21st CENTURY MEDICINE: Take an Eye Exam on Your Laptop.
Archive for 2015
September 30, 2015
CALLING EVIL GOOD, AND GOOD EVIL: Good news: New York’s city council honors ‘bravery’ of treasonous Soviet spy.
EAST COASTERS BETTER START PAYING ATTENTION: Hurricane Joaquin strengthens to category 2, heads toward US.
VIDEO: MARK RIPPETOE VISITS ROUGH CREEK LODGE IN ANTICIPATION OF BULLETS & BOURBON IN DECEMBER:
Additionally, we’d like to welcome the event’s newest sponsors, Ricochet.com and Rolling Thunder Cigars.
Join Mark, Glenn, Roger L. Simon, Stephen Green, Ed Morrissey, Dana Loesch and Kevin D. Williamson December 3rd through the 6th at Rough Creek Lodge in the Dallas area for Bullets & Bourbon; details here.
NOBODY TELL NOTORIOUS ROBOPHOBE MATT YGLESIAS: By 2050, human-on-robot sex will be more common than human-on-human sex, says report. Of course, a lot of robophobes are really just trying to hide their latent robosexuality . . . .
Related item here. And remember, if you think sex with robots is “creepy,” you’ll be an unemployable robophobe bigot in a few years.
HMM: A New Effort Has Doctors Turn Patients Into Donors. I wouldn’t promise to put them in my will. . . .
FREDDIE DE BOER ON THE IDIOCY AT WESLEYAN: College Students Have Forgotten How to Fight the System. “Today’s Wesleyan students could have reacted to the piece in question by writing a response in the Argus. They could have started their own radical newspaper. They could have leafleted, or invited speakers, or used any other means to respond with better, more enlightened speech. By going straight to authority, they have instead embraced establishment power and asked it to be part of a liberatory struggle. That is folly.”
AND NOW, A WORD FROM OUR SPONSOR: This New Carl’s Jr. Ad is Outrageous and Sexist.
FLASHBACK: Article from 1975: The World Will Be Out of Oil by 2015.
Malthusians are always wrong.
NCAA BAN ON PAYING COLLEGE ATHLETES VIOLATES FEDERAL ANTITRUST LAW: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled today that the NCAA’s ban on any pay for basketball or football players in Division I schools violates federal antitrust law.
Ruling that the Supreme Court has not settled the issue, and setting the stage for the Court to do so, a federal appeals court declared on Wednesday that the main college sports organization’s total ban on any pay for students who play football or basketball at major schools is illegal under federal antitrust law. But, it also ruled by a divided vote that those athletes should not be paid even one dollar more than what it costs them to attend college while they are there. It voided a judge’s order that they get paid $5,000 for each year of play, after they have left the campus.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in a case that applies only to so-called Division I of the National Collegiate Athletic Association — that is, the big-time programs — and only for basketball and football players at that level. But it creates a conflict with other federal appeals courts on an issue that the NCAA has long treated as vital to the very existence of college football as a game for amateurs, not professionals.
The NCAA has vigorously defended its “amateur athlete” view every time it has been challenged by student athletes who sought compensation, and it has long held the view that its rules are totally exempt from antitrust law — an exemption it traces to a 1984 Supreme Court decision dealing with television rights for college football games. The Ninth Circuit disagreed with that argument Wednesday.
The organization has strong reasons for taking the issue on to the Supreme Court, to defend a view of amateurism that it has held for perhaps ninety-four years and that it has reinforced with strict rules against athlete compensation for sixty-seven years. (The NCAA’s amateurism view gained significantly earlier this year, when the National Labor Relations Board found it had no authority to rule on a plea by Northwestern University football players that they should have a legal right under federal labor law to join a union to bargain for pay and other benefits related to their sports careers in college. That decision could not be appealed.)
It is not clear at this point whether the new Ninth Circuit decision will have a major impact on the finances of college football, if that ruling stands. The NCAA, under a policy that the Ninth Circuit said the organization would otherwise be free to change, has already allowed athletes to get football and basketball scholarships that not only cover the basics of tuition and books (so-called “grant-in-aid” packages), but at a level that would cover the entire cost of their attendance. The Ninth Circuit ruling would simply require the NCAA to continue compensation at that full level, as a legal duty.
The full Ninth Circuit opinion is available here.
PSYCHOLOGY TODAY: It’s Time For Feminism To Address The Needs Of Boys.
