Some day, they’ll be able to do this out of water, and we’ll have to answer for all that calamari and tako.
Nature’s Way of Saying Step Off
Reply
What I’m Reading, May 2, 2014
But silence is political, PZ Myers, Pharyngula, April. 28, 2014
Somehow, silence on issues like feminism, abortion rights, and gay marriage are pushed by some as the only acceptable non-political response — anything but neglect of the issues is “mission creep” and is to be deplored. I’m afraid though, that if you don’t take a stand, you are taking a stand — on the wrong side of those subjects.
Consent: A Concept Apparently Unknown to Republicans, Scott Lemieux, Lawyers, Guns & Money, November 30, 2011
Not only have a lot of Republicans and journalists conflated sexual harassment and consensual affairs into indistinguishable “sex scandals,” the former seem to think that the consensual conduct is actually worse. When the Cain story first broke, I saw multiple people bringing up John Edwards and Monica Lewinsky, exemplifying the same mistake. Consent matters, and while the battle to preserve any substantial privacy for public figures has been lost in my mind it’s also the line where gossip turns into something of actual significance to evaluating a candidate.
(See also Conservatives and the Concept of Consent: A Permanently Estranged Relationship)
This Week in WTF, May 2, 2014
– That’s, uh, subtle: Here’s a dress that supposedly becomes transparent when some electronic doodads detect that the wearer is becoming aroused. It’s from the not-all-all-pretentious-sounding INTIMACY 2.0 project (video more or less SFW):
– Kill it with fire!: (Wasp nest + wooden statue) × several years = nightmare fuel. You know what to do.
It’s the First of May!
I can’t let this day go by without a musical tribute.
What I’m Reading, May 1, 2014
![By Pkg203 (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons](http://crypticphilosopher.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/320px-Lyft_Pink_Mustache-300x225.jpg "By Pkg203 (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons")
The Sharing Economy Isn’t About Trust, It’s About Desperation, Kevin Roose, New York, April 24, 2014
Wired‘s cover story this month is about the rise of the “sharing economy” — a Silicon Valley–invented term used to describe the basket of start-ups (Uber, Lyft, Airbnb, et al.) that allow users to rent their labor and belongings to strangers. Jason Tanz attributes the success of these start-ups to the invention of a “set of digital tools that enable and encourage us to trust our fellow human beings,” such as bidirectional rating systems, background checks, frictionless payment systems, and platforms that encourage buyers and sellers to get to know each other face-to-face before doing business.
Tanz’s thesis isn’t wrong — these innovations have certainly made a difference. But it leaves out an important part of the story. Namely, the sharing economy has succeeded in large part because the real economy has been struggling.
A huge precondition for the sharing economy has been a depressed labor market, in which lots of people are trying to fill holes in their income by monetizing their stuff and their labor in creative ways. In many cases, people join the sharing economy because they’ve recently lost a full-time job and are piecing together income from several part-time gigs to replace it. In a few cases, it’s because the pricing structure of the sharing economy made their old jobs less profitable. (Like full-time taxi drivers who have switched to Lyft or Uber.) In almost every case, what compels people to open up their homes and cars to complete strangers is money, not trust.
Most of What You Think You Know About Sex Trafficking Isn’t True, Amanda Hess, Slate, April 23, 2014 Continue reading
Great Moments on the Internet: “Google Image Search” Edition
- Do a Google image search for “search warrant,” filtered for free usage rights (for work reasons, duh).
- Get a picture of the band Warrant.
!["Warrant" in EverybodyAwesome, by aerokay [CC BY 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)], via deviantART](http://crypticphilosopher.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/warrant_by_aerokay-d3wtqu6.jpg)
Here are some memories for you: Continue reading
What I’m Reading, April 30, 2014
![By Constitution_Pg1of4_AC.jpg: Constitutional Convention derivative work: Bluszczokrzew (Constitution_Pg1of4_AC.jpg) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons](http://crypticphilosopher.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/320px-Constitution_We_the_People-300x108.jpg "By Constitution_Pg1of4_AC.jpg: Constitutional Convention derivative work: Bluszczokrzew (Constitution_Pg1of4_AC.jpg) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons")
Libertarian Law Prof Debunks Bundy Nonsense, Ed Brayton, Dispatches from the Culture Wars, April 25, 2014
As some of the more militant libertarians, especially the anarcho-capitalists, flock to the support of Cliven Bundy in his standoff with the federal government, most of the libertarian-minded law professors are debunking their absurd claims and pointing out how gloriously wrong those people are. Josh Blackman is one of them.
