Saturday assorted links

1. On the history of Prohibition (NYT).

2. In contrast, I say museum dates are good (though brutally enforcing a separating equilibrium).

3. “I recently rewatched Season 1 [of Curb Your Enthusiasm] and some of Season 9 and was struck by how little difference the 17 years between them made.

4. WSJ chat with Ed Glaeser about economic problems facing young people.

5. “Many Amish are moving north, leaving their historic districts in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana for relatively cheap farmland in the deindustrializing Rust Belt and the prairie out west. This means they are farming colder, rockier ground and need plows that are stronger and more pliable. At the same time, different Amish communities have different sorts of religious proscriptions—some reject rubber wheels, for example, while others embrace them—so Pioneer offers roughly 90 different options.”  Link here (WSJ), from the new Adam Davidson book.

6. That was then, this is now, from a co-founder of Occupy Wall Street: “Rejecting Davos is easy when one hasn’t been invited. Now that I have a chance to go, I want to discover its revolutionary potential.”  (Not from The Onion.)

Comments

I went on my first few “dates” with my current partner at museums in DC, except she was in a relationship at the time. The museum gives good opportunities to express your perspectives on life through interpreting art. And the quiet moments allow for a playful exchange of looks and smiles (and sure, some awkwardness, but thats alright too). As Tyler brought up, separating equilibrium can also result in a doozy date— ruining the entire museum experience as well!

I agree. Heck, better than going to a movie or a play where you sit not facing each other and not saying anything for two hours. Of course if people go at very different speeds it might end up not being such a great date, but most people can adjust to go along togther so as to share their observations and ideas about what is being looked at.

OTOH, I can imagine that the Holocaust Museum might not be such a great idea for a date, especially a first one, although if both parties are Jewish, maybe.

A date should separate you from clothing and inhibitions. Go to a dive bar, and back to your place. Physical activity is acceptable (ice skating, bowling, dancing, shooting). Engaging the brain or stomach interferes with reproductive organs.

My wife and I had a museum date or two, but after we got married, she said, "Thank God, now I can stop pretending to be intellectual" and I said, "Thank God, now I can stop pretending to be sensitive," and since then we have been ourselves and no more museum dates.

This was a better read than the article!

6. How might "Occupy Davos" go over with the Swiss hosts?

The volume of yellow snow in the aftermath could tell them something about attendance levels, granted.

Don't go where the huskies go. Don't eat no yellow snow.

Nowadays, the Onion has been eclipsed by the Babylon Bee.
https://babylonbee.com/news/somber-impeachment-ceremony-concludes-with-the-impeachment-dancers

Tyler, how many women have you seduced at the Holocaust Museum? To paraphrase W.C. Fields, museums are dandy, but liquor is quicker.

1. It was the saloon and the saloon keeper that were the subject of the prohibitionists' ire, not the drink itself? Plausible. There were many exceptions to the sale of alcohol but no exceptions at the saloon. My favorite exception was the sale of alcohol for "medicinal purposes", which explains the history of pharmacies selling alcohol. Blaming the saloon and the saloon keeper is in keeping with Americans' propensity to blame others for their transgressions. Speaking of mental illness, I've commented before that Trump's (mis)behavior is a product of his alcoholism. No, I assume the man is sober, but his behavior is that of an alcoholic; he is what is called a "dry drunk". Alcohol abuse is a heritable trait, and that trait is in Trump's family. Thus, prohibition would not spare us from Trump and Trumpism.

I don't believe that. He was always a smooth talker, and not intellectually curious. Now that he's in cognitive decline, the "talker" takes on more of the burden. The "talker" doesn't care about details (obviously) and not even if today's claim contradicts what was claimed last week.

So Cohen can go from great guy to bum. The "talker" doesn't notice. And now Parnas. As long as a claim can be made, the "talker" is happy.

But the audience should notice. They should have longer attention span than some symmetrical "listener" who just rides along.

I would just like to take a moment to thank Rayward and Anonymous for sparing the time from knowing everything about everything else to share their long distance psychological analysis of Trump.

You're welcome.

The "talker" in action here.

Note that in this case it would have been better for the person if the talker had just gone with golf, as a topic.

Perhaps on a more serious note, this looks like the "talker" covering for cognitive decline.

Sadly, the adults left the room shortly after, and the "talker" found enablers.

It must be TRUE! I saw it on the world wide web.

