How Much Is That Obamacare Doggie In The Window?
Maybe double the price it was last year, if you live in New Mexico. Peter Suderman writes at reason of premium increases for Obamacare plans:
It looks increasingly like insurance premiums for many of the most popular plans sold through Obamacare's exchanges are on track for significant hikes next year. Earlier this week, I noted reports of requests for double-digit premium hikes--in some cases more than 30 percent--in dominant plans for the states of Maryland, Oregon, and Tennessee, as well as smaller but still significant hikes in a few other states. Today, The Wall Street Journal adds another, reporting that New Mexico's biggest individual market insurer is requesting a 51.6 percent increase in premiums for the coming year.
The primary reason for all of these giant hikes is the same, according to the Journal: "high medical costs incurred by people newly enrolled under the Affordable Care Act." As noted in a previous post, Moda Health, which insures about 100,000 people Oregon, says that its costs exceeded its premium revenue by 61 percent.
...In any case, it goes back to what has been one of the chief worries about Obamacare for a long time--whether enough younger and healthier individuals will sign up for coverage to offset the higher costs incurred by older and sicker beneficiaries. So far, it looks like they're not, or at least not in numbers sufficient to support current premiums. And that's why it looks more and more like significant premium hikes are on the way, at least in some states, for some of the more popular plans.
Why is it that voters seem so incapable of doing the most rudimentary math?
Linky hanging around smoking, out by the Dumpster.
Government Built That! (How Government Policy Created Black Ghettos)
At NPR's Fresh Air, Terry Gross interviews Economic Policy Institute research associate Richard Rothstein, who studies the history of residential segregation in America.
"We have a myth today that the ghettos in metropolitan areas around the country are what the Supreme Court calls 'de-facto' -- just the accident of the fact that people have not enough income to move into middle class neighborhoods or because real estate agents steered black and white families to different neighborhoods or because there was white flight," Rothstein tells Fresh Air's Terry Gross.
"It was not the unintended effect of benign policies," he says. "It was an explicit, racially purposeful policy that was pursued at all levels of government, and that's the reason we have these ghettos today and we are reaping the fruits of those policies."
Some of the highlights from the interview:
On how the New Deal's Public Works Administration led to the creation of segregated ghettos
Its policy was that public housing could be used only to house people of the same race as the neighborhood in which it was located, but, in fact, most of the public housing that was built in the early years was built in integrated neighborhoods, which they razed and then built segregated public housing in those neighborhoods. So public housing created racial segregation where none existed before. That was one of the chief policies.
On the Federal Housing Administration's overtly racist policies in the 1930s, '40s and '50s
The second policy, which was probably even more effective in segregating metropolitan areas, was the Federal Housing Administration, which financed mass production builders of subdivisions starting in the '30s and then going on to the '40s and '50s in which those mass production builders, places like Levittown [New York] for example, and Nassau County in New York and in every metropolitan area in the country, the Federal Housing Administration gave builders like Levitt concessionary loans through banks because they guaranteed loans at lower interest rates for banks that the developers could use to build these subdivisions on the condition that no homes in those subdivisions be sold to African-Americans.
Related: How welfare ruined the black family.
via Reason Foundation's Manny Klausner
I want somebody to endorse me on Linked In for professional basketball or working on an oil rig. Or both, if you're feeling generous.
Updated: Love this. I tweeted this yesterday and somebody followed through.
(I guess they don't have a "professional basketball" category, so he did the best he could.)
Asian Groups File Fed Complaint About Policy Of "Diversity" Over Merit At Harvard
Yamiche Alcindor writes at USA Today about a policy at Harvard of keeping Asians out in favor of "diversity":
A coalition of Asian-American groups filed a federal complaint against Harvard University on Friday alleging the school engaged in "systemic and continuous discrimination" against Asian Americans during its admissions process.
More than 60 Chinese, Indian, Korean and Pakistani groups came together for the complaint, which was filed with the civil rights offices at the justice and education departments. They are calling for an investigation into Harvard and other Ivy League institutions that they say should stop using racial quotas or racial balancing in admission.
"We want to eliminate discrimination of Asian Americans, and we want procedural justice for all racial groups," Yukong Zhao, one of the chief organizers and a guest columnist with the Orlando Sentinel, told NBC News. "All racial groups should be treated equal."
