More than half a decade since dating apps went mainstream, can millennials who’ve lost patience with digital platforms still find love in the analogue world?

T

They’ve facilitated billions of dates and helped pave the way for marriage, children and everything in between. It’s old news that dating apps and online platforms are now the most common way for prospective partners to meet in the US and have become popular around the world. But for many of those who’ve tried and failed to find true love through their devices, the novelty is long gone.

“I've met great people that later became friends and had a handful of extended flings, but never a long-term relationship,” says writer Madeleine Dore, a 30-year-old from Melbourne who’s also dated in New York and Copenhagen. She’s used apps including Tinder, Bumble and OkCupid over the last five years and describes the dates she’s been on as ranging from experiences “that feel like a scene in a rom-com” to “absolute disasters”.

Many of her friends have met their partners online, and this knowledge has encouraged her to keep persevering. But, when “conversations unexpectedly fizzle, sparks don’t translate in person [and] dates are cancelled”, she typically ends up disenchanted and temporarily deletes her apps for a couple of months.

It’s a pattern many long-term singles will be familiar with, with other complaints about the app-based dating experience ranging from a lack of matches to too many matches, misleading profiles, safety concerns, racist comments and unwanted explicit content. Not to mention a host of digital behaviours so confusing we’ve had to make up new words for them, from ghosting and catfishing to pigging and orbiting.

While almost half of adults under 35 living in the US and the UK have tried some form of digital dating, and the multibillion-dollar industry increased by 11% in North America between 2014 and the start of 2019, there are growing signs that many would rather not be using these methods. A BBC survey in 2018 found that dating apps are the least preferred way for 16- to 34-year-old Britons to meet someone new.

Academics are also paying increased attention to the downsides of digital romance. A study in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships in September concluded that compulsive app users can end up feeling lonelier than they did in the first place. Management Science published a study on online dating in 2017 which highlighted the paradox of choice, noting that “increasing the number of potential matches has a positive effect due to larger choice, but also a negative effect due to competition between agents on the same side.”

“You need a lot of swipes to get a match, a lot of matches to get a number, a lot of numbers to get a date and a lot of dates to get a third date,” explains Scott Harvey, editor of Global Dating Insights, the online dating industry’s trade news publication.

You need a lot of swipes to get a match, a lot of matches to get a number, a lot of numbers to get a date and a lot of dates to get a third date – Scott Harvey

“Trying to find a partner in this way is extremely labour-intensive and can be quite exasperating,” he says, adding that those working in the sector are highly aware that many consumers are no longer “completely enamoured” by apps like Tinder and Bumble.

While Julie Beck, a staff writer for The Atlantic, made waves with an article addressing the rise of dating app fatigue three years ago, 2019 stands out as the moment that deeper discussions about the downsides of dating apps and debates about the feasibility of going without them went mainstream. Millennial media from Glamour to Vice truly began shifting their focus, US dating coach Camille Virginia released an advice book called The Offline Dating Method for those seeking to rid themselves of apps, and British broadcaster Verity Geere revealed how she went on a complete detox from sex and relationships after what she describes as eight years as an online “dating junkie” that failed to score her a long-term partner. Meanwhile research analytics firm eMarketer predicted a slowdown in user growth for mainstream online platforms, with more users switching between apps than new people entering the market.

Dating in the wild

Kamila Saramak, 30, a medical doctor living in the Polish capital, Warsaw, is among those who’ve taken the decision to go cold turkey and focus on dating offline.

Several months after splitting up with her partner of two years, she says she was “pretty much playing with Tinder every day,” swiping through profiles each morning and messaging matches while she had her breakfast. But after six months she realised it was impacting on her mental health.

“I was writing to them, I was meeting with them and then they just disappeared,” she says of many of her matches. “I was very lonely at that time…and it made me feel like I was worse than other people.”

For others, deleting the apps has been more about winning time back in their lives for other activities rather than a reaction to painful experiences.

