Fox News referrer test

@Althouse, I did a bit of testing and I think it may be possible to get links to fox to work by adding the following attribute to the link rel="noreferrer"

test referrer

test noreferrer

Mistaken Identity

It’s This happened in college.

I was volunteering at an after-school program for kids at a local church in a primarily black community. The program included tutoring, activities and a short assembly at the end with songs and a quick message. During an assembly one day, I was sitting in a row behind three kids. They were a bit distracted, talking and playing out of turn.

Either I tried to quiet them down or they happened to look back at me. 

“He’s the guy!”

“Are you sure?”

“He’s got a beard and glasses!”

“Oh no!”

To me:

“You tried to kill us with your car!”

“What sort of car do you drive?

—

A couple days earlier, I came upstairs from my basement room to overhear the end of a story another student was telling some of my housemates. He had come over to work on a class project with them and was telling them how he had been washing his car recently in a parking lot near a school. A group of kids coming from a convenience store started throwing their trash at him and his car. Enraged, he jumped in his car and started chasing after the kids in his car. He started chasing them around the flagpole at the school several times. Eventually, he drove off. My roommates told him that’s the sort of story you keep to yourself.

—

As I was being bombarded with these accusations, his story came to mind, but I couldn’t imagine how someone could confuse the two of us. He’s scrawny and I was 240 lbs. In broad strokes, we have some similar characteristics: the glasses and beard, we’re both tall, white and have brown hair. But standing side by side, there’s no way you’d confuse us for each other.

I stuttered, “I drive a white Buick. That was someone else!”

You might have guessed that didn’t help matters. By now, we’re creating quite a scene. The pastor came over and I tried to explain to him what was happening. He directed the kids and me to his office to try to resolve the issue.

 In his office, I tried to explain the situation, but the kids were getting more agitated and said they’re going to go get their family. The pastor asked me to hold the door so he could try to calm the kids down.

I briefly did so, but pretty quickly realized that was only making things worse and let go of the door. The kids bolted out of the office and the church and ran across the street to their family. Pretty soon, I heard their mom and older brother shouting angrily. They came over to the church and started hashing things out with the pastor.

I was pretty shaken up and slipped out the back door of the church, and sat down on the steps for awhile until things had settled down inside and they had left.

I went back in and gave the pastor a more complete report of what had happened and went home.

He later called me and told me they wanted to know who it was that I claimed had actually chased them. I told him I wouldn’t give that information to them directly but would be willing to talk to the police about the situation. So he set up a meeting with the mom and the principal of the school. At that meeting, I explained my story to the mom and reiterated that I would talk to the police about the situation but would not give names directly to the family. 

She tried calling a police officer who had earlier taken her report about the case. The officer didn’t respond but I left a message for him. I didn’t receive a call back from the officer and left him another message a few days later, which he didn’t return either. 

I won’t try to draw too much of a conclusion from this story. There are many different aspects to analyze here. This incident could no doubt be viewed in light of broader societal themes, but I experienced it as an individual and throughout the experience, I tried to focus on treating others as I would want to be treated and I think the other adults involved were able to do that as well. That doesn’t mean the tension caused by our country’s history of racial wrong wasn’t present. But as we interact with each other, we all have to work to get past that and view each other as individuals. Individuals, to be sure, whose experiences and perspectives have been colored by that history, but still individuals.

—

What happened to Ahmaud Arbery should never have happened. His killers must be held responsible. But when we hear of stories like this, I think we need to be careful to treat them as stories involving individuals. Of course, there are broader themes present, but it’s all too easy to let those themes distract us from understanding what happened as primarily between individuals.

In favor of restricting abortion

This is a response to an article written by a friend on Facebook, "I'm Pro-Life, And I HATE Alabama's Abortion Ban For These 8 Reasons".

1. "No one WANTS an abortion"
Under normal circumstances, I don't want to have a tooth extracted, but if I'm in pain because of it I very much do.

There are roughly 600,000 abortions per year in the US and about 3,000,000 live births. For many of those abortions, someone wanted the abortion more than they wanted to give birth, not because it was medically necessary. Of course they didn't get pregnant so they could have an abortion, but those abortions were choices made by people who thought abortion was the most expedient solution to their problem. In some cases, there may have been a justifiable reason, but there is absolutely moral responsibility for many of those decisions regardless of contributing factors unlike having a bad tooth pulled.

2. "Personal hypocrisy"

The wrongs of individual politicians have no bearing on the rightness or wrongness of a particular position. Any pro-lifer would find such a politician discredited but would not imagine that it weakens the case for abortion restrictions.

Jesus told people "Go and sin no more" while also extending God's grace to sinful humanity. He also said he did not come to destroy the law. He never said there should not be earthly punishment for sins that harm others.

3. "Ethical hypocrisy"

I have no clue what the numbers are for pro-lifers who support IVF. But there are definitely vocal pro-lifers who are opposed to IVF. See "The IVF Needle Baby" by John Stonestreet and Roberto Rivera, for example.

There are times when it's legal to kill another person. Such as self-defense. That is not usually considered illogical because the killer responded to a situation instead of creating one.

Similarly, a law that makes an exception for rape acknowledges that a woman was not responsible for the situation. Regardless, it still punishes the new life for something it was not responsible for either. That's why you'll see some pro-lifers oppose exceptions. And they are condemned for it and fired from their jobs (see Kevin Williamson and The Atlantic).