...Robert Iuliano, Harvard University General Counsel, said in a statement that the university uses a "holistic admissions process" that is "fully compliant with federal law" to build a diverse class. He added that over the past decade the percentage of Asian American students admitted to Harvard College has increased from 17.6% to 21%.
"We will vigorously defend the right of Harvard, and other universities, to continue to seek the educational benefits that come from a class that is diverse on multiple dimensions," Iuliano said.
They aren't keeping the rich kids out to let the poor kids in, are they? "Sorry, Mr. Captain Of Industry. The fact that you put a wing on the hospital is immaterial..."
Boy Meet Grill
Girls can also meet grills, of course, but that would have made for a crappy headline. These grills are Webers, discounted at Amazon.
And for weather nerds, the Netatmo Weather Station for Smartphones or the Rain Gauge for Netatmo Weather Station, also on sale -- 19 percent off and 24 percent off respectively.
There's also a special deal on boosting your wireless signal to hard-to-reach areas of your house. The #1 best-seller in its area, the TP-LINK N300 Wireless Range Extender, is 50 percent off, $19.99 instead of $39.99, and all you have to do is plug it into an outlet.
To buy stuff you don't see in my links and give me a wee kickback (that costs you nothing), Search Amy's Amazon here. (For stuff not listed above.)
And thanks to all who shop through my links! Every purchase you make is much appreciated!
Way To Miss The Elephant-Sized Problem: Man's Healthcare Problem Caused By Irresponsibility, Not Obamacare Or Republicans
A man looks everywhere but the mirror for responsible parties after he develops bleeding in his eyes and a partly detached retina due to diabetes, and then finds the healthcare costs unaffordable. It's Obamacare! No, it's the eeeevil Republicans!
But whoopsy, there's this little bitty tucked into the Greg Sargent WaPo story on his plight:
Lang, 49, a self-employed Republican handyman who has never bought insurance...
Grownups do not gamble and hope it turns out okay and then snivel when it doesn't, which is to be expected.
That is...grownups who are not robots and can't go to Fry's and get a $37 new hard drive if something goes wrong, and grownups who do not take regular sponge baths in the Fountain of Youth.
I've had healthcare -- an HMO -- since I left a big company I worked for in my early 20s. I've paid for this out of pocket ever since, though I would have preferred to put that money to trips to Paris and fabulous new boots.
I realized, when I was in New York after college, that it wouldn't be right of me to gamble and then leave it to my parents or the public to pay for me if something went terribly wrong. So I paid up, got into a system while I was young and healthy so I'd be in. Not that that matters anymore, thanks to Obamacare letting all the irresponsible people in at the same price as those of us who've been forking over for all these years.
Married Pastor Dad's Grindr Pix Posted, Revealing That He's A Top Who Likes To Cuddle
Bob Johnson writes for the Saginaw News that a Lutheran pastor resigned his position (and "repented") after a gay website -- Queerty -- posted a story with his Grindr pix:
EXCLUSIVE: Grindr Screenshots Reveal Antigay Pastor Is A Top Who Likes To Cuddle
Oops, except he's also a married father of five.
Why is a married father of five married to a woman?
Probably, in large part, because the church forces people to deny they're gay (with social shaming and exclusion and sometimes a family never speaking to a gay member again).
Until 2 p.m. on Monday, the 'Our Church Staff' section of St. John's Lutheran Church and School's website described Reverend Matthew Makela as an associate pastor who enjoys, "family, music, home improvement, gardening and landscaping, and sports."
Screenshots obtained by Queerty from a source who asked that his name be withheld shed light on some of the Reverend's other favorite past times -- namely nude make out sessions and sex with other men.
...Of course, how someone behaves between the sheets is really nobody's business but his own, except when he's actively doing damage to others. We've seen it time and time again. The lawmaker who spends his days fighting against gay rights and his nights cruising for bottoms, or the ex-gay activist who isn't quite as ex-gay as he'd like everyone to believe.
Which brings us back to Makela. The married father of five from Midland, Michigan doesn't just preach Jesus' love and help with bake sales. He also uses his position of authority and respect in his community to broadcast his self-loathing view on same-sex attraction.
"It's A Mistake" Or "It's Complicated," As Opposed To "It's Rape!"
You might call this personal responsibility feminism. It's getting rarer these days.
