UPDATE:
Now I understand. It's the fluffy white popcorn of death.
Milbarge at BTQ posts on Hilary Clinton's verbal migration toward the center:
The Right Position for the Left on Abortion is in the Middle. Key quotes:
If Hillary Clinton becomes the next President, a speech she gave this week about abortion will be a big reason why. I agree with William Saletan at Slate and Andrew Sullivan in The New Republic that Clinton has announced what ought to be the Democrats' position on abortion, and the kind of message that will resonate with a lot of voters. Clinton acknowledged the moral implications of abortion, and stated that the ideal number of abortions is none. Yet, for lots of reasons, it shouldn't be banned across the board, and we should devote our energies in this arena to reducing unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
It's interesting, because as Centinal points out, it isn't really a shift in position so much as a shift in rhetoric. It's unusual only in that it's a shift that most of the pro-choice advocates aren't willing to make. Maybe if pro-life advocates can also loosen up, we can have an honest debate?
There are two correlating articles on the pro-life side and the pro-choice side of the endless debate in the Press-Citizen.
Sudanese politicians demonstrate the fine art of hair-splitting: acts of genocide vs. garden variety murders.
Saw it on Salieri's site.
The Yin Blog recommends Cigars in the Sand, a blog by an American lawyer now working in an official capacity in Iraq.
Nobody told me Iowa City had a cell-phone messaging service for drink specials. Not that I care, since they're all probably at Brother's or the Union or something, but still.
The Daily Iowan's been running articles on whether illegal immigrants should be allowed to obtain Iowa driver's licenses. The most recent one, a pro-licensing piece, is here. I'm not impressed with the reasoning. First, it labels anyone with a contrary position xenophobic. I think that's a stretch at best, and inflammatory rhetoric that ignores the issues. Second, the primary argument in favor of licensing seems to be "they're going to do it anyway, so let's make sure it's safe." This argument is a huge pet peeve of mine. I've seen used in a variety of issues. Underage people should be allowed in bars because they're going to drink anyway, so we might as well make sure it's a safe area instead of some unmonitored house party. Free needles should be distributed to addicts because they're going to use anyway, so let's help stop AIDS. Abortion should be legal because women will get them anyway, and better a clean doctor's office than a back-alley butcher. The argument utterly ignores the issue of whether these things should or should not be allowed in favor of a utilitarian "what the h*ll" shrug. So how far does this go? A free condom program for rapists? I mean, at some point don't you have to decide whether what you're advocating is a good and fair thing or not? Like, on the merits? Sorry, I'll jump back down from that soapbox now.
UPDATE: State 29 does a bit of googling on the author. Turns out he's not so "independent" after all.
Matthew Yglesias dominates Google. Resistance is futile.
Professor Heller at the Yin Blog is taken to task for blogging on "company time." As he states: "Blogging is an extension of my research and teaching, not a digression from them." I'd think his university would agree, publication is a plus for a scholar, particularly when it adds to the prestige of the school. Take a chill pill. Besides, given the "change time and date" and "save as draft" options, you've no way of knowing precisely when the posts were actually written.
A new urban legend is circulating on the Web. It was first reported in the Telegraph:
A 25-year-old waitress who turned down a job providing "sexual services'' at a brothel in Berlin faces possible cuts to her unemployment benefit under laws introduced this year.
Prostitution was legalised in Germany just over two years ago and brothel owners – who must pay tax and employee health insurance – were granted access to official databases of jobseekers.
The waitress, an unemployed information technology professional, had said that she was willing to work in a bar at night and had worked in a cafe.
She received a letter from the job centre telling her that an employer was interested in her "profile'' and that she should ring them. Only on doing so did the woman, who has not been identified for legal reasons, realise that she was calling a brothel.
Under Germany's welfare reforms, any woman under 55 who has been out of work for more than a year can be forced to take an available job – including in the sex industry – or lose her unemployment benefit.
I saw it when it got picked up on the Volokh conspiracy. But a little checking with the Urban Legends Reference Pages shows that the article is a tad dubious. The only German reference available on the subject is a December article in the Berlin Tageszeitung (not translated, use Babelfish if you were silly enough to take a practical language like Spanish or something). All that article did was discuss the possibility of something like this happening, and quotes representatives from employment agencies as saying that while it might be legally permissible to reduce unemployment benefits to women who have declined to accept employment as prostitutes, they would not actually do that. Alas, a Blog agrees it's a hoax.
An awesome personal piece has been posted at E-spat about self-esteem, weight issues, and interpersonal relationships. Go read. Hat tip to Milbarge.
Greenman posts more about Saturday's poker game. Fortunately, I didn't have much to do with the player at issue. He was a whiny littly b*stard, though. Hint: Never lecture someone on how they're playing bad poker when they're cleaning you out, dude. Bluffing? That's, like, part of the game. Learn how to call.
Wired News thinks we're passing from the left-brain oriented Information Age into the right-brain dominant "Conceptual Age." Sounds like a lot more fun, anyway.
In the Chicago Tribune (reg. required - Random/Password): how to buy your woman lingerie. Though I doubt I'll get any this year, I can vouch from prior personal experience: Take notes. Please.
The University of Iowa Law Clinic proves that free legal aid is truly available for just about anyone.
What not to say when being robbed at gunpoint: "What are you going to do, shoot us?"
Salieri has a "where are they now" post on your favorite kid's book characters. One of my favorites:
In 1970's Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret, our heroine was 12. So she's now 45. (Oh, and she gave up the "We must" exercises in '97 and ended up getting implants.)
He also got into at least one law school. Congrats!
Tying in with that last bit, Salon has an article on the evolution of Nancy Drew, who turns 75 this year. I like the old one, too.
No comments:
Post a Comment