Men. Brothers:

I absolutely, unreservedly support women in defending their sex-based rights to women-only spaces, services & opportunities for a host of reasons.

Among them:

1. If SOME males obtain the right to those things, on the basis of ‘self-identitifying’ 1/

1/ Something strange is happening with people’s sex lives. 20-somethings are having sex later and less frequently than previous generations. I spent several months digging into this for @theatlantic. https://t.co/5ehzmWY9wi

2/ This phenomenon—I’m calling it a Sex Recession—really surprised me. It seemed improbable in the age of Tinder, digital porn, and attitudes that are generally permissive and sex-positive.

3/ What’s happening isn’t exclusively American: Similar trends are being observed in other countries, including Japan, Australia, the U.K., Finland, and the Netherlands.

4/ One cause is obvious: Adults under 35 are less likely to be living with a partner than in recent decades, and more likely to be living with their parents—which, it’s safe to say, isn’t great for one’s sex life.

5/ But I also found other explanations, each with profound implications. The first, unsurprisingly, has to do with internet enticements. Netflix and other online entertainment may be substituting for sex.

When it's railroading time, you get railroads.

When the railroads turn into the personal satrapies of rail-barons, you get trustbusters.

A couple decades ago, it was online service time. We had the users, the telcoms systems, the computers, the modems, so we got platforms.

1/

We had that, but we lacked something important: effective antimonopoly enforcement. Lax merger laws allowed companies with access to capital markets to buy out or neutralize all their competitors, so we got monopolies.

Right on schedule, we're getting digital trustbusters.

2/

Now, some people aren't technically sophisticated, but they do understand a lot about competition law. That's how you get meat-and-taters antitrust proposals like @amyklobuchar's #CALERA, which address the structural problems with antitrust

Klobuchar's bill is hugely important. The reason we have monopolies is that we stopped enforcing anti-monopoly law 40 years ago. Monopoly isn't a tech problem, it's everywhere from sneakers to glass bottles to pro wrestling to candy to

Klobuchar's CALERA doesn't just seek to apply antitrust law to tech - it also explicitly restores the pre-Reagan basis for fighting monopolies: we fight monopolies because they concentrate power and corrupt our politics. All monopolies are guilty unless proven otherwise.

5/

LOL at the uptick in followers.

Fair Warning: I believe that Cultural American Patriotic Churchianity (CAPC for short - aka White Evangelicalism/Christian Nationalism) has caused more damage to the body of Christ and the credibility of the church than CRT ever has or will.

It's been a systemic problem since the founding of the country (indeed, before the founding of the country) and has contributed to the church being complicit in chattel slavery, Jim Crow, cointelpro, redlining and a host of other things the Bible condemns as sin.

The conflation of Christianity with Americanism since the founding of the country has left too many actual believers confusing love of country and culture with biblical Christianity (thus, in their minds, to fight against conservative political culture is also to fight against

what they think is biblical Christianity). It's part of what makes it okay to minimize the sins of men like Dabney while extolling his ability as a theologian in other areas, or minimizing it as him being 'a man of his time'. It also allows you to have an atheist speak at your

Christian conference while condemning your brother who holds different political views than you, but professes the same faith you do.

On the other side of the issue, the phrase 'black lives matter' is true because of the Imago Dei. Debate your momma about it if you disagree.