Cathy Young writes in the WaPo:
There was the time when, 19 and naïve, I was guilt-tripped into entirely unwanted physical intimacies with a much older married man. And the time, three or four years later, when I went to visit an on-and-off long-distance boyfriend and quickly realized that it was over for me--but he assumed we were still on, and I didn't have the nerve to say no to sex. And the time I told a man, "Look, I'm not going to sleep with you," and it was taken as "try again in a couple of hours."
When they happened, my view of these encounters ranged from "a mistake" to "it's complicated." It still does--even though, these days, we are encouraged to reinterpret such experiences as sexual violations.
...Was I a victim? Even in the first incident, in which the man knowingly pressured me into something I didn't want, I could have safely said no. Consent for bad reasons is still consent; despicable behavior is not always criminal. (Getting guilt-tripped into giving money to a freeloading friend is not robbery.) In the second instance, it would be an infantilizing insult to deny my responsibility for a mutual misunderstanding. In the third, what happened was not only consensual but wanted; my initial "no" was sincere, but it was mainly an attempt to stop myself from acting on an attraction against my better judgment.
...Ultimately, ensuring that sexual consent is always free of pressure is an impossible goal. Consent advocates already fret that even an explicit "yes" may not be given freely enough. A series of educational campus posters includes the warning that "if they don't feel free to say 'no,' it's not consent"; a Canadian college campaign cautions that consent is invalid if it's "muted" or "uncertain" rather than "loud and clear."
This advocacy creates a world where virtually any regretted sexual encounter can be reconstructed as sexual assault (unless the person who regrets it initiated it while fully sober) and retroactive perceptions of coercion must always be credited over the contemporaneous perceptions of consent--even though we know that human memory often "edits" the past to fit present biases.
In theory, this regime is gender-neutral. Yet real-life cases like the one at Occidental show a strong presumption--openly acknowledged by a dean at Duke--that in a heterosexual encounter, it's the man who must gain consent and bear the blame if both are intoxicated. Whether cloaked in traditional chivalry or feminist rhetoric, it's still a paternalistic double standard.
She calls the "quest for perfect consent" "profoundly utopian," and she's right. If you can't say no because you, say, lack self-respect, the answer is working on your self-respect, not having the guy in your dorm who finally wore you down thrown into some campus kangaroo court on an accusation of rape.
Owl be linkin' you.
Feminism Built That!
Catherine Rampell writes in the WaPo that women on Capitol Hill are having a hard time getting one-on-one time with their bosses.
"There was an office rule that I couldn't be alone with the congressman," one anonymous staffer reported.
Another: "I was not allowed to staff my boss at certain events without another male staffer present -- because I was a woman."
And another: "My former boss never took a closed-door meeting with me in the span of working for him, off and on, over a 12-year stretch. Even when I was in a position of senior leadership."
Rampell calls this behavior a "deliberate inequity." I call it prudent, vis a vis the feminism-driven witch hunts that have deposed men in workplaces, at conferences, on campus, and elsewhere -- sometimes for as little as a joke.
ICYMI: My recent New York Observer piece on sex differences and what ignoring them gets women, "Science Says 'Lean In' Is Filled With Flawed Advice, Likely to Hurt Women."
The good news, according to a report on Yahoo, is that applicants will be exempt from the usual entrance exams for government-employed beheaders.
Yes, Saudi Arabia is looking for a few good executioners so they won't fall behind on beheadings -- as well as "amputations" (hand-severing of thieves, for example). From AFP:
Riyadh (AFP) - Saudi Arabia advertised vacancies for eight executioners Tuesday after beheading nearly as many people since the start of the year as it did in the whole of 2014.
The civil service ministry said that no qualifications were necessary and that applicants would be exempted from the usual entrance exams.
It said that as well as beheadings, the successful candidates would be expected to carry out amputations ordered by the courts under the kingdom's strict version of Islamic sharia law.
Amputation of one or both hands is a routine penalty for theft. Drug trafficking, rape, murder, apostasy and armed robbery are all punishable by death.
Most executions are carried out by beheading, but a few are carried out by firing squad, stoning or crucifixion.
All are carried out in public and video footage sometimes appears on the Internet despite a ban on filming.
It had to come to this.
Massive Low-Carb Kindle Sale!