Again, think of how often you hear or see something in the news about how women are being treated badly. (And much of this may be true.) But how about the fact that boys are not doing so well. How often do you hear about that?
I’m not the only one who has noticed this. Google “boys outdo girls” and you get 556 results; do it for “girls outdo boys” and you get 75,700. And yet, honestly, how often have you heard about this gender gap? The Minds of Boys: Saving Our Sons From Falling Behind in School and Life, a wonderful book by Michael Gurian and the late Kathy Stevens, was published in 2007, and has an Amazon sales rank of 115,100, while Mary Pipher’s Reviving Ophelia: Saving the Selves of Adolescent Girls, published two years earlier, ranks at 8,652.
Well, there’s a war on boys. And there’s a House Men For Women Caucus in Congress. There’s no caucus for women who want to help boys.
MY USA TODAY COLUMN: The War On College Men: An assistant secretary of education thinks she can rewrite rape law by writing a letter. With a guest appearance by a surprisingly macho Lamar Alexander.
GEE, I DUNNO–PROSTITUTES AND FOREIGN “DONATIONS” MAYBE?: Where have all of Bill and Hillary’s millions gone?
Since Bill and Hillary Clinton left the White House in 2001, they have earned more than $230 million. But in federal filings the Clintons claim they are worth somewhere between $11 million and $53 million. After layering years of disclosures on top of annual tax returns, Forbes estimates their combined net worth at $45 million. Where did all of the money go? No one seems to know, and the Clintons aren’t offering any answers.
From 2001 to 2014 the power couple spent $95 million on taxes. Hillary’s 2008 presidential run cost her $13 million. Their two homes cost a combined $5 million, and the Clintons have given away $22 million to charity. All of this is according to FEC filings, property records and years of tax returns. Add it up and you get $135 million. If the Clintons made $230 million, spent $135 million and have just $45 million left over, what happened to the other $50 million?
“That’s kind of strange,” says Joe Biden’s accountant, Walter Deyhle. “You have to report all of your assets. You have to report assets that are owned by your spouse.”
It seems unlikely that the Clintons could have spent all of it. Over 14 years $50 million averages out to $3.6 million in extra expenses per year, or $9,800 per day. . . .
It seems unlikely, but they could have given it away overseas: Donations to foreign charities are not deductible and would not be listed on tax returns. Billionaires like Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal of Saudi Arabia, Lakshmi Mittal of India and Joseph Safra of Brazil have donated to their foundation. Maybe the Clintons are returning the favor?
Maybe. Quid pro quos are not unusual among wealthy donors. Or maybe the Clintons are just big spenders with a lavish lifestyle.
Maybe an investigative reporter should ask the Clintons and actually investigate this.
“MALTHUSIANS ARE ALWAYS WRONG:” The Simon-Ehrlich wager 25 years on.
BLAKE LIVELY SURRENDERS TO GAWKER, AGREES TO DELETE HER LIFESTYLE AND FASHION SITE:
While glossing over the horrific aspects of the antebellum south (like slavery and the Civil War) isn’t the most intellectually honest thing in the world, keep in mind that the purpose of her site was to sell clothes and feature recipes, not to bring back the slave trade. Future generations aren’t dependent upon an actress’s lifestyle site to preserve a perfect picture of history. We can let Lively praise genteel femininity if she wants to without depicting her as pariah for failing to sufficiently decry slavery more than 150 years after its prohibition.
Lively isn’t the only target of this kind of hate. It seems that modern culture is terrified of the Southern belle. In March, the University of Georgia banned hoop skirts from all campus events after it had already banned Confederate uniforms. Ironically though, hoop skirts aren’t a symbol of white oppression or slaveowner sensibilities, rather they were a great equalizer of the time. As Denise McAllister explained:
The hoop skirt was worn by all social classes and all racial groups. That’s right… The hoop skirt is a symbol of inclusion, not exclusion! […] The white Southern woman “with her attire, manners, and demeanor” … has an identity that is beyond racism. It is an identity rooted in faith, family, individualism, quiet determination, social struggle, and freedom.
As McAllister writes, there’s nothing wrong with finding the good in the Southern belle.
Wow, just wait ‘til Gawker discovers the one-man oppressive European colonialist hegemony that is Kenny G:
WHEN THE CLOCK STRIKES 14:59: Career Crash: Rape Hoaxer Lena Dunham, Announces End of ‘Girls,’ Flees Twitter.
