, you take the risk off the table in the off chance that there is some inflation-public-perception blowback down the line. Maybe negotiating to get something done now is better than getting your whole proposal crapped on if inflation is real.

jaja. good one comrade.

You said it; as a layman. When economists and leaders are published and quoted as saying "hey, we should keep an eye on this because it looks like it could potentially be a bigger deal, however unlikely" I think it's fair and apolitical to take note and even start thinking and having discussions about it. What's happened here is like if you had meteorologists saying "hey we see something that may or may not turn into a system that could affect this area in a few weeks; maybe it's nothing and just standard weather pattern, but let's keep an eye on it" and having people for political reasons want to deny a potentiality because either a) it's not raining on them yet or b) because they dislike the politics of the guy who told them what the weatherman was saying on the news.

Well, there isn't a literal connection, dude.

The Atlantic is rad.

This is a serious question and I realize it's really more to understand your personality more than anything, but: Are you saying that you are unwilling to entertain or keep as a possibility that some of the political policy (e.g. stimulus, minimum wage, etc.) is not at least contributing to an inflationary phenomenon above and beyond a transitory, re-opening short term spike that will level off? You are 100% satisfied with the elephant in the room being the reasoning?

I mean, I went to the beach on Spring Break once too.

Do you think I'm crafting and pitching an original opinion here? I'm literally quoting and repeating the NYT. Are they full of it? Again to quote from: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/10/business/consumer-price-index-may-2021.html?campaign_id=4&emc=edit_dk_20210610&https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/10/business/consumer-price-index-may-2021.html "Prices are rising for everything from airfares to used cars, and the data released on Thursday offers policymakers and investors another chance to assess whether that pickup is likely to be short-lived — or is poised to be the kind of lasting inflation that officials would worry about." "But the strong monthly figure for May, which came on the heels of a sharp rise in April, showed that prices have been moving up quickly for more than just technical reasons. The critical question is whether that is a transient trend tied to reopening or something more persistent." Again it's an open ended question that is wholly valid and worthy of discussion, IMO, that you seem to want to shout down because you disagree. I guess my only mistake is bringing it up on this thread because it's a thread that's deteriorated to being a) Democrats to eat their own and b) JS1's trolling.

Yea, I read the article of which I quoted. The topic of discussion was the part I bolded, which I did as people do, to bring attention to the point. We all understand the basics of economics and supply and demand, what we want to keep an eye on is the inflationary indicators...things which policy can sometimes affect. And if, indeed, we are seeing inflation, then what does that mean for future-looking and roadmap policy? While not necessarily a reality today, at this moment, it is worth thinking about and thinking about those questions IMO.

Did you read the post? Nobody, except you, is making a definitive statement— there is just a possibility it’s not as black and white as your cringe Twitter clap tried to suggest. So either you are the troll or your brain is broken and you can’t think critically anymore, if you ever could.

Is it pure supply and demand? In the case of lumber, probably. But also printing money, raising minimum wages drastically, and spending trillions tends to have an inflationary impact. From NYT this AM: Economists expect a big number, with the Consumer Price Index for May predicted to have risen 4.7 percent in May versus the previous year, which would be the biggest jump since 2008. “It’s going to be another shocking report,” said Laura Rosner-Warburton, a founding partner at MacroPolicy Perspectives. In part, this is because of technical factors, since last May’s price level was particularly depressed by pandemic lockdowns. The Times’s Ella Koeze made an excellent chart to explain how these “base effects” work: Whatever the latest number, the debate about inflation won’t die down. A sharp increase in April was enough to make many anxious about how long a period of elevated inflation will last. Short-lived bursts of inflation that are tied to supply chain bottlenecks, as in the case of cars, or stimulus-check spending wouldn’t do lasting damage to the economy. But entrenched price rises, which would show up in things like rent, could force the Fed to cut its support of the economy sooner than expected and crimp the White House’s expansive spending plans.