The CDC, in an effort to reduce incidents of fetal alcohol syndrome, somehow released a report with this infographic suggesting (see step 2) that women who do not use contraception should abstain from drinking altogether. It sparked several responses.
Here are some ideas to keep the hackers at bay.
If we do Krispy Kreme favors, let's make sure this doesn't happen. Ormsby.
A more interesting Black History Month (or just understanding of the history of black people in America) would highlight these points.
It is refreshing that people are actually talking about the harm this does to everyone (as opposed to just the harm it might do to the losing team, which harm likely inspired the stupid rule in the first place).
I'm not a big fan of this article, but it relates to some of the things we've talked about with respect to how Asian-Americans are viewed through the lens of race in America. The article does a good job of demonstrating that Kang's perspective is based on a bizarre irrational anxiety that events plagued by small sample size still must mean something. But it also tees up an interesting decision point for many Asian-Americans who may or may not feel as though they have really achieved the American Dream.
The Washington Post tackles immigration, mixed marriages, and ethnic self-identity, I guess.
Responses:
1. We learned about this phenomenon in the context of the marriage penalty/benefit in income tax class. I think too many people still get married and rely on one spouse to reduce his or her earnings (in favor of childrearing, or because they don't need all of both incomes), such that it's hard to see a marriage as two people as opposed to one economic unit. That said, I think it's fundamentally problematic for the tax code to treat a married person differently from a single person. Perhaps there are ways to dodge this problem in specific circumstances (e.g. with income taxes, you pay the lower of what you would pay as two single filers versus what you would pay as married filers), but even those are controversial somehow.
2. This is a nice idea too. But I like the idea of cooking (even if something simple) so that people have extra incentive to come.
3. Not sure how I feel about the gluten-free/paleo aspect, but it is interesting.
4. Would you like to try it? Let me know if you download and I will too.
5. I don't want a cool wedding. I want a timeless wedding.
6. It's never made sense why hotels stuck to the overnight stay model. For all the fixed costs they have, why not try to parcel out remaining periods of time. That said, one objection might be the sleaze factor: the hotels that have hourly stays (where you can stay for a minimum of one hour or as many hours as you like) are typically associated with prostitution.
7. This strikes me as a 13th Amendment problem. My reading of the problem is that the FBI wants to force Apple to make something (not force them to turn something over, as the FBI already has the iPhone). But even if the FBI is willing to compensate Apple for the labor and production costs for building the program, Apple (indeed, anyone) should have the right to say no. In my view, if the FBI wants to prevent this, then they should ask Congress to pass a law requiring any technology that can be used to commit terrorism or conspiracy crimes to contain a backdoor only accessible by federal authorities. Of course, when such a law is proposed and everyone realizes that eventually hackers will be able to exploit that same security opening, then maybe people will realize the folly of this idea and change their minds. But in my (limited, partially informed, and humble) opinion, that's the only way to overcome the constitutional problem.
R2R:
2. The "why does anyone need [blank]" question in the context of firearms typically reflects either a lack of familiarity or comfort with firearms or a lack of belief that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms on a level of any other constitutional right. Almost every gun control conversation I've had with a gun control supporter goes like this: GCS: We should ban [insert gun thing here]; Ben: Why should we ban it?; GCS: Well, why does anyone need it? That strikes me as not much of an argument.
R2R2R:
1. It reminds me of a Louis CK bit where he goes to the doctor for his bad shoulder, and the doctor tells him to stretch and take a lot of Advil, but when Louis CK asks whether that will fix the problem, the doctor laughs and says of course not - it's not going to be fixed, and when Louis CK mentions that some professional athlete his age got treatment for his bad shoulder, the doctor scoffs and tells him that he's definitely not a professional athlete. The sad aspect is that, for many of these people, the stopgap measures they employ are just bandages on a broken leg. I think about the study that shows that a majority of widowers die within a year of the death of their wife because men are less likely to have a social network outside their wife.
2. Your summary of the article said "we're all ok." My (tongue-in-cheek) question suggested that not everyone has all of those things.
B
No comments:
Post a Comment