“Most of the time, the girls didn't look like the pictures...and the conversation was unfortunately, most of the time absolutely uninteresting,” says Leo Pierrard, 28, a French journalist living in Berlin. He stopped using dating apps for 18 months, before meeting his current partner on a trip to Paris.

“I think, definitely people are getting tired of it,” agrees Linda Jonsson, a 27-year-old gym instructor from Stockholm. She says she used Tinder for two years and had a nine-month relationship with one person she met on the app, but deleted it for the foreseeable future earlier this year and remains single.

In her friendship circle, “good first dates” that don’t lead to anything more serious are the most frequent irritation, which can, she says, feel like a waste of effort.

“It was really fine for a couple of years just to try it out and see what happens. But more and more of my friends are actually just deleting them and going out the old-fashioned way just to find people.”

Meanwhile meeting an unattached millennial who has never used a dating app is like searching for a needle in a haystack, but they do exist.

Matt Franzetti, 30, who is originally from Milan and works for a non-profit organisation in Transylvania, Romania, says he is put off by the idea of having to sell himself using photos and pithy profile texts.

You have to be very good about describing yourself to look very interesting – Matt Franzetti

“You have to be very good about describing yourself to look very interesting,” he argues.

He has met some women after having “deeper conversations” at parties or through blogging about his interests, which include rock music and art, but his dating history is limited and he is “usually single”.

Against the odds?

So what is the likelihood of finding a long-term partner in the analogue world, especially for a cohort that has grown up glued to smartphones and with far more limited traditional interactions with strangers compared to previous generations? We shop online, order transportation and food online and chat with friends online. Do most of us even know how to approach people we fancy in public these days?

Matt Lundquist, a relationship therapist based in New York says that many of his single patients have grown so used to meeting hookups or partners online that they end up ignoring potential matches elsewhere.

“When people are going out, going to a party, to a bar, often they are actually not at all thinking about dating,” he says. This means that even if they end up having an interesting conversation with someone they would have swiped right on “it’s just not where their brain is”.

“The clarity of a match online has perhaps made us more timid in real life meetings,” agrees Melbourne-based singleton Madeleine Dore. “Without a ‘swipe yes’ or ‘swipe no’ function, we risk putting our feelings out there to be rejected in full view. Better to open the app and endlessly swipe, blissfully unaware of who swiped you away.”

Ambivalence to relationships

Lundquist reflects that the rise of app-based dating coincided with a decline in social spaces in which people used to find potential sexual partners and dates. Gay bars are closing at a rapid rate in around the world, including in London, Stockholm and the across the US. Half of the UK’s nightclubs shut their doors between 2005 and 2015 according to research for the BBC’s Newsbeat programme.

The current climate around sexual harassment in the workplace in the wake of the #MeToo movement may even be putting off colleagues from embarking on traditional office romances. Some studies suggest fewer workers are dating one another compared to a decade ago and a greater tendency for employees to feel uncomfortable with the idea of colleagues having a workplace relationship.

The current climate around sexual harassment in the workplace in the wake of the #MeToo movement may even be putting off colleagues from embarking on traditional office romances.

For Lundquist, anyone refusing to use dating apps is therefore “dramatically reducing” their odds of meeting someone, since they remain the most normalised way to meet people. “I think that apps are complicated and suck in lots of very legitimate ways. But that's what's happening. That is where people are dating.”

He argues that meeting romantic partners has always been challenging and that it’s important to remember that online platforms first came on the market as a way to help those who were struggling. For many of his patients, the decision to turn off dating platforms, blame them for a lack of dating success, or conversely use them too frequently, can therefore often reflect a more general ambivalence to relationships based on human behaviours and feelings that have actually “been around for millennia”. These might range from previous relationship traumas triggered by former partners or during childhood, to body hang-ups or conflicts around sexual identity, monogamy and confidence.

