Each in its own way: one; two.

Do you all donate to lobbying groups? How do you assess them? Do you mentally categorize it together with donating to charities, or do you consider them fundamentally different? If the former, what's the common yardstick you use to evaluate a charity vs a lobbying group in the same general subject? If the latter, uh, just elaborate.

An acquaintance's facebook status:

Fun facts for the day. 1: postal unions prohibit laying off postal workers, entirely. 2: it is forbidden to close any postal office because of the economy. Way to abandon any trace of reason, government! How about we try implementing these 2 policies with a business that is actually successful? Chipotle--no layoffs and you can't close any stores; let's see how that goes.

This has really gotten under my skin. I don't want to respond but if someone came up with an especially pithy zinger, I would probably post it.

Sally, who's eleven, asked me this morning about something she'd learned in school that puzzled her -- she felt as if she half understood it, but needed more information. She's apparently gotten to the age where her classes are introducing her to more adult topics, and while I thought I was ready for most things, I have to admit this question floored me a bit.

"So, Mom. What's 'the invisible hand'?"

It was really kind of hard to answer concisely without going straight into free-market evangelism. So I gave her the free-market evangelism spiel first -- if you have buyers and sellers operating independently, they'll be able to communicate through prices in such a way that the market will organize itself to the point that every seller will find a willing buyer and vice-versa, and it will work well enough that it will look as though someone is deliberately organizing things, even though it's really just people making independent decisions. And then I followed up with some stuff about market failures, and some of the issues with economics as a field of study.

But man, preparing kids for responsible adulthood can just jump out at you from nowhere -- this wasn't really a talk I was prepped for over breakfast this morning.

Lately Florida seems to be a hotbed of all things very, very depressing. For example, being arrested for feeding homeless people. Or drug-testing welfare recipients.

There is truly a war in this country to dehumanize the most vulnerable citizens, and get the public to think of poor people as vermin. Rick Scott may be successfully making Florida the most disgraceful state in the US.

Fresh from the rock show I went to, which was large and outdoors and Canadian (well, the band was anyway, and they made a point of making that fact known), I noticed the thing where one member of a couple is way preggers and gets brought an ice cream, while the non-preggo partner has a beer.

I suppose that must be a conversation that gets had. At some point.

I certainly wouldn't want to have had a beer at that, "Oh, shit, this is it" moment. But maybe you guys can fight about what the cut-off point is. Three months out?

I'm trying my best to be judgmental here.

Emeritus professor trolls young academics, which I'll paraphrase as "I got paid way too much money to fart around for the bulk of my career! Also most academic research is a waste of tax payer money."

Three of his department heads respond: you were a shitty professor who exploited the system. Congratulations. Andrew Gelman weighs in with lots of good points.

My perspective: an intact university research system, particularly in the humanities, really does run counter to our society's professed bottom line, which is profit. If Rubenstein believes that everything should be evaluated on how profitable it is, then he has a point. Since I'd prefer to live in a society which values knowledge and cultural riches regardless of whether or not they're profitable, I would prefer that we fund our universities. And try our best to hire professors who are motivated by these pursuits.

An article detailing how domestic terrorists are sheltered ran in today's WaPo. Any group or individual protecting Michigan and Kentucky militias from investigation is not named.

Does anyone know of outlets where stories like this get covered properly? Grist sometimes has good reporting on environmental issues. Secrecy News is interesting about once a month. Democracy Now is OK when she has news rather than analysis. Myself, I am interested in news rather than analysis, reporting of things done (money spent, objects or systems built, hirings, firings, pressuring to change, enforce or ignore rules) rather than things said.

I will not make guesses about unfolding news stories on the basis of a belief that it would be implausible for the people involved to have acted so stupidly. I will not make guesses about unfolding news stories on the basis of a belief that it would be implausible for the people involved to have acted so stupidly. I will not make guesses about unfolding news stories on the basis of a belief that it would be implausible for the people involved to have acted so stupidly. I will not make guesses about unfolding news stories on the basis of a belief that it would be implausible for the people involved to have acted so stupidly. I will not make guesses about unfolding news stories on the basis of a belief that it would be implausible for the people involved to have acted so stupidly. I will not make guesses about unfolding news stories on the basis of a belief that it would be implausible for the people involved to have acted so stupidly. I will not make guesses about unfolding news stories on the basis of a belief that it would be implausible for the people involved to have acted so stupidly. I will not make guesses about unfolding news stories on the basis of a belief that it would be implausible for the people involved to have acted so stupidly. I will not make guesses about unfolding news stories on the basis of a belief that it would be implausible for the people involved to have acted so stupidly. I will not make guesses about unfolding news stories on the basis of a belief that it would be implausible for the people involved to have acted so stupidly. I will not make guesses about unfolding news stories on the basis of a belief that it would be implausible for the people involved to have acted so stupidly. I will not make guesses about unfolding news stories on the basis of a belief that it would be implausible for the people involved to have acted so stupidly.I will not make guesses about unfolding news stories on the basis of a belief that it would be implausible for the people involved to have acted so stupidly. I will not make guesses about unfolding news stories on the basis of a belief that it would be implausible for the people involved to have acted so stupidly.

