wmw999

It’s all part of the economy. Wendy P.

That way he maintains control of the narrative Wendy P.

No matter what happens, it'll be possible to find a problem with it, and if it's a topic/person/cause you disagree with, you'll work hard to find that problem, and if it's one that you agree with, the problem will be "unimportant" or "unavoidable." Just like people who favor the Democrats think about things like the completely chickenshit way in which the Republicans both denied a Supreme Court justiceship because "it was too close to the election," and then ramrodded one through seven months later in the next election cycle because they could. The difference is -- Biden really didn't want to drop out; he was proven wrong in that want, and the circumstances changed. The Republicans in the Senate were consistent in the "whatever it takes" philosophy, including lying and cheating. Wendy P.

Yeah, I heard a kid say it the other way and asked my mother about it, and she said that wasn't a word we used. Wendy P.

Something that someone else brought up is that selecting Kelly might then put his Senate seat at risk in 2026. Gain the Presidency, lose the Senate? Wendy P.

And I had a Super Swooper Tandem as a backup rig for awhile; it flew well. Blue Skies, John Wendy P.

Conservative Never Trumpers aren’t in her corner. She’s too progressive for them, and they’ll more likely sit out. Wendy P.

So why is that bad for Kamala (who was single at the time, as was Montel Williams at this charity affair), while this is OK for Trump, whose wife was pregnant at the time? Wendy P.

My grandmother's first husband left her in 1921 or so. She had to leave her kids (my aunt and uncle) with a lady while she went to work to support them as a newspaper reporter. They never heard from her first husband again, and when my cousins tried to contact their birth grandfather he refused contact. It's happened all along. It's become more acceptable, and it's not as often a stain on the woman (without being a stain on the man). And while some of the kids knew more than the teacher about some sexual things, they didn't all, and I'll bet she gave them context, and actual information, rather than 7th-grade BMOC posturing. I'd call that a win. Wendy P.

I'm completely with you. When I was in eighth grade (Ohio, 1960's), the girls' PE teacher was also the health teacher. during the sex education part, they taught facts (I don't remember how many, because my mother had covered the topic years before). But the most notable part was the day that she split the class into girls and boys, and we met in different rooms; the girls with her, and the boys with one of the male PE teachers. She said this was the day to ask all the questions that were too hard to ask with the boys/girls in the class. She also let us just write them down so that she could answer them anonymously. It was, frankly, brilliant. No, I don't know if she censored any of the questions; I, like nearly every other kid, was really only interested in the question that I had. Wendy P.

To me there's a big difference between controlling (which is what censoring is) and forbidding porn. I once did a project on porn in college (the professor was a real horndog, and I knew I was guaranteeing a reasonable grade with minimal effort). The two comic books I picked up were explicit enough that I, at 20, was OK, but I sure wouldn't have wanted my son to see something like that before he was at least late in high school without my being able to discuss it with him. So yeah, I, too, think there are books that don't belong in an elementary school library. Language (like being in Latin) is a good reason, and frank pornography is another. A reference to the existence of material that parents don't consider to be appropriate is fine -- that's exactly what does cause questions (hopefully of the parents). So a kid learning from Johnny that his older brother has magazines under the mattress, or learning in a "growing up in a bad family" book that parents sometimes do bad things, is OK. Just as learning that there are other kids out there who have some of the same feelings matters, whether it's feeling like something is wrong in their body, or just feeling like nobody understands them. Wendy P.

Yes, but Trump is one of them. Remember, any single error by an "other" is disqualifying. Any single right action by a "same" is qualifying. Wendy P.

And that "need for energizing" is exactly what makes a celebrity candidate more attractive across an entire country. Ergo, frankly, someone like Mark Kelly. Yes, it's pandering, but maybe it's also the future. Zelensky has done a pretty good job in Ukraine, after all. Wendy P.

I agree. She’s a progressive, and she’ll energize some people who might not have voted, but she won’t energize any moderates Wendy P.

Well, it’s a first amendment thread… Wendy P.

What leads you to that conclusion? Could it be that your news choices focus only on the negative? Wendy P.

This is an absolutely wonderful column from the NY Times. Copied in toto because of the paywall. Link Wendy P.

My dad actually gave his own up. He developed wet macular degeneration, and basically lost about 60% of his sight overnight. He tried driving once, and said never again. He was very proud of having given up his driver's license on his own. Wendy P.

They do, but they also have exposure to so many more goods than we did, both because of mass media, and the proliferation of fast fashion and fast everything else. They're human beings, just like the kids who give in to sexual urges that turn out to be too strong for them. It's not that everyone gets a pass (I worked myself through private university, while skydiving; I do understand your pain). It's just that circumstances are different for different people. It's just that everyone's circumstances are different. We each have skills or talents that came relatively easily to us (even if we've worked to maintain us), and we think those things are easy for everyone. They aren't. Wendy P.

The same pretty much goes for me as Skydekker. Wendy P.

I get it, I really do. It's OK to have women and minorities in some jobs, as long as you personally approve of each and ever one. There's a presumption that white men are qualified, and everyone else has to prove themselves. But, you see, no one asked you. Wendy P.

Just because you agree with it doesn't mean it's not censorship. Censorship is also the word to apply to porn. You're just saying that conservatives get to establish "community standards" and liberals don't count. Wendy P.

Much more likely simply not to vote. Again, at least based on my hyper-progressive cousins. Wendy P.

Kelly and Moore won’t energize the seriously progressive (I have cousins in that camp), but I’m counting on astronaut notoriety helping with that. And they would have to take on at least one seriously progressive cause, because they all vote. Wendy P.

And I think that the question is: do we want to pull in more veterans, African Americans, and not-Trump Republican moderates, or Pennsylvanians. Because both are important demographics, in choosing between Shapiro and Moore. I hadn't thought about Kelly. He's a brilliant choice because, well, he's an astronaut, and everyone loves astronauts. Not to mention that he has a body double for appearances Wendy P.