One of my most famous images. Lewis Powell, Lincoln assassination conspirator, April 1865. pic.twitter.com/IfkDm3volD

— Marina Amaral (@marinamaral2) October 2, 2016

What’s funny about this image is how – if you overlook the shackles – inconspicuous he would be in DC today. Of course, he’s wearing prison garb which has a contemporary feel to it. He also has the disaffected stare down pat, and not just in that picture. Both of those contribute to it. Present fashion being what it is, even in everyday clothing he could almost pull it off.

So the sexualized ad burdens the flight attendant with another task, beyong being unfailingly helpful and open to requests: she must respond to the sexual fantasies of passengers. She must try to feel and act as if flirting and propositioning are “a sign of my attractiveness and your sexiness,” and she must work to suppress her feelings that such behavior is intrusive or demeaning. Some have come to see this extra psychological task as a company contrivance. A flight attendant once active in Flight Attendants for Women’s Rights commented: “The company wants to sexualize the cabin atmosphere. They want men to be thinking that way because they think that what men really want to avoid fear of flying. So they figure mild sexual arousal will be helpful in getting people’s minds off flying. It’s a question of follars and cents… Most of our passengers are male, and all of the big corporate contract business is male.

{source, but I don’t know what book this is from.}

If You Like Your Doctor’s Advice, You Can Keep Your Doctor’s Advice: A New State Challenge to “Medical Judgment” (Tim Kowal, New Reform Club)

In 2014, Dr. Bob Sears wrote an exemption for a two-year-old who suffered adverse reactions to prior immunizations. Sears is an outspoken supporter of both vaccines and vaccine choice. He is respected by opponents of SB277 for his even-handedness on the fraught subject. The California Medical Board is now accusing Sears of “gross negligence” related to the 2014 exemption. The Board alleges Sears failed to get written medical history concerning the child’s prior adverse reactions.* “If the board finds Sears negligent,” the Orange County Register reports, “he could face discipline ranging from a public reprimand to revocation of his medical license.”

On the one hand, you have to have a rearguard against circumventing the law. This strikes me as analogous to cracking down on Dr Feelgoods more recently physicians who make bank with medicinal marijuana cards. This one, though, is (a) more tied into the public health since we’re dealing with contagious stuff, and (b) the subject of a much greater ideological battle (as opposed to simple profit, as is the case with the drug docs).

That second one kind of cuts both ways, though…

.@UtahCoachWhitt expresses disappointment in both the #Utes injuries and the phrase "it is what it is" all in one great quote #Utahfootball pic.twitter.com/ndWoPWGys2

— Brennan Smith (@BrennanJSmith) October 17, 2016

Jacob T. Levy at Bleeding Heart Libertarians argues that Gary Johnson helps Clinton more than he helps Trump:

And this is the pattern in almost every poll I’ve looked at that compares the 2-way and 4-way races. It’s the pattern in a large majority of states including most swing states. It’s the pattern you would expect from two former Republican governors running a ticket against a deeply unpopular (und un-conservative and unhinged) Republican nominee. It’s the pattern you would expect from the fact that (at this writing) six traditionally-Republican newspaper editorial boards, including the very conservative swing state New Hampshire Union Leader and the rock-ribbed Chicago Tribune and Detroit Free Press, have endorsed Johnson. I’m happy that Johnson and Weld have run a more leftward campaign than Libertarians usually do, and have emphasized Libertarians’ liberalism on drugs, crime, policing, imprisonment, and war. I’m happy that they’re bringing some young liberals into the movement, and I think that’s good for the future of libertarianism. But it’s still the case that the low-tax, free-market, free-trade candidates running against a protectionist Republican consistently bleed off a few more disaffected Republicans than they do Democrats. And the punditry, commentary, and strategy that pits Clinton’s interests directly against Johnson-Weld’s is mistaken.

I find the argument convincing, and I wouldn’t have the chops to challenge it if I didn’t. But…

…If Johnson (and Stein) weren’t running, and Clinton and Trump were the only ones on the ballot. I’d vote for Clinton hands down. My (potential) vote for Johnson will in my case take a vote away from Clinton. That might not matter in Sangamon. I haven’t really looked at the polls, but Sangamon tends to go Democratic and strikes me as anti-Trump anyway. Still in my case, if I vote for Johnson, that will be a loss for Clinton.