He advises those who are committed to dating, to improve the process of using apps by making it “more social”, for example sharing profiles with friends, brainstorming ideas about where to go on dates and deciding when to have conversations about exclusivity.

“One of the paths to which people find their way to misery in this domain is that they are doing it in a much too isolated way,” says Lundquist. The process will, however, take time and dedication, he argues, suggesting that “if you’re not engaged daily, the odds of it working I think are close to zero.”

Damona Hoffman, an LA-based dating coach and host of the Dates & Mates podcast agrees that a dating app is “the most powerful tool in your dating tool box” but is more optimistic about analogue options.

“I completely disagree with the feeling that if you're not online, you don't have a prayer of meeting someone today. But I do think dating today requires a level of intention that I see a lot of millennials lacking,” she argues.

I do think dating today requires a level of intention that I see a lot of millennials lacking – Damona Hoffman

Her tips include dedicating around five hours a week to chat to potential matches or meet people in real life, being more conscious about the kind of person you are looking for, and actively searching for relevant spaces where you can approach potential dates directly.

“If you're looking for someone that has a professional career, you might want to go downtown at happy hour and make sure that you're talking to people that work in those office buildings, or if you're looking for someone who has a big heart, you go to charity events and places where you're going to meet people who make philanthropy a part of their lifestyle.”

For those with significant money to spare, hiring a dating coach is another option she recommends (her services cost a minimum of $1,000 a month) or even paying for matchmaking services. This seemingly outdated concept is enjoying a resurgence among wealthy, time-poor professionals in some US cities, while Sweden’s first personal matchmaking agency launched just three years ago and has a growing client base across Europe.

However, Hoffman sympathises with the feeling of dating fatigue and says that anyone who feels at the point of burnout should take a short break, “because then you're bringing the wrong energy into dating”.

What’s next for dating?

When it comes to the future of dating, Scott Harvey, editor of Global Dating Insights, says that artificial intelligence and video are the “two main talking points in the industry” right now.

Facebook’s new dating product, an opt-in feature of the main Facebook app, which has launched in the US and 20 other countries and is scheduled to go live in Europe next year, includes the option for users to share video or photo based Stories from their main feeds to potential dates, cutting down on the effort of creating curated content for separate dating platforms. Since Facebook already knows so much about us, it will, Harvey argues, end up with an “unparalleled insight” into which kinds of matches end in relationships, marriage or divorce, which can be used to inform future matching algorithms.

In terms of video, he says dating app companies also want to test “whether people can get a feel for in-person chemistry by chatting face-to-face” using video chat functions and “whether people will actually go to the trouble of having short video dates on a Sunday afternoon or Tuesday evening” as a way of avoiding lacklustre real life encounters.

Meanwhile industry analysts and coaches including both Scott Harvey and Damona Hoffman also point to a resurgence in offline singles events on both sides of the Atlantic, whether run by larger online dating companies seeking to find new ways of connecting existing pools of singles who are tired of swiping, or newer players looking to capitalise on current debates about the challenges of dating in today’s digital era.

“We saw this huge demand for authentic connection and genuine meetings and how difficult it is to create this on your own,” says Philip Jonzon Jarl, co-founder of Relate, a Scandinavian dating and relationships start-up which organises singles parties, matching guests with a handful of attendees based on their values.

They still need an app for the process, but Jonzon Jarl views it as “a tool for a deeper conversation” that is typically lacking at speed-dating events or mingles for singles. His longer-term vision is for “dating meets personal development”, with couples who connect via the platform able to unlock tips and tools to aid them as their relationship develops, in part, to help them avoid the temptation to jump too quickly back into the online dating pool if things don’t immediately run smoothly.

Therapist Matt Lundquist is sceptical about how much of an impact new methods like these will have and suggests that it would be “rather remarkable” if someone created a silver bullet to dispense with the “challenging” behaviours that have become routinised in modern day dating, such as ghosting and a lack of transparency.

