Merit-based immigration:

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/28/trump-just-said-something-truly-unexpected-on-immigration-commentary.html

How is that unexpected? Trump isn't anti-immigration. He is anti-illegal-immigration. I swear the news media get lost listening to their own propaganda.

Oh, income and education levels are one reason. Another is that marriage as currently practiced in the USofA is really bad deal for men.

If it’s universally acknowledged that a single man with a good fortune needs a wife, the American economy may be now illustrating the inverse of that corollary: Poor men with dwindling job prospects are going to lack marriage prospects.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-men-are-having-problems-getting-married/

Mean tweets are dangerous yo:

A group of European members of parliament on Tuesday voted "overwhelmingly" to lift the immunity of French far-right presidential candidate Marine Le Pen for tweeting pictures of Isil violence.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/28/marine-le-pen-angers-french-police-threat-purge-civil-servants/

Somewhere, Skynet smiles.

Many military leaders are most comfortable with warbots in these limited roles because it is easier to keep humans in the loop and therefore retain a greater feeling of control. There is comparatively little discussion of incorporating warbots in significant, and in certain scenarios, primary combat roles into future combat doctrine. To do so, and to take advantage of the full capabilities of warbots, would require acceptance of a greater degree of autonomy, akin to the Army concept of Mission Command, than the US military seems to be comfortable with at this point.

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/02/28/blitzkrieg_redux_the_coming_warbot_revolution_110880.html

"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife."

The first time I read that line (under pressure), I was 14. Not being at all interested in dating at the time, let alone a mother trying to get her daughters married off, I didn't get the joke at all. I thought it meant "if a man has money, that shows he isn't married yet."

It reminds me of the way Charles Schulz once, in the mid-1970s, made fun of the practice of making kids read books that are way over their heads, such as when Linus (presumably well under 10) has to do a book report on "Ethan Frome." He writes:

"Not being a married person, I think it is impossible for me to understand the emotions involved in this novel."

@IRA,

Skynet has mouse ears:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRYT2kYbgo4

Hmmm...if you're not smart enough to know what goes into compost, you're probably not smart enough to go to Berkeley.

Professional "black bloc" rioters were responsible for shutting down Yiannopoulos. But illiberal leftist college students often try to silence their perceived opponents as well. An onlooker defended the student's actions, claiming that he was merely exercising his own "free speech" rights. This is a perversion of the concept: free speech does not and cannot include the right to deny someone equal use of a public space, or shout them down at a forum, or destroy their belongings.

https://reason.com/blog/2017/03/01/watch-a-liberal-bro-student-calmly-destr

Skynet has mouse ears

Gaaah! Next you'll tell me there are roach drones.

I thought it meant "if a man has money, that shows he isn't married yet."

I thought it meant that he needed to be married off, but your explanation makes better sense.

Uber down the tuber?

Calm down, Goober.

The boss is going to get leadership help right away.

I thought it meant that he needed to be married off, but your explanation makes better sense.
________________________________________

No, you were right the first time - that was the joke. I assume you knew that. As I said, I simply wasn't old enough to see the humor in it. I couldn't get past the first page either, due to my not understanding the context.

Not to mention that when you're 14, it's way too easy to misunderstand a great many other things in "Pride and Prejudice." For starters, "condescension" had a positive meaning back then, which it certainly doesn't today. (As a wit once said, when the meaning of a word changes, it's always for the worse.) It's also not easy to realize that Mr. Bennet was not at fault for the entailments.

And something I STILL don't get is how it could ever be considered polite or civilized for a man to interfere in the romance of a man his own age because of his own prejudice - or why Elizabeth reluctantly sympathizes with that - somewhat. Besides, how is her mother really any worse than her father, who doesn't seem to care about his daughters' future?