zoogs

Yay!! A hearty high five for your Mom. The map is unfavorable, as we always knew, but the fight will be worth it. Fractures in the Republican voting bloc (as we have seen, on numerous occasions) are that much more significant when the seat advantage they have is small.

Yes, there could be -- but maybe those programs don't want to, or aren't equipped to accommodate the additional numbers, and so the "opportunities" created there are a lot less real than in FB. With 105-man rosters in FB, I'm not sure I understand why there's a need to create more roster space, anyway. The bottom line is if they want to do this, there will probably be an easy way, and maybe exactly the one that you mention. Maybe not. Bear in mind what's being done here: putting the pressure on Title IX. Administrators do not tend to like Title IX. Everything would be easier without it, or with some moderated version of it. So they'll frame the issue in such a way that everyone fully understands that it's the women who are ruining things. "Gee, I'd really love to, and as you all know walk-ons are so core to the Nebraska football identity, but you know, this Title IX stuff is just throwing a big ol' wrench into things...we're going to work really hard to try to appease these onerous requirements, because as you know, we're forced to."

Build that wave! Don't give up before the fight.

Shameful SJW Glenn Greenwald fighting the liberal culture war: In 2008 Obama hadn't even directed his labor dept. to require US employers to treat gay employees equal treatment. That was 2010. The bill in question: Good to see Republicans have caught up now, having been in roughly the same place to start with ten years ago.

It's funny that you're here trying to tell me in belittling terms how economics-literate you are when you don't seem to be aware of the (very prominent) opposing argument, expressed earlier by commando. To your second, what on earth are you even trying to say? Less than ten years ago it was a costly political move to come out publicly in favor of same-sex marriage. It's not accurate to say "virtually" every Democrat didn't support it; in fact, it's completely ignorant of the long term advocacy that got us here. It's dishonest to make any sort of equivalency argument between the efforts of Democrats and those of Republicans, many of whom still are extremely against this, even though their presidential candidates are no longer running on amending the constitution to circumscribe it from the definition of marriage. (Y'all have upgraded to "Brown people are dangerous", so congratulations!) If trying to reshape society so that it doesn't view transgender people as mentally ill puts me in the culture war, then I'm glad to have signed up. If yours is the side that staunchly opposes civil liberties, then pretends that everyone was equally opposed to them back then even while continuing to oppose civil liberties, then maybe you're on the wrong one. Or the exact right one, that's up to you.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/blumenthal-law-would-take-guns-from-those-judged-to-be-threats-1519597084 This is a reminder not to be uncritical in our evaluation of all gun control efforts even for those of us most proactive in our support of gun control. This coming from the WSJ, of course it has a headline like that, but then...it's hard to see how it's unfair. This form of gun control may very well be bipartisan. That makes it no more agreeable, and no less dangerous. Yes, this is the NRA, but I agree with the statement. More on the Oregon law: http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/08/oregon_lawmakers_set_out_to_re.html Yes, Post is a Republican, but I agree with him here, too. The avenues we have left ourselves that are bipartisan are not necessarily the right ones. I want to see us reducing the number of guns in circulation -- not choosing people to strip of their property, and especially not when ownership of that particular property is considered a constitutional right. In this case, though, it wouldn't be any better without the 2nd amendment. But I can see how politicians on both sides of the aisle will consider such incursions on individual liberties totally fine, and it worries me.

The Huskerboard Inquisition of Jesuits strikes again. Every now and then we let one slip through the cracks and express a thought. But for the most part we're good at nipping such wickedness in the bud.

These are not that related and I think you'll find the polling to reflect that. I can see why people's views on this can be decoupled. Maybe there's something else you can add here: war. I suspect a lot of people who feel that the state shouldn't carry out executions of its citizens are pretty OK with its military carrying out the bombing of another nation's people.

I misread that as "if the problem is not enough revenue". I don't have a solution to the money in politics problem, although I think one side effect of much heavier taxation at the top is the moderation of the large pools of disposable cash used for lobbying arms.

+1, so much. Thank you for this. I didn't notice this earlier, but the phrase "a woman's misuse of her body while it has a child inside" really cuts to the bone of it. You can argue that there are reasons why it's necessary for society to dictate what ways a woman is allowed to use her body while pregnant, but "respect for women" is not compatible with it. It's, again, rooted in the idea that women who are afforded free reign will do unacceptable things with themselves and must be stopped from this by mandate. The role of a pregnant woman in our society becomes that of a child-producing automaton. And you may not like your advocacy being framed in this way, but those are the consequences of it. Consider yourself lucky to have the luxury of these things being just words that you can choose to think of in a genial light.

