top of page

StuFLaW 10/01: Points Promo, Impeachment

I have a series of posts called StuFLaW that release concurrently with my normal posts, an acronym for Stuff From Last Week designed to make it really hard to press the shift key at the correct time while typing it. StuFLaW will contain topics from the previous week that are really more suited to a quick paragraph or a few than an entire blog post, but I was thinking about them and wanted to include them. There's no regular schedule for StuFLaW; it will happen whenever it's necessary. Also, check out the companion post.

The Points Promo

I have a points system where I award myself a point each day but withhold it from myself sometimes. Well, this weekend, I created a points promo where I gave myself bonus points for doing particular tasks–a total of 13 were up for grabs. Well, I got all 13, with only a small amount of goalpost-moving. And I completed a bunch of tasks, so it's a success.


Frequently I'm pretty liberal, but I find that I'm against the impeachment inquiry. My opinion is pretty clearly summed up in this editorial by David Brooks for The New York Times. The basic idea is that, since it's highly unlikely the Republican-controlled Senate will reach a 2/3 consensus to impeach Donald Trump, impeaching him won't actually reach the end goal of removing him from office. But do read the article.

At first I was going to put an actual peach, but I searched "peach" in Google Images and found Princess Peach, so I went with that instead. Image credit: Nintendo Fandom Wikia.

You may be noting that I really hate electability, but isn't this argument basically electability? Saying that you shouldn't go for what you want because it won't actually happen? Well, as I discuss in the companion post to this StuFLaW, it's important to look at the literal, actual consequences. Often, electability is a proxy for gender, race, or sexual identity–and that's not about literal, actual consequences. Often, electability is a proxy for whether you like someone, or whether you don't like someone–and that's not about literal, actual consequences. But sometimes electability is backed up by logic or data; for instance, a super liberal candidate probably isn't the best Senate candidate in the state of Mississippi, due to their lack of electability. But not "I don't think America will go for a woman." Please.

That's a Wrap

I know the Rule of Three mandates that you need to have three things, but I really don't. Sorry everyone. It's bothering me too.



Related Posts

See All


bottom of page