The phrase "infallible ignorance" comes to mind.

Not everything posted on the net is wrong. Only about 75%. The rest is "doctored."

It's really bad that those links were clipped.

When we elect older presidents, the possibility of cognitive decline is real, and should be open to rational discussion.

If it's deleted from websites like these, while concerns about Warren's wealth tax on billionaires are not, what does that mean?

I think something very bad about both categorization of risk, and mood affiliation.

Oops, sorry. I guess nothing was clipped, and I thumbed "hide responses."

I'll take full mea culpa on that. I am an idiot.

Suddenly I see that there's a beautiful and terrible poetry in the phrase "I am an idiot." It is full of meaning. I will try to use it sometimes. (This is not irony, the beauty suddenly hit me, like the text on an Ed Ruscha painting …)

Lol. Talk about rent free living.

Fundamentally incapable of having a nonTrump conversation. All about someone who has no impact on your life whatsoever.

Trump's admittedly somewhat astounding successes are driving then around the bend. Plus, the fact that rayward is now arguing corruption of blood really supports the idea that all the yelling about Trump being an authoritarian is just projection.

As we have come to expect, you're like a eunuch writing about orgasms.

I've read that the two are not always mutually exclusive ...

First hand experience only, please.

In British Columbia the liquor laws and regulations reflect those concerns. From what I've read the distillers and brewers were setting up restaurants where the food was free, but you paid for the booze. So the regulations are very specific about the types of liquor and food that can be served. Also distillers and brewers can only serve their products on their production premises.

The regulations have been loosened up substantially over the last couple decades. An interesting data point is a comparison of alcohol consumption and alcoholism between Quebec, who has more European sensibilities and British Columbia. It is worse in BC.

And now the BC liquor distribution branch through which almost all alcoholic beverages are distributed now distributes marijuana.

A premonition is when someone learns what their parents had been teaching all along.

And the income from marijuana sales boosts the states’ economic growth and reduces inequality among its citizens, furthermore creating a diversion from the lethal addiction of alcoholism.

AFAIK that's the official source of the phrase (well known in economic circles) "There is no free lunch." But surely you know that already ...

Very recently I read an article (maybe it was posted here at MR?) about Canadian regulations about serving food with liquor, and to comply with the letter of the law a bar would serve an ancient sandwich to the customer. Literally the same sandwich, which the customer would quickly return to the waiter, who would serve it to the next customer, etc. etc. I can't find the article now though.

I’ve said it before and I’ll keep saying it. The world needs an in person Glaeser CWT!

What does "CWT" mean? I "googled" it and only found "century weight" and "compensated work therapy" a VA program.

#1 "lips that touch liquor shall never touch ours!"

#4 "Will they realize that more government regulation isn't the answer?"

No. They won't. A quarter of us can't even replace a light bulb or unclog a drain without google and some of us can't even get that far. I hate A) the WSJ for placing me at the front of end of this generation and B) my generation.

#2 Does it have to be an art museum? Find a lady willing to go to the, say, The Imperial War Museum, and I say you've got a keeper.

She's sound on sourdough bread. Overrated.

1. On the history of Prohibition

_______________________________________

remarkable that even those big-government Progressives of the early 20th Century recognized that the Federal Government did NOT have any Constitutional authority to control or regulate alcohol -- and therefore the 18th Amendment was absolutely required to establish such legal authority.

OTOH the entire massive Federal "War on Drugs" has been violently executed without the slightest Constitutional authority.

Neither Progressives or Conservatives see any Constitutional problems with the endless Drug-War ... nor even with the plenary FDA power to restrict ordinary medical drugs and devices.

Does that apply to about 98% of what the government does?

Perhaps the creepiest part of the history of Prohibition (addressed or ignored in the N. Y. T. account?) was the sly move from voluntarist "temperance" (moderation of intake) in the 19th century to stern and strict demands for "enforced abstinence" coming in the 20th century--not much different from goal-post relocations in political discourse a century later, which means we missed more than only a couple of lessons from the Constitutional detour provided by the 18th Amendment.

(Maybe the N. Y. T. could publish a supplementary profile the condensed history of the 21st Amendment.)

"not much different from goal-post relocations in political discourse a century later"

When noticing that I couldn't keep up with all the things "voluntarists" dig up from daily life that should become forbidden or that I should be nudged away from I started to make jokes about how they are going to outlaw toilet paper soon.