An organic response from ladies who finally felt angry enough to come forward, or felt for the first time—in the wake of the leaked tape—that their allegations against Trump would be believed? A coordinated attack from Clinton supporters? Or can we blame the press, as reporters rushed to contact and listen to anyone with an anti-Trump story in the hopes of breaking the next big scoop or winning that day’s ratings cycle? I’m prone to think it’s some of all three.

I’m also prone to think any of the women’s claims could be true, even if they originated in opposition research—but I’d probably be more skeptical of those that did. And it’s certainly not the realm of Trumpkin conspiracy-theory that pro-Hillary forces may have enticed some of these women to come forward. That’s politics. We’re in the final stretches of the race for the most powerful position in the country. Democrats would be idiots not to try and stoke these flames.

And Republicans, at least those who still find a Trump presidency worth fighting for, would be idiots not to paint Trump’s accusers as liars who are politically motivated.

It’s a good reminder why campaign politics is a horrible context in which to have a productive national conversation about sexual consent (if such a thing is even at all possible). The stakes here are just too high. It’s he-said/she-said with not just one person’s reputation, freedom, or justice on the line but the reputations, hopes, and livelihoods of all those personally invested in the outcome of this election and, to some extent, the future of the Republican Party. If anything, it’s only going to get uglier from here.

Source: Electoral Politics Is a Horrible Context In Which to Talk About Sexual Consent – Hit & Run : Reason.com

Lee Jessim looks at the limitations of Stereotype Inaccuracy and the central problem: The lack of aggregate inaccuracy. {More}

Mene Ukueberuwa writes of millenials, love, and opera.

Alan J Hawkins and Sage E Allen look at how Americans contemplate divorce (and usually don’t).

Michael Fitzgerald was a for-profit college inspector, and tells all.

Pete Saunders looks at demographic settlement patterns in American cities and suburbs.

For those who didn’t see the US presidential debate. Here is a quick version. pic.twitter.com/0NNCcOKpke

— Pekka Phuket (@oilinki) October 10, 2016

But there is another way of looking at these debates. In a 2014 article, “Microagression and Moral Cultures,” in the journal Comparative Sociology, Bradley Campbell and Joseph Manning offer another diagnosis. They note that a peculiar feature of the recent events surrounding microaggressions has been the rush to publicize grievances, usually through social media and university websites, to inflict shame and punishment upon the offender. They claim this dynamic suggests “an approach to morality that is relatively new to the modern West,” particularly with regard to responding to insults. In the “honor culture” typical of pre-modern societies and still present in some settings, those who suffer insult are encouraged to respond directly to their detractors, calling upon tight communal bonds for support. In the modern West, however, honor has given way to “dignity culture.” Officially, the judicial system addresses all damage to life and property. Lesser, verbal offenses are not directly addressed, because individuals are taught to view themselves as autonomous rights-bearing individuals.

Perhaps because this ideal of autonomy places great pressure on our sense of self, the individualism of dignity culture seems to be combining with the sensitivity of honor culture to produce a third epoch. In this “culture of victimhood,” psychological pain itself bestows moral authority, leading to a culture of “competitive victimhood,” as Campbell and Manning describe. In their conclusion, the researchers highlight just how consequential this dynamic may become. “The clash between dignity and victimhood engenders a similar kind of moral confusion: One person’s standard provokes another’s grievance [and] acts of social control themselves are treated as deviant.” This can of course provoke a perverse victimhood arms race.

Source: What Tocqueville Can Teach Us About Microaggressions – Acculturated

New York Magazine has a bit of a retrospective on the Obama administration. The pictures in the article got some attention in the “look at how much Obama has aged” which is something of a perennial subject. There are theories that the presidency does age people faster, which makes sense because stress! On the other hand, the presidency seems like it might be primed to sort of notice the aging. We see the president on a regular basis, and track them somewhat closely, but don’t see them on a daily basis where aging can just kind of creep up on you. Given the life longevity of presidents, it doesn’t seem like the aging is anything more than superficial, though, if that.