A whole bunch of low-carb Kindle diet books and cookbooks are on sale through end of day Wednesday at Amazon...99 cents or $2.99.
Here's Nourished; A Cookbook for Health, Weight Loss, and Metabolic Balance by wonderful Judy Barnes Baker.
Be careful in buying -- not all of them are necessarily good!
Click here to buy things I haven't linked to and credit me with your purchase. Many thanks to all who do!
low-carb link via @DrEades
"Eek, Men Might Discover They're Victims Of Paternity Fraud!"
Panties are bunching in the UK over drugstore Boots' decision to stock a £30 paternity testing kit.
In the Telegraph, the purported "family values" arguments are flying fast and furious. Laura Donnelly reports:
Darren Jamieson, founder of pressure group CSA Hell, which assists parents with problems over child maintenance, believes the sheer temptation of over-the-counter paternity tests could in itself poison a faltering relationship.
"It seems very wrong to me that you can walk into Boots and buy something that can split up a family unit," says the father-of-three. "That's bad news for the couple and for the child; whatever the result is, the mistrust generated by asking for these tests could do irreparable damage."
...Dr David Jones, Director of the Roman Catholic Anscombe Bioethics Centre, believes companies should not be able to profit from revelations which could tear families apart, and leave children without a father figure. "It is irresponsible to leave these decisions to the free market and not think about the consequences for children and families. The whole idea of taking a paternity test shows a breakdown of trust, and even if the test is positive, the trust has been damaged."
If I were a man, I'd do this when the kid's too young to know what I'm doing with ye olde swab.
Against Feminism's Victimist-Industrial Complex: "You Cannot Build Justice For Women On Injustice For Men"
In November of 2104, Wendy McElroy debated Jessica Valenti at Brown University. An excerpt from McElroy's statement:
The treatment of rape needs to move away from what has become the status quo assumption of feminist orthodoxy, away from rape as an expression of culture, and toward holding a small number of individuals absolutely responsible for their options. "Men" or "women" as a category do not rape - individuals do. And yet this idea runs counter to the whole idea of the rape culture. When you speak of a rape culture, you're saying rape is so widely accepted that it is a cultural norm. In short, it is a defining aspect of society.
And certainly there are cultures in which that definition fits. There are parts of Afghanistan, for example, where women are married against their will, they are murdered for men's honor, they are raped. And when they are raped they are arrested for it, and they are shunned by their family afterward. Now that's a rape culture.
But that is not North America. It doesn't resemble North America. Here rape is a crime that is severely punished. Even an accusation of sexual harassment can ruin someone's career and their lives.
A few days ago I saw a sight that made me just wither inside. A man who had - a scientist behind the Rosetta comet landing - wept in apology on TV because after the biggest achievement of his life, he basically was hounded because he wore a shirt that a female friend of his had made that showed cartoon super heroines on it. And he was made to weep in apology on TV rather than revel in an incredible accomplishment.
Who had the power there? Did he have the power there? Feminists came and said that he basically should be excoriated and he wept on TV. It was a terrible sight. It was a cruel sight.
...The organization A Voice for Male Students recently issued - listed - 42 lawsuits brought by students against universities for violating their rights in hearings. The real figure is closer to 50. And there will be more. And there will be a Supreme Court challenge. Believe me. A common response to such criticism is that the hearings are not legal proceedings and though this is technically true I find it disingenuous. The hearings actually operate in a legal grey zone.
...The so-called non legal hearings can impose penalties as draconian as any court. A student can be expelled with the word "rapist" permanently in his file, tens of thousands of debt. He may have no prospect of getting a license to be a lawyer or a doctor...or whatever else he dreamed of. He is effectively barred from many other unlicensed professions - what university of quality is going to accept him? His reputation is destroyed. And having spoken to some of the men bringing lawsuits against their universities, I know the extraordinary pain they go through, then and now, and probably will for the rest of their lives.
And, yet, for the sake of argument, let me grant that hearings are not legal proceedings. The fact that an adjudication is not legal does not release people from the professional and moral responsibility to be fair. There is what we must do and, then, there is common decency. Common decency is a debt that you owe to every other human being - whether they are male or female, whether they are black or white, whether they are gay or otherwise.
(a la "Soy Delicious" -- though we should note that nobody every has to call steak "steak delicious," because it actually is.)