First, Bundy seems to reject the Constitution’s property clause. (It was a wonderful twist of scheduling fate that I assigned the “Property Clause” in ConLaw the week after the Bundy Ranch standoff. ) In an interview he said that the federal government has “no jurisdiction or authority” on his grazing rights. Under the Property Clause, Congress has the power to “dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.” The land at issue was owned by the United States prior to Nevada statehood as a territory. I suspect Bundy will argue that his family has obtained a prescriptive easement on the land, as it has continuously, openly, and (absolutely) hostilely, grazed on the land for 170 years. Though, adverse possession is not permissible against the federal government. Continue reading
What I’m Reading, April 29, 2014
![Tom Woodward [CC BY-SA 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/)], via Flickr](http://crypticphilosopher.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/5972894350_1bf9e41699_z.jpg "Tom Woodward [CC BY-SA 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/)], via Flickr")
Be Exploited By the People You Know! Scott Lemieux, Lawyers , Guns & Money, April 25, 2014
Ahead of today’s vote at Northwestern, the actions of proponents of the NCAA’s indefensible status quo were predictable:
***
Coach Pat Fitzgerald, a former football star who is revered on campus, has framed a vote for the union as a personal betrayal.
“Understand that by voting to have a union, you would be transferring your trust from those you know — me, your coaches and the administrators here — to what you don’t know — a third party who may or may not have the team’s best interests in mind,” Fitzgerald wrote to the team in an email.
And don’t kid yourself: the people and organizations reaping huge amounts of money off of your unpaid, physically taxing labor, and yet impose extraordinary rules that prevent you from even being compensated by third parties, totally have only your interests at heart.
“Due process? What due process? We’re rescuing hookers!” Donna Gratehouse, Blog for Arizona, April 17, 2014 Continue reading
Eight Amendments
Here’s something you might not know about the Bill of Rights, from Gerard Magliocca:
Is the Bill of Rights the first eight amendments or the first ten? No doubt many of you would say 10 because ten were ratified in 1791.
Many cases and commentators, though, define the Bill of Rights as the first 8. Learned Hand took this view. So did Hugo Black and Felix Frankfurter. Why is that? Partly it’s because they did not care for the Tenth Amendment and thus wanted to read it out of the Bill of Rights. (Black also didn’t like the Ninth Amendment). Another thought is that the Bill of Rights must really be about specific individual rights, which leaves the 9th and 10th out in the cold. You can find many authorities that use this formulation, and as far as I know there is no definitive statement from the Supreme Court to the contrary.
What I’m Reading, April 28, 2014
![klsgfx [Public domain, CC0 1.0 (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)], via Openclipart](http://crypticphilosopher.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/klsgfx_Helicopter.png "klsgfx [Public domain, CC0 1.0 (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)], via Openclipart")
Please, Please, Please: Do Not Make Your Kid The Center Of Your Universe, Cassie Murdoch, Jezebel, July 6, 2012
It’s impossible to say for sure that intensive parenting leads to depression and stress and being dissatisfied, but the links don’t really make sense if you flip them around. It’s also not clear whether intensive parenting has any great impact on the children, but Liss concludes that anything that makes moms depressed probably doesn’t benefit children in the long run. Plus, anecdotally some of us have observed that making your child the center of the universe tends to result in rather obnoxious offspring.
Justice Sotomayor accuses colleagues of thinking they can ‘wish away’ racial inequality, Robyn Pennacchia, Death and Taxes, April 23, 2014
Just yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the people of Michigan had the right, via mob rule, to ban the practice of Affirmative Action at state institutions such as the University of Michigan. It wasn’t a good ruling. Ever since the state voted to ban it, minority enrollment has declined significantly. Which is not surprising, because when you ignore unearned privileged and advantages, it’s hardly shocking when the priviledg and advantaged pull ahead. Obviously the person who starts the race in the middle of a marathon is going to have a better chance at winning.