In 2013 When Alec Baldwin (remember him?) was in one of his periodic “you won’t have me to kick around Twitter anymore” phases (in between kicking around photographers), Nick Gillespie described what was really driving this particular aspect of Baldwin’s rage, which seems limitless at times:
Baldwin sputters that the very tools he can use to bypass “the mainstream media and talk directly” to his audience also empowers all those dim people out there in the dark. What’s more, his followers have minds of their own. They may enjoy his turns in Glenngarry Glenn Ross and 30 Rock and guest-hosting on Turner Classic Movies but not really find his views on fracking to be worth a damn. It’s a real kick in the pants for a celebrity to be reduced to asking, “Do you think I’m really changing anybody’s mind?”
“Remember the good old days,” Gillespie added, “not just when there were only three national TV networks and one or two national newspapers, but when Hollywood studios could virtually completely control the image surrounding their contract players like halos on a saint’s shoulders? Those days are over, Baby Jane.”
As Dunham discovered herself, all that pushback from those horrible non-One Percenters starts to take its toll — seemingly one pebble at a time.
WHEN DOES THE FAKED-UP EMISSIONS SOFTWARE GO IN? Want to See Where BMWs Are Born? Of Course You Do.
CALLING IT LIKE IT IS: S.E. Cupp, “Democrats: The Party of Abortion, Not the Party of Women.”
If you didn’t know any better, you might be under the impression that Planned Parenthood clinics are the only place a woman can go for any variety of health services, including abortions, mammograms, contraceptive services and screenings.
That’s because Planned Parenthood actively fosters this impression to bolster its own necessity, aided by Republicans determined to end federal funding of abortions who have unwittingly helped elevate the organization’s image out of scale with its actual importance.
In reality, however, the 700 Planned Parenthood clinics throughout the country — predominately in urban areas — are dwarfed by the nearly 9,000 community health centers or CHCs around the country, with one in almost every Congressional district. . . .
Though Planned Parenthood routinely insists women need it for mammograms, the clinics don’t actually perform any (they are legally not allowed to). The CHCs, however, do. . . .
Congressional House Republicans passed a measure this month that wouldn’t just defund Planned Parenthood, but redirect its funding to CHCs. Republicans are making the argument for more access to more women’s services, while Democrats are actively trying to limit them.
The Planned Parenthood battle isn’t over, but it has proven one thing: Democrats are not the party of women. They are the party of abortion. There’s a big difference.
Well, yes. But Democrats’ are much better at getting their “spin” accepted by the mainstream media; hence the oft-used “War on Women” label, the battles of which oddly focus exclusively on providing an unfettered access to abortion, as if abortion were the only issue of salience to women’s lives. How paternalistic of the Democrats.
Moreover, never mind that Republicans are spearheading the effort to make birth control pills more widely available by classifying them as over-the-counter–something the Democrats and Planned Parenthood vehemently oppose. And never mind that Republicans wish to expand access to all kinds of women’s medical care–not just abortion and contraception–by expanding funding for community health centers. None of that fits with the Democrats’ “war on women” label, so it can’t be too widely discussed.
If the Republicans in Congress were smart (a big if, I know), they would start talking about the Democrats’ “war on birth control” and “war on women’s health.”
OUR SUMMER OF OMELAS: Jamie Wilson, with an assist from Ursula Le Guin circa-1973 writes:
In 1973, award-winning science fiction author Ursula Le Guin published a very short story-essay titled “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas.” It described a dreamlike summer festival in Omelas, a beautiful city that embodies everyone’s utopia, a magical place where everyone was joyful, a place where sorrow never touched the citizens or guests. But beneath that city lay a secret: all its joy and pleasure depended on the suffering and misery of a single lonely, abused child living in a filthy basement. If that child were saved, all of Omelas would fall, its beauty and perfection lost.
The citizens of Omelas, when they reached a certain age, were taken below to view the child so that they might understand their civilization. Most rationalized the suffering, as was encouraged: the child was mentally defective anyway, it could never be happy now if taken out, it was incapable of appreciating the beauty of the world like others. Only a few could not bear the truth, but instead of removing the child and Omelas be damned, they walked away, leaving for parts unknown.
America has had a summer of Omelas.
Read the whole thing.
TEACH WOMEN NOT TO RAPE! (CONT’D): Teaching assistant forced schoolboy to sleep with her more than 50 times and told him she was pregnant. “If it was a man and a 15-year-old girl I’m sure the prosecution would have been harsher.”
DON’T KNOW MUCH ABOUT HISTORY: Bloom County cartoonist informed that George W. Bush was an actual fighter pilot.