I accidentally said "pastryarchy" instead of "patriarchy" and now I have a vision for a better world
"Lean" Whichever Way Works For You: (Woman Gets Tired Of Being Seen As A Failure Of Feminism Because Her Husband Is The Breadwinner)
This is a female reader's Facebook post (reprinted here with permission) in response to my piece for the New York Observer -- "Science Says "Lean In" Is Filled With Flawed Advice, Likely To Hurt Women."
In that piece, I explain why Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg's advice in her best-selling book, "Lean In," is unrealistic and may even backfire on women who take it. Caroline K. responded:
This is what I wrote when sharing your text on a group:
Isn't this great, that this is starting to be heard? My occasion to tell you about my own story.
When I was a teenager, I learnt that gender is a social construct. I wanted to be a Sheryl Sandberg. Then I accidentally got pregnant at 20, kept my baby, stayed with the father...discovered who I really am and we had 3 more. It was a shock for me: I LOVE CARING FOR BABIES AND OTHER PEOPLE!
I sometimes get tired of being seen as a failure of feminism because my husband is the breadwinner, I stayed home 10 years and I don't have a big position. But: I have as much money as he has, I am a vet, am doing a masters, I write, I have cared for 4 adult children and hundreds of other people...and most of all, I AM HAPPY!
The negative side is I had to go through an «inner battle» trying to accept I am absolutely not the type of person to live the life of a career woman. I had to research the topic in some positive psychology, philosophy, evo. psych, neuro-endocrinology, neuroscience...
Now I try to use my talents and strenghts to care for others...and to share knowledge and reflexion through my masters memoir on the exact topic of your article. And I write!
Caroline K., you aren't a failure of feminism; it's feminism that's failed for not supporting your choice to have children as much as my choice to not have them.
The Economy: Is There A "Great Reset" Underway -- To Far Lower Wages?
We who write and create things for a living sure feel that.
In The New York Times, economist Tyler Cowen uses that Richard Florida term as he explores how lower wages are seeming to be the thing in many areas and industries. "Don't be so sure the economy will return to normal" is the upshot:
Well before the recent recession, many colleges and universities realized that they could not afford so many full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty members, and they began to increase their reliance on lower-paid adjuncts. Few institutions fired large numbers of full-timers suddenly, because that could have left them understaffed if trends reversed. Longstanding protections of tenure were also a constraint. Instead, many administrators added modestly to the number of adjunct faculty members, sometimes over decades, relying on retirement and attrition to manage the shift in a relatively smooth manner.
That evolution reflects a more general principle: Institutional rigidities don't permit adjustments to occur all at once, but by studying continuing changes we may be able to peer around a corner and see where a sector is headed.
Such processes are scary because we may be watching the slow unfolding of a hand that, in its fundamentals, has already been dealt.
There are signs that a comparable story may apply to the American economy more broadly.
In manufacturing, for example, Ford, Chrysler, General Motors, Caterpillar and Navistar (formerly International Harvester) all pay many of their new workers much less. In some of these two-tier structures, the new wage may be as little as half the old one. In addition to this rapid change, the companies also seem to be reducing the ranks of highly paid workers through slow attrition.
Here is another change that might be a broader sign of a pending reset: A heavy burden of adjustment in the overall labor market is being borne by the young. Wages for the typical graduate of a four-year college have dropped more than 7 percent since 2000, and the labor force participation rate of the young has been falling. One consequence is that young people are living at home longer and receiving more aid from their parents. They also seem to be less interested in buying their own homes.
All of these factors could indicate that our economy is evolving into one that will offer far less favorable long-run wage prospects.
Links with a cat's head on top.
Fabulousness And Frugal Fabulousness
Thank you to the woman who bought this fabulous, wide-brim sunhat XL Head Wide Blue Madagascar Hat with Ruffles. Here it is in brown and white. Here's pink and white.
I have a big head. This would fit, and it's fabulous.
And the person who bought this probably went through my Search Amy's Amazon on one of these posts (or bought something else and did the hat as an add-on). Thank you to all who buy through my links, helping support the work I do on this site, my radio show work, and my writing in general.
Deal of the Day for today -- up to 20 percent off on select Perky Pet hummingbird feeders. Another tempting one. These little creatures are amazing to watch.