However he believes it’s a positive step that some singles event organisers are at least trying to make our experience of forming new relationships “less routine and anonymous” and attempting to create more “opportunities for a real connection” between people.

“I think the world needs that really badly, not just the realm of dating.”

https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20191203-should-i-delete-tinder-these-millennials-think-so

Book Review: Political Emotions: Why Love Matters for Justice

Martha Nussbaum's 2013 book, Political Emotions: Why Love Matters for Justice, presents a fascinating dive into what might be needed to generate decent, honest governance with less injustice and social discord. Nussbaum, a professor of law and ethics at the University of Chicago, considers what the philosophers who have engaged with this topic over the millennia have argued. Then she turns to modern psychology (cognitive and social science) for insight into how to refine what the great minds before her had to say about how to do it. She refines what has gone before in view of modern science.

In essence, Nussbaum sees and does politics the about the same way I do: Look for biological cognitive and social behavioral traits of humans doing politics. Then, try to find plausible ways to advance civil society that accords with what humans beings actually are in terms of their biology and social behavior. The exercise isn't about a complete reinvention of the wheel. Instead, it is about improving existing wheels, i.e., government structures and theories of governance, by acknowledging the fundamental centrality of human biological and social existence. The book is long and dense (the paperback is 397 pages, small print, no pictures), but it shows how human thinking evolves over the millennia.

Good governance

Nussbaum defines the ideal government as characterized by focused on justice and equality for all and a political-social mindset that is compassionate, inclusionary and driven by love of others in widening circles of proximity from self, to family, to locality, to nation, to other nations, and finally to humankind as a whole. The main focus is on use of the nation as the point to generate positive emotions and she is thus a nationalist, but not in the sense of an aggressive ideology.

A core need is compassion and equality morals that operate in a constitutional framework that helps to bridge narrow self-interested emotions to broader inclusive principle-embracing emotions. She asserts that constant critical dialog between the emotions the political culture is necessary. Due to our cognitive and social nature, it is easy for humans to backslide from support of broad practices to narrow concerns. For example, support for an inclusive educational policy can decline when the parent’s children encounter difficulty associated with the policy. Humans are easily distracted from broad goals to their particular circumstances. Some of the great orators, such as Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King and FDR understood this human trait. Their rhetoric tended to stay away from particulars and instead focused on broader principles to foment support for ideals that often required some degree of personal sacrifice or acceptance.

Nussbaum is deeply concerned with the emotions and stigma that critical political and social culture can whip up against minorities, out-groups and other nations. Nationalism has been employed to foment a range of bad things ranging from domestic racial discrimination and misogyny to vicious foreign wars and totalitarianism. Those destructive impulses must be kept in mind and fought against constantly. In her view, playing on nationalism is playing with fire, but is nonetheless necessary. Despite the danger, Nussbaum sees nationalism as a key source to inspire justice and equality.

She argues that the nation is the largest political unit that people can feel is both reasonably accountable to them and also reflective of their collective history, aspirations and moral values. Because of that, the nation has to be a core source of emotional appeal to hold a society together and to induce it to support efforts that ask for personal sacrifice, equality for all and tolerance of both dissent and social differences in individuals and groups.

That is not say that the family and social institutions outside of government are not also important. Nussbaum cites the nuclear family as a necessary source of teaching love, compassion and acceptance of others in children. Public schools are also a necessary reinforcing social institution that can build depth and breadth in personal influence that belief in compassion and equality can exert on people and groups.

Civil religion for solidarity, justice, compassion and equality

Nussbaum argues that good governments and societies need a “civil religion” to help cement public support for justice, compassion and equality. In her view, a “political liberalism” can serve as an ideological basis for building and maintaining overlapping consensus among different religious and secular beliefs about fairness, equal respect and the public good. As John Rawls (American moral-political philosopher) also argued, this civil religion needs to be a free standing social and political force that is drawn from society culture itself. It is not to be derived from any abstract set of values imposed from the outside or any ideology.