That was until I've found out that German environmentalists now want to ban unrecycled toiletpaper.

There is also the "softer version", where a gatekeeper can enforce his temperance on those that need to get past him.

E.g. it's rare for German women to not have a gynecologist that is demanding his patients to bring their own towels, all for saving the environment of course by reducing paper waste (or populace).

You still have a choice as a women to switch doctors. It's just that now your decision-making has to discount likability and quality for factoring in idiocy. If you consider that it takes one vocal patient that turns your practice's usage of paper towels into a hashtag, you get to this nonsensical situation of majority bring-your-own-towel doctors rather quickly.

The 18th amendment promoted individual liberty, freedom.

Just like banning abortion, contraceptives, self deciding ones biology.

When government technocrats decide what you must think, how you must act, you are freed from thinking, freed from moral quandary, freed from responsibility for your actions and their consequences.

Technocrats were critical because natural laws require alcohol in medicine, for example, to create solutions that can't be created with water or oil, or to preserve quality.

Just as doctors are technocrats who need to repair God's work when God screws up and fails to make an acceptable boy or girl, so he can check male or female as the law requires so the baby knows what it is because the government tells it.

There was nothing sly about it. The Women's Christian Temperance Union called for "the entire prohibition of the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage" in its formal constitution the day it was formed in 1874.

The Anti-Saloon League was only founded in 1893 and was prohibitionist throughout.

The third party that most closely aligned with the temperance movement was name "The Prohibition Party". Shockingly, they were running on honest prohibition back in 1869. Less we think that there was some giant misunderstanding the primary intra-party debate was about whether the party should be broad (alcohol criminalization and other populist issues like free silver) or narrow. The latter won and running on a single issue platform of criminalizing alcohol threw the entire 1884 election.

Or perhaps we could look at legislation. Well Westerville, OH went legally dry back before the Civil War.

Prohibition was not some slick political outfit or a group of avowed con artists, they had fervent support throughout the country and were only significantly unpopular among Roman Catholics, High Church Lutherans, and the major cities. They, correctly, held that copious alcohol consumption (the vast majority of which meets current Alcohol Use Disorder criteria) in the saloons led to worse health, worse family outcomes, poverty, and crime. Pretty much everywhere that adopted their position, even only temporarily in time of war, saw improvements on most public health indices above and beyond any seen in the most comparable wet areas.

The only real shift in the temperance movement was from a focus on high alcohol content beverages to total prohibition of even low alcohol beer.

#6: “ The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

Did you get Don Boudreaux to comment on the prohibition article?

He says the end of prohibition was only so FDR could collect the new taxes on booze.

Mostly accurate. a Progressive would never advocate helping the average person unless it meant also gaining power/control.

1. Before, during and after ill-conceived Prohibition it was a mandate of the US government and many other governments to poison ethanol intended for industrial use. This was done so drinkers couldn't evade the taxes on liquor. At various times during Prohibition dedicated booze hounds would consume this adulterated C2H5OH and become blind, crippled or dead. Even today governments all over the world make sure that those who mistakenly imbibe adulterated alcohol pay a price beyond money.

I am unable to comment today,

As I am

Attending a conference of the

Real Deep State

In Davos.

5. Sounds like these Amish will gain from warming.

Davos gave you the marvelous journey.
Without her you wouldn't have set out.
She has nothing left to give you now.
And if you find her poor, Davos won’t have fooled you.
Wise as you will have become, so full of experience,
you’ll have understood by then what these Davoses mean.

2, As a lad in NYC, I was quick to note the superabundance beautiful young women wandering the galleries of the MET, MOMA, Frick, etc. - not only on weekends, but every day of the week. And now, many, many decades later, I visit these museums, and the contemporary art has gotten uglier and uglier - but the girls wandering the galleries are as marvelous as ever.

(When we were students, my soon-to-be-wife and I went to the Metropolitan every day for lunch. You could get a bowl of soup and a roll for $1.75, in the old cafeteria with the skylight, reflecting pool, and elfin figures skimming over the surface.)

#4...Triumph of the City is an excellent book. Interesting points about human networking.

#5- Subscription required (WTF?) so I didn't actually read the article, but...
Moving North? From PA to the rustbelt?
Granted, some of the "prairie out west" is farther north than PA, OH and IN.
Looking forward to the new movie, "Corner Gas:Amish Invasion!".

Comments for this post are closed