And here's something I would love to have -- a sewing machine with a lot of stitches so I can cut off Salvation Army cashmere sweaters into cropped sweaters and then sew crazy stitches in hot pink around the neck and bottom and sleeve ends. SINGER 7256 Fashion Mate 70-Stitch Computerized Free-Arm Sewing Machine with Automatic Needle Threader, 50 percent off. Regularly $259, but with the special offer, $129.
Another deal -- 63 percent off the ALLPOWERS 10000mAh Solar Panel Charger with iSolar Technology for iPhone, iPad, Samsung and other 5V USB devices. (It's regularly $79.99, but only $29.99 with this special deal.) Yes, you can go off into the wilderness and still recharge your iPad -- unless there's a four-day downpour, in which case, well, what the hell are you doing in a damn tent?
And finally, here's what I actually did buy yesterday, the Kindle of David Sloan Wilson's new Yale Press book, Does Altruism Exist?: Culture, Genes, and the Welfare of Others (Foundational Questions in Science).
Thank you to all who shop through my links! Truly appreciated!
Tonight's "Science News You Can Use" Radio, 7- 7:30 pm PT
Cohosts Amy Alkon and Dr. Jennifer Verdolin discuss "Sluts and Swingers of the Human and Animal Kingdom" (and where do you fit in?).
Join us for an enlightening show laying out the science on casual sex and multiple partners, and how to manage in this sexual Wild West.
Listen live at 7pm PT or pick it up afterward in podcast -- at this link.
We Lost The Iraq War Before We Ever Got There, And Jeb Bush Needed To Say So
It's what I said over and over on this blog about 9/11 and the Iraq invasion that followed -- basically that when one guy or set of guys robs a bank, you don't just willy-nilly go pick up another guy, who had nothing to do with that, and make him pay so somebody pays.
Also, attempting to export democracy to people whose culture is totally inhospitable to it is a fool's errand.
Jeb Bush got all mealy-mouthed about this but -- surprise! -- even National Review's Andrew McCarthy is talking like I was on the Iraq War, to the point that he notes, as I did, that it was Iran that that was the greater problem for our security.
There was overwhelming support for the proposition that Saddam Hussein's regime should be ousted. There was little public appetite for an experiment in Iraqi democracy-building.
The United States was attacked on September 11, 2001, by a global jihadist movement that was aided and abetted by state sponsors and that was not confined to a country or two. Our national interests were to eradicate the jihadists' capacity to project power and eliminate their state sponsors -- especially regimes likely to supply them with weapons. Chief among those regimes was Iran; further down the chain was Iraq.
For a democracy such as ours to be successful in fighting wars, there must be public support for the war aims. There was overwhelming support for the proposition that Saddam Hussein's regime should be ousted. There was little public appetite for an experiment in Iraqi democracy-building -- especially once it was clear that we would not be "hailed as liberators" and that the venture would be prohibitively expensive.
The bipartisan public consensus that developed prior to the invasion was that Saddam's regime was an unacceptable threat to American national security in a post-9/11 environment. Regardless of whether one now believes that conclusion was flawed, there never was a consensus that American national security hinged on Iraq's post-Saddam political stability and evolution. It demonstrably did not: Iraq's Islamic culture did not want Western liberalism, and there is neither logical nor empirical support for the conclusion that Country A's being a democracy renders Country B safer from jihadist terror - indeed, jihadists thrive on exploitation of the freedoms available in Western democracies.
President Bush initially defined "victory in Iraq" as "helping the Iraqi people defeat the terrorists and build an inclusive democratic state," such that Iraq would be "peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism."
Most of those goals were fanciful and immaterial to the promotion of American national security. That is the most important lesson learned. Yet, Jeb Bush reaffirms his brother's dubious linkage of our security and Iraq's. On Wednesday, he opined that Iraq demonstrates the need to "have a strategy of security," and that, while this broke down for a time, his brother had "solved that mess with the surge and created when he left a much more stable Iraq."
Meanwhile, here's how our government shits on the members of the military who were exposed to a toxic chemical in Iraq.
Digging Around In My Archives: Who Really Hates Femalekind?
One of my column openings from way back when:
While militant feminists smell a global conspiracy against womankind whenever some poor schlub compliments a female coworker on her new hairdo, they've long ignored some of the most virulent (and obvious) women-haters in the world: makers of ladies' clingy knitwear.