However unlike Rawls and other humanists (e.g., Mills and Comte), Nussbaum welcomes existing religions as part of the civil religion family. Because the desired consensus and solidarity that civil religion is supposed to generate is home-grown, it consensus needs “thin” and not try give answers to divisive questions such as life after death or the destiny of the soul. In other words, the civil religion needs to be an ethical doctrine, not a metaphysical or epistemological construct. People will probably always differ in how they view answers to divisive metaphysical questions.

The civil religion concept is an attempted framework for moving people from individual, family and group or religion self-interest to a broader nation and its people interest. The hope is that that national interest can then serve as a fulcrum to extend the positive emotions and beliefs to other nations and ultimately humankind as a whole.

Christianity, democracy, capitalism and libertarianism

Nussbaum argues that Christianity, democracy, capitalism and libertarianism tend to foster narrow self and group interests at the expense of the broader ethical concerns for justice, compassion, equality and so forth at the national level. She asserts that Christianity focuses on an afterlife and an external source of authority and it tends to turn thinking inward and away from others as needed for a broader scope of compassion and acceptance. The religious group tends to elicit a tribal mindset, which can limit a broader worldview. Democracy also suffers from a an innate human tendency to form groups or tribes. Out-groups tend to be ostracized and oppressed.

Opposing that requires constant vigilance and significant effort. When public and political attention turns away from a policy that supports equality and acceptance, the human tendency to narrow the focus often leads to a weakening of the policy. Sometimes the abandoned policy is eliminated ro completely reversed. Thus, walking away from inclusive and pro-justice policies is a mistake that is too common for comfort.

The ideology and morals of capitalism and libertarianism tend to elevate individual concerns at the expense of broader social concerns for equality and justice. For example, ideological demands for almost absolute personal freedom and near-sacred status for personal property, are inherently not compassionate or are ‘anti-sympathy’. Instead, those ideologies tend to argue that human self-interest, acquisitiveness and/or fear alone will serve the public interest very well. Since neither capitalism nor libertarianism are concerned with other emotions such as disgust and the intolerance it foments, such regimes are morally too weak to give rise to stable regimes. Humans are not the rational economic or moral beings that capitalist and libertarian ideologues envision. Cognitive and social science both make that a matter of biological and social fact, not opinion.

One assertion is that a key capitalist and libertarian flaw is their focus is on what humans can do in terms of economic context, while ignoring what they cannot do in a social context. Nussbaum comments regarding anti-discrimination laws: “Libertarian thinkers argue that these laws are unnecessary because, discrimination is economically inefficient. .... Libertarian politics is naïve, because people are just not like that.” That accords with my understanding of history, which is that humans are far from the economic rational person that theory used to rigidly believe. The rational man theory is crumbling under the weight of knowledge flowing from the new research disciplines called behavioral economics and behavioral finance.

Sources of bad behavior and evil

Bad behavior and evil are inherent in the human condition. Nussbaum writes:

“Our working account of  ‘radical evil’ is not complete. We now need to add two tendencies that also appear deeply rooted in human nature, and which pose a serious threat to democratic institutions: the tendency to yield to peer pressure, even at the cost of truth, and the tendency to obey authority, even at the cost of moral concern. Both of these tendencies are very likely rooted in our evolutionary heritage ....”

Immanuel Kant described radical evil as innate tendencies to antisocial behavior that are at the root of our humanity. Because of its inherence, people don't need to be taught to be evil. They can even be evil despite contrary social teaching and norms. Hannah Arendt saw radical evil as a situation where human beings as human beings are superfluous because they lack spontaneity or freedom. Nussbaum asserts it includes “deliberately cruel and ugly behavior toward others that is not simply a matter of inadvertence or neglect, or even fear-tinged suspicion, but which involves some active desire to denigrate or humiliate.”

