Easy Targets

My friends at IJ are big on stopping civil forfeiture.  Here's an example in the context of the legalization of pot.

Though I don't like the way that the title (admittedly jokingly) tries to end debate, the point of the article is pretty compelling.

I was embarrassed for laughing as hard as I did at this Onion article, especially the old-timey quotes.

Charles Koch (one of the favorite targets of liberal demonization efforts) speaks out.

Two final thoughts on Mozilla and their now-departed CEO.

It's so bizarre to hear so-called feminists lashing out at other women in the context of body image issues.  Shouldn't it be painfully obvious that 1) people have different body types and 2) directing vitriol at other people because you feel bad is a terrible thing to do?

I've always been skeptical of studies like this because 1) they are often done by people sympathetic to liberals and 2) the usual thesis is "is there something that explains why conservatives have such bizarre and obviously wrong views on the world?"  That said, if we stipulate that there's something to it, it has some interesting implications for how liberals think about, say, the former Mozilla CEO.

Yay Atlanta!

Need a new hobby?

Here is the article about the gender wage gap.

Responses:

1. That seems reasonable.  The controversy seems to be that it isn't intellectually pure, but I don't see that as a negative.

2. I know several people who have vacationed in Vietnam in recent years.  Maybe there's something to it.  Or maybe it's a trap!

3. That also seems reasonable.  I know I want to be a lawyer right now, but I worry that I can't think of anything else I might want to do.

4. We would probably need to travel a lot more frequently to take advantage of these, but they are nice ideas.

5. Let's get a dog!

6. You know, my birthday is coming up...

7. So much of what we process is anecdotal.  I've started spending a little more time on Nate Silver's new website.  I'm not all in on data journalism (mostly because I'm still learning about it), but it seems intriguing.  Oh, and by the way, good for him, and I hope he can collect from NYC for the wrongful conviction.

Here's an idea: there should be a law that requires payment to a wrongfully convicted person in a fixed sum based on years spent in prison.  No hearing, no having to file a lawsuit - just automatic money to the wrongfully convicted.  (If you think the prosecution targeted you or was reckless or willfully malicious in their prosecution, then you would retain a claim for that over and above this fixed sum.)  What would be the problem with that?  I understand that the justice system can never be perfect, but why should the innocent person bear the brunt of any mistake?

R2R:

4. I thought the grilled cheese sandwich shop was a good idea.  The problem was that he wouldn't bend to the will of the judges and genuflect to their changes.  To be sure, this is why he didn't win (not why his idea didn't work - it did work).  Another theory is that he had the personality of stale bread.

B