To be fair, there are a number of women over the age of 15 who can pull off a form-fitting knit dress. One is Kate Moss. The other is Kate Moss.
Oaflinks. Which are not like cufflinks. Or bran-based cereals.
If We're Going To Do The Death Penalty, Let's DO The Death Penalty -- Loud, Bloody, and Ugly
So, Tsarnaev was given the death penalty -- by lethal injection.
I'm not for the death penalty, but as long as we have it, I think we make a mistake by doing it all no muss/no fuss.
As I posted previously, "If We're Going To Have Executions, They Should Be Bloody."
In that post, I explain that I think Judge Alex Kozinski was right. He's quoted by columnist E. Montini in the Arizona Star:
"Whatever the hopes and reasons for the switch to drugs (for executions), they proved to be misguided. Subverting medicines meant to heal the human body to the opposite purpose was an enterprise doomed to failure. Today's case is only the latest in an unending effort to undermine and discredit this method of carrying out lawful executions...
"Whatever happens to Wood, the attacks will not stop and for a simple reason: The enterprise is flawed. Using drugs meant for individuals with medical needs to carry out executions is a misguided effort to mask the brutality of executions by making them look serene and peaceful--like something any one of us might experience in our final moments...
"But executions are, in fact, nothing like that. They are brutal, savage events, and nothing the state tries to do can mask that reality. Nor should it. If we as a society want to carry out executions, we should be willing to face the fact that the state is committing a horrendous brutality on our behalf...
"If some states and the federal government wish to continue carrying out the death penalty, they must turn away from this misguided path and return to more primitive--and foolproof--methods of execution. The guillotine is probably best but seems inconsistent with our national ethos. And the electric chair, hanging and the gas chamber are each subject to occasional mishaps.
"The firing squad strikes me as the most promising. Eight or ten large-caliber rifle bullets fired at close range can inflict massive damage, causing instant death every time. There are plenty of people employed by the state who can pull the trigger and have the training to aim true.
"The weapons and ammunition are bought by the state in massive quantities for law enforcement purposes, so it would be impossible to interdict the supply. And nobody can argue that the weapons are put to a purpose for which they were not intended: firearms have no purpose other than destroying their targets. Sure, firing squads can be messy, but if we are willing to carry out executions, we should not shield ourselves from the reality that we are shedding human blood. If we, as a society, cannot stomach the splatter from an execution carried out by firing squad, then we shouldn't be carrying out executions at all."
I Think This Ad Is Funny: 11 Out Of 10 Feminists Disagree
Did the Borg come swallow the sense of humor of much of the western world?
A bus company had this ad:
I'm amused. Then again, I can afford to be amused, since I'm not a shell of a person whose only source of attention is being outraged.
Not surprisingly, however, USA Today's Lori Grisham reports that panties were bunched [annoying autoplay video]:
"The slogan of 'ride me all day for £3' whilst being a little tongue in cheek was in no way intended to cause offense to either men or women and, if the advert has done so then we apologize unreservedly," the company wrote in a statement that they tweeted. "There has certainly been no intention to objectify either men or women."
The posters were removed from the buses within 24 hours because of complaints, according to reports.
Can someone explain why this is offensive to "either men or women"?
As for this -- "There has certainly been no intention to objectify either men or women" -- how totally pathetic that we can't "objectify" for a laugh. Men or women -- or hermaphrodites.
Oh, and from Wikipedia (link just above), I like this guy:
Alan Soble questions the widely held Kantian view according to which human dignity is something that people have. He argues that objectification is not inappropriate. Everyone is already only an object and being only an object is not necessarily a bad thing. ...He writes (quoted from his book, Pornography, Sex, and Feminism:The claim that we should treat people as 'persons' and not dehumanise them is to reify, is to anthropomorphise humans and consider them more than they are. Do not treat people as objects, we are told. Why not? Because, goes the answer, people qua persons deserve not to be treated as objects. What a nice bit of illusory chauvinism. People are not as grand as we make them out to be, would like them to be, or hope them to be.
Hear fucking hear.
P.S. Welcome to France! (It's an ad for a dining guide.)
Oh, and my version of the ad with a hot guy: "Ride me like a pony, all day, for £3."
Wishful thinking well links.