Clearly, Nussbaum is not a naïve utopian. She is acutely aware of how easy it is for even well-meaning people and societies to slip into bad behavior. What is personally encouraging in this is the fact that other people are trying to combine modern science with politics to build a better, more humane and just world.

The Gettysburg Address: Where America Isn't Today

“I confess that I do not entirely approve this Constitution at present, but Sir, I am not sure I shall never approve it. . . . In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its Faults, if they are such; because I think a General Government is necessary for us. . . . . I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. . . . . It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this System approaching so near to Perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our Enemies. who are waiting with confidence to hear how our Councils are Confounded, like those of the Builders of Babel, and that our States are on the Point of Separation, only to meet, hereafter, for the purposes of cutting one another's throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and I am not sure that it is not the best. . . . . On the whole, Sir, I cannot help expressing a Wish, that every Member of the Convention, who may still have Objections to it, would with me on this Occasion doubt a little of his own Infallibility, and to make manifest our Unanimity, put his Name to this instrument.” Benjamin Franklin, 1787, stating his consent to the new US Constitution

The Gettysburg Address struck me as reflecting something that is now largely lost in much of American society. It refers to our, origins, and the war and sacrifices that social division fomented. It expresses a sentiment that despite our often bitter, unresolvable disagreements, there is still something valuable and decent here to fight for. As Ben Franklin astutely pointed out in 1787, we never were perfect right from the get go. Despite that, we only do what we can under the circumstances we find ourselves. Doing that requires sacrifice for the common good, despite some ideological claims that the collective interest is inferior and inimical to the sacred individual and sacred their property. Lincoln didn't see it that way in 1863. Not by a long shot. Neither do I.[1]

The Gettysburg Address

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. 

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. 

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. —Abraham Lincoln, November 19, 1863

Society seems to usually progress slowly. Sometimes, its spurts ahead for a while. Sometimes it goes in reverse, as it is doing now. We have quite a way to go to get back to where I think we were earlier in my lifetime. What could lead to a reversal of the reversal isn't clear, but is probably isn't going to just be pragmatic rationalism alone. That seems to be a glue that's emotionally too weak to cement the social social vision and cohesion that Lincoln tried to foment in 1863 and we now desperately need again.


Footnote:
1. For a while, maybe the last year or so, one thing that has felt deficient about pragmatic rationalism is its lack of some sort of a spiritual or emotional component. Not necessarily religious or supernatural, but something. It isn't clear what that component (moral value?) might be.

You make the call...

It’s a year divisible by four, which means it’s a presidential election year, here in the U.S.  Time to return from The Mall® and start thinking about your predictions and preferences.  Will it be, e.g.:

Biden-Sanders

Sanders-Warren

Warren-Buttigieg

Other possible players to consider in the mix: Bennet, Bloomberg, Booker, deBlasio, Bullock, Castro, Delaney, Gabbard, Gillibrand, Harris, Hickenlooper, Inslee, Klobachar, Moulten, O’Rourke, Patrick, Ryan, Sestak, Swallwell, Steyer, Williamson, Yang, and VP long shots like Stacey Abrams, Sherrod Brown, Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, John Kerry, Susan Rice, … other?

How about this shockeroo:

Biden- Obama  Hey, not impossible! :-O

Q1: What do you predict as the democratic 2020 POTUS-VPOTUS ticket?

Q2: What do you personally WISH would be on the dem ticket?

Give answers and explanations.  

From Constitutional Rot to Constitutional Crisis

A previous discussion here focused in the concept of what exactly constitutes a constitutional crisis. To help define the concept, experts cite constitutional crisis and the related concept they call constitutional rot. The former includes legal but hyper-partisan hardball politics. The latter encompasses situations where the constitution is has literally failed and the rule of law disintegrates.