(Actual post under the fold)

Seriously, I thought I'd learned this lesson for sex scandals, but what I'd actually accepted was that otherwise clever, competent people will do stupid stuff to get laid, given that it's a fundamental biological drive. I am apparently still capable of being surprised that a clever, competent guy young enough to be comfortable with the internet and the social implications thereof is dumb enough to be casually passing out lewd pictures of himself to people he isn't close enough to trust that the recipient(s) will treat them like Kryptonite.

Sharing lewd pictures with an intimate partner? Not particularly surprising in this digital camera age -- if pictures like that got out I'd feel bad for the guy, whether the partner was legit or an affair, and not think it was any dumber than the affair in the first place. Sending out suggestive pictures as part of online dating (looking at you, Chris Lee)? Stupid for a Congressman, but not really any stupider than online dating using your real email account, so it falls into the general 'getting laid makes people dumb' category. Online flirting with multiple women he's not in close contact enough that he's likely to be expecting to actually have sex with, including identifiable lewd pictures? That's surprisingly dumb -- who, these days, doesn't know that pictures are infinitely capable of being reproduced and transmitted?

I don't, fundamentally, care about the morals of this all. As long as nothing was nonconsensual, it's probably a shame that he's messing around behind his wife's back, but I generally don't see anything that makes a consensual sex scandal my business in terms of what I think of a politician in their professional life. This one, though, I'm considering making an exception for because it seems possible evidence that Weiner really is unusually stupid.

The combination of the Monday Movies of today and this Dino Comix comic of a few days ago have called to mind a discussion I had way back in March—but not with you (all)—on an instance of the following question: why, if these superpowered, superheroic types are so concerned with helping others, do they do so by fighting crime on a case-by-case basis? We will ignore, for the moment, the issue of supervillains, since according to my philosophy of history they are simply called up by the crime-fighting impulses of superheroes when there is a role for them to play. Why, for instance, does the Human Torch not start a free energy company? As far as I know, he doesn't have to consume vast quantities of calories in order to produce the fire, or whatever, that he produces; couldn't he just lie back and boil water? ("Ahh, go boil water, ya big ape!") Wouldn't that be tremendously useful to, well, everyone in the world? He might get put out every now and then, but Superman could relieve him—he's got heat vision, hasn't he? When Superman isn't doing that he could be compressing garbage into building materials or something. Sure, this might retard some forms of innovation, but so what? Innovation, of the sort at issue, isn't an end in itself. Mr. Fantastic could … I don't know, he could rent himself out to stadia in the event of rain, or something. I'll leave the identification of socially useful things other superheroes could do to you dorks.

Dealing with parents when you're dating outside your own race.

My own variation on this goes: I've mentioned that my mom and grandmother are very big assimilationists. When I was dating a (modern) Orthodox Jewish guy, my mom would constantly make snide comments about how I was going to have to shave my head if we got married, or how she'd have to mail order in all our food when we came to visit. It was really obnoxious.

This song is so much fun.

I don't care if this makes a terrible comment thread. I can't believe there is someone so badass that they can pull off a Minnie Mouse hairbow. It's very original Chronic sounding.

Via

Just caught much of this interview of Sugar Ray Leonard, on Fresh Air today. (Dave Davies, not Terry Gross, if you're in the anti-purring camp.) Leonard is much more articulate and interesting than the cliche of a punch-drunk ex-boxer led me to expect. If it's convenient, try to catch it today.

Sometimes, I like to remind people who work in marketing to be very careful about offering even the smallest of mail-in rebates.

There's always some schmuck willing to spend forty-four cents on a stamp, just to make you send the measly check (which this time around came in the form of a postcard—a postcard check!).

Last night I attended an acoustic-ish show, and, at one point before a song, the lead singer said, somewhat awkwardly, "This one goes out to all the Geminis in the crowd."

I immediately set myself to thinking of what might be the most unexpected thing to replace "Geminis" with in that sentence. I got about as far as "alpaca farmers" before setting my mind to more important tasks.

But you lot might have a go at it.

This article on Bloggers Vs. Journalists is full of delicious quotes like this one:

The great thing about newspapers is that, love us or hate us, we're the voice of the people. We represent the community, their views, their aspirations and their hopes. We champion North Queensland's wins and we commiserate during our losses...

Bloggers, on the other hand, represent nothing. They whinge, carp and whine about our role in society, and yet they contribute nothing to it, other than satisfying their juvenile egos.

Also, I love it whenever Rosen rails against the journalistic fake-standard of impartiality and he-said/she-said reporting.