Yes! I'd rather we tax the wealthy more.

Uh, a Republican Congress would welcome it and would create some rubric where it's allowed to happen. Trump would probably be cast as the next FDR. Guys, you know what is the solution? Go. Vote.

This is the freedom we crave.

This is an ineffective and actually, selectively harmful view on drugs that was both really obvious during election season and something I'd hope most of us should agree we should steer clear from. The way to do that is to stop voting in the politicians who believe in this stuff. It's no surprise that Trump got Jeff Sessions, a kindred spirit on this matter, as the AG. And the AG's discretion in this area matters.

It is strictly telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies, though -- not merely in the nine months or so of pregnancy, but in the entire transformed shape of her life after that. I understand the perspective, and I've made the patient, nuanced case many times before. I'm here to advocate against it in the most complete and unambiguous of terms. Because I think anything less than that is not enough. It cedes ground on what I think is at the crux of the divide: again, the idea that women, on their own, if permitted, will make unacceptable choices, and that we know better. The heels are already dug in, and it doesn't need to be danced around. I think it's important to indicate that just as some people find abortion monstrous, those of us on the other side find the impulse to control completely unacceptable. Not commendable. There's a lot of "hey, you need to respect the fact that these people think you're monsters, and work with them anyway." Eff that, seriously. We can still work together, on many grounds, but the impasse is there and the feeling is mutual. I don't think this exception needs to be carved out of that answer. This goes to the common Republican refrain of "ripping babies out of wombs" ... like, is this is a thing that happens? Not really. This type of talk tends to dominate the debate because of its shock value, and that's damaging. This really should not be a discussion driven by the exceedingly rare circumstances. It's a care and access to care issue first and foremost, and the blanket shuttering of that access impacts every case.

This is a good example of how decorum can be wielded as a weapon. The normal, polite thing to do is not make a big thing out of it in such a public setting. The normal, polite thing to do is to let these people receive their fossil fuel sector donations in peace and not cause a ruckus. Inertia is powerful, and results in the messed up bizzaro world where letting crazy things continue is moderacy, and those who take a stand are out of line.

Why should football be exempted? Because we like football? Why isn't it football that should be changed (or, in this case, not expanded)?

It's galling that none of the (many!) adults in the room have seen fit to decide the President is not fit for office.

You know who's a 501(c)(4)? The NRA. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/other-non-profits/social-welfare-organizations This is bonkers. I'm a little less sold on the idea of making churches not tax-exempt. I'm very much not religious, and very critical of organized religion, but this seems punitive.

One thing I suppose you don't teach is economics; it turns out that fiscal policy requires better arguments than "it stands to reason". You've even somehow managed to peg Rand Paul (the 'libertarian', remember?) as other from the tax cut wing of the Republican Party.

Buddy! The one who has been triggered here is you. And yeah, of course, the culture wars are fought on each side. Some advocate for diversity and inclusion. Others are in the camp that ten years ago felt one of the most urgent threats society faced was the marriage of two people of the same sex, and today feel it's transgender people using bathrooms, and, apparently (?) sex ed that isn't abstinence-based. Among other things. These noxious ideas need to be fought.

I'm sorry to offend you while you advocate for a society that gets to tell women what is or is not an appropriate use of their bodies. You may find my disgust with this view bothersome -- curiously, while you would like to proudly reclaim the idea that disgust for my view is appropriate and commendable -- but the result, justified or not, is control. At its root is the idea that if left to their own, silly devices, women make wasteful, wrong, monstrous choices, and so the public needs instruments to stop this.

No. It is formed of the patronizing conviction that society can define for women what is a good and what is a “wasteful” use of her life, and results in the dominion over not only her body and will during her pregnancy but also over the course of the entire rest of her life. Most people are happy to become parents, and that’s great. Pregnancy and parenthood should always be by consent, not by the systematic deprivation of agency.

The desire to control a woman’s body is what makes a monster. Right to choose, full stop. And often there are cases where it’s medical necessity — this is also a healthcare issue. And there’s so much here, as many people have mentioned, that we can work together on policy to make better. We all want fewer abortions. People who choose or have to get abortions would rather have avoided the situation in the first place. The gray areas and the corner cases of this issue should not be dominating discussion and nor should it be guiding policy. If you’d never choose an abortion under any circumstance unless you had to, great. More power to you!