Constitutional rot

Constitutional rot (CR) arises when norms that held power in check fall, partisans play constitutional hardball and fair political competition comes under attack. We see this now. For example, it was constitutional hardball by the Mitch McConnell to ignore President Obama's Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland. In CR, politicians favor short-term political gains over long-term damage to the constitutional system. As CR progresses, the political system becomes less democratic, e.g., as partisans pass laws to limit voting by the political opposition. State power becomes less accountable and less responsive to the public, while politicians become more beholden to backers who keep them in power. In essence, the country drifts into some sort of usually corrupt authoritarian despotism or oligarchy.

Constitutional crisis

A constitutional crisis (CC) is rare among nations that operate on a constitutional basis. There are three sources of CC. In the first source of constitutional failure, a CC arises when politicians and/or military officials announce they will not obey the constitution any more. That happens when politicians and/or military officials refuse to obey a court order. Once refusal to adhere to constitutional rules has occurred, the constitution has failed.

The second kind of CC arises when many people refuse to obey the constitution. In these scenarios, there can be street riots, or, states or regions try to secede from the nation. This involves "situations where publicly articulated disagreements about the constitution lead political actors to engage in extraordinary forms of protest beyond mere legal disagreements and political protests: people take to the streets, armies mobilize, and brute force is used or threatened in order to prevail."

The third kind of CC arises when the constitution prevents political actors from trying to prevent an impending disaster, which is a very rare event. In these situations, courts usually dream up some way to get around constitutional constraints. The problem with that tactic, is that it usually leaves in its wake a rancid precedent that authoritarians and tyrants can later use to oppress political opposition and dissent. An example is the United States Supreme Court case Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944). That very bad decision defended exclusion of Japanese Americans from the West Coast Military Area during World War II. Korematsu has widely been criticized as bigotry and a stain on US law.

On the cusp of a constitutional crisis

The New York Times is reporting that the Trump administration is refusing a court order to turn over 20 emails the NYT demanded under a FOIA request. The NYT filed the demand to get information about Trump administration escapades with Ukraine. The NYT writes:

“WASHINGTON — The Trump administration disclosed on Friday that there were 20 emails between a top aide to President Trump’s acting chief of staff and a colleague at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget discussing the freeze of a congressionally mandated military aid package for Ukraine. 

But in response to a court order that it swiftly process those pages in response to a Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, lawsuit filed by The New York Times, the Office of Management and Budget delivered a terse letter saying it would not turn over any of the 40 pages of emails — not even with redactions. 

‘All 20 documents are being withheld in full,’ wrote Dionne Hardy, the office’s Freedom of Information Act officer. 

A report on Thursday by the legal policy website Just Security added further fuel to the controversy by revealing what was under some, but not all, of the deletions. The website said it had been shown some of the emails in unredacted form, including an Aug. 30 message from Mr. Duffey to a Pentagon budget official stating that there was ‘clear direction from POTUS’ — an acronym referring to the president of the United States — ‘to continue to hold’ the Ukraine military assistance.”

The White House asserts that the emails cannot be turned over to the NYT because that would “inhibit the frank and candid exchange of views that is necessary for effective government decision-making.” Another thing it would very likely do, is provide additional proof that Trump and his corrupt administration broke the law and committed impeachable acts in dealings with Ukraine. That is the real reason the president is withholding the documents.

This is not hyperbole: America is on the razor edge of a true constitutional crisis. The president openly refuses a court order to hide evidence of his corrupt and illegal actions related to Ukraine. Not only has our corrupt president attacked Iran (and, indirectly Iraq) twice in two days to try to deflect attention from disclosures of his illegal and impeachable actions in office, he also willingly put America on the cusp of a true constitutional crisis just to serve his personal political interests.

This case will probably be appealed to the Supreme Court. If that court allows the president to keep the documents hidden from the public, the crisis will be avoided. If not, then the president can decide to thrown America into full blown crisis or to comply and avoid a constitutional failure.

As discussed here yesterday, when a person loses trust in someone or an institution, then that person’s mind is no longer constrained by norms that protect the person or institution to some extent from unreasonable beliefs and reality-detached conspiracy theories and opinions. Given the president’s undeniable track record of making thousands of false and misleading statements to the American people, there is no objective basis in evidence for any trust in anything the president says or does. The president deserves no public trust because he earned no trust.

That's not some unhinged or reality-detached conspiracy theory. It is a logical conclusion of truth based on undeniable empirical evidence in the public record.

Blind mystic Baba Vanga's predictions for 2020 - after foreseeing 9/11 and Brexit

A blind mystic who is said to have predicted 9/11 and Brexit has foretold trouble and darkness for the year ahead.

Bulgarian born Baba Vanga has been dubbed the 'Nostradamus of the Balkans' for her predictions.

Despite dying 23 years ago, those with a keen interest in mysticism continue to revere Baba's work, which some claim looks forward to 5079 - the year she believed the universe will end.

Right before her death at the age of 85 she made a series of predictions for the year 2020.

The most startling revelation is that Vladamir Putin and Donald Trump's lives are in danger.

The Russian president could reach the end of his mortal coil thanks to an assassination attempt made from within the Kremlin.

Almost as dramatically, the US president will fall ill with a mysterious illness which will leave him deaf and with a brain tumour.

Those with long memories may remember Baba foretold that Putin and Trump's lives would be in danger last year, suggesting some kind of cosmic rollover.

Another recurrent theme in her predictions has been the destruction of Asia.

Baba foresaw that “a big wave will cover the shore and people will disappear underwater” in what some interpreted as the destruction of Thailand by a huge tsunami in 2004.

The outlook in 2020 is equally as bleak, with more tsunamis and earthquakes scheduled to hit the continent.

A meteorite is also predicted to fall on Russia.

Perhaps the most ominous prediction of the clairvoyant was that the European continent could reach "the end of its existence" at the hands of "Muslim extremists"

The Bulgarian suggested that extremists would "use an arsenal of chemical weapons against Europeans”.

Supporters of Baba are keen to emphasise how spot on she has been, with "85% accurate" a phrase that regularly crops up in fan forums.

According to baba-vanga.com, the figure is drawn from research conducted by Professor Georgi Lozanov - a former director of the Bulgarian Institute of Suggestology.

Others point to her past successes as proof that she had foresight beyond that of a typical human.

In 1989 she guessed that America would be hit by two 'steel birds' in a terror attack, in what was later interpreted as a reference to 9/11.

She said: "Horror, horror! The American brothers will fall after being attacked by the steel birds. The wolves will be howling in a bush, and innocent blood will be gushing."

Baba's big breakthrough had come a year earlier however, when she accurately predicted the sinking of Russian submarine the Kursk.

Before cancelling Christmas and ordering a nuclear bunker however, readers should know that some questions remain around Baba and her predictions - some of which have been proved to be way off the mark.

Her prophecy that Europe would cease to exist by 2016 was clearly wrong, unless seen through an incredibly generous Brexiteer lense.

Baba's suggestion that the 1994 FIFA World Cup final would be played between two teams beginning with the letter 'b' was equally wrong.

The nuclear war pencilled in for the years 2010 to 2014 also failed to materialise.

Perhaps more damning is the seemingly non-existent nature of her prophecies.

While Baba may have spoken or written down her predictions in Bulgarian, no credible version is available to view.

According to a 2012 Washington Post investigation, the few prophecies that can be traced back to their origins appear to come from Russian social media.

When Bulgarian newspaper 24 Chasa interviewed Baba's neighbours, they said she had never predicted 9/11, the sinking of the Kursk or the big war.

Regardless, her legacy could still be cemented if some of her more unlikely supposed predictions come to pass.

She foretold that in 2023 the Earth's orbit will change, in 2066 the US will unleash a climate change weapon on Muslim-controlled Rome and in 2304 humans will discover time travel.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/blind-mystic-baba-vangas-predictions-21151259