Again, in the case of the life of the mother (ectopic pregnancy, for example), an exception is acknowledging the limitations of a simplistic rule and making room for mitigating factors.

Fundamentally, many pro-lifers are approaching this pragmatically, with the goal of reducing abortion as much as possible without trying to handle every hard case and side issue. That doesn't mean they hate women because they are focusing on the most prominent issue.

4. "Misogyny"

Men are already on the hook for child support. Period. They can be deadbeats and refuse to pay, but they are on the hook. Courts will garnish their wages. Walter Scott was shot in the back by police after he ran during a routine traffic stop, likely because he owed child support. To claim laws banning abortion would leave men free of responsibility for child support is just wrong.

You raised "stealthing" as a way men can surreptitiously impregnate women but completely discount the possibility of a woman secretly impregnating herself from a used condom. I'm sorry, but this destroys the credibility of your argument here.

Pro-lifers do believe in male responsibility. That many men (and women) don't behave responsibly doesn't mean pro-lifers don't want men held accountable for their decisions. This is a key reason many pro-lifers teach abstinence until marriage.

5. "Pro-lifers OPPOSE immediate abortion preventative measures"

There is a lot of variation within the pro-life community on this. Some pro-lifers (and even pro-choicers) might oppose government-funded or mandated, insurance-funded birth control much as they might oppose government-funded toilet paper because they think it's neither a proper nor efficient role of government.

And government-funded toilet paper could drastically reduce the spread of disease by promoting good hygiene! They may claim to be anti-disease, but their hypocrisy is shining through on this issue! I can't take them seriously until they start demanding free toilet paper.

Ok, that's just one group. Other pro-lifers do support many forms of birth control and use it themselves. Some object to the promotion of birth control, not to its use. They believe that promoting birth control will encourage risky, hormone-driven, irresponsible sex. Others believe sex is meant for procreation and don't want to do anything to interfere with that. Some might not like hormonal or surgical options.

But personal opposition to birth control isn't the same thing as wanting to keep others from using birth control. I don't know of any pro-lifers who want to outlaw birth control. The debate mostly centers around whether it should be publicly funded and promoted.

6. "Pro-lifers oppose LONGTERM abortion preventative measures"

"If you don't buy this magazine, we'll kill this dog".

The argument here is a form of extortion. No one would say burglary shouldn't be a crime unless we are willing to support house-breakers financially.

And yet, there are many pro-life organizations dedicated to helping mothers through unexpected pregnancies. There are families who personally tackle the issue by adopting. There are counseling services. Not supporting specific policies is not the same as not working to help women in difficult situations.

7. "When you ban abortions without addressing the underlying causes, women DIE."

Unfortunately, some women will likely die due to unsafe conditions. However, the statistics on this are not as clear cut as they are sometimes portrayed. Most of the deaths of women who had abortion procedures before it was legalized in the US occurred before antibiotics were developed.

It's illegal to drink and drive. You might kill yourself or others doing so. If you die doing so, I would mourn your passing but would not change my opinion on the benefits of DUI laws.

8. "Pro-lifers' singleminded focus on their goal is destroying their chance of reaching it."

Perhaps true. I think this concern is why many pro-lifers support exceptions for rape and health of the mother. Also why the latest bills use heart beat as the defining point rather than fertilization or implantation and put IVF to the side. But such views were attacked as as hypocritical in point 3.

Abortion is taking a life. Very few can stomach the idea of an elective 3rd trimester abortion as it blurs the line with infanticide. But what really is the threshold at which we consider a developing pregnancy a new life? Ultimately, apart from rape, a woman and a man made the choice together to potentially create a new life, whether or not they intended to or took precautions to prevent it, with full knowledge of that potential.

To say that it is hypocritical or misogynistic or that we're not doing enough to support them in that situation is ignoring the main issue. No one WANTS an abortion? Yes some do, more than they want to take care of the new life they started.

The Truth

This questions and answer with Jordan Peterson is great.
Jordan Peterson - Ask me anything

Hypocrites

I'm a hypocrite in many of my opinions. I think most of us are. And I'd rather talk about your hypocrisy.

The Problem with Privilege

Talking about privilege is not empowering. Privilege requires permission. You don't need my permission to prosper.

Obamacare, Bankruptcy, and Cherry-picking Statistics

Megan McArdle is one of the clearest and most thoughtful analysts on healthcare. She writes without resorting to moralizing, outrage or ad-hominem. Here, she writes about the current problems with Obamacare and why the Republican plan might make things worse.

John Gruber (a tech blogger) recently posted about dramatically decreasing bankruptcy rates as a positive result of Obamacare. Bankruptcies were down over 50%!

It's good to see the costs and benefits of government programs and regulations so we can weigh their overall usefulness. But then I looked at the report from Consumer Reports that Gruber was touting.

Turns out the range of the bankruptcy data was from 2009 to present. That's such a blatant example of cherry-picking it's hard to believe it wasn't intentional. Gruber is best when he sticks to technology.

Here's a more complete data set from ABI (specifically, "Quarterly Non Business Filings by Chapter (1994-Present)"). The current rate is very similar to 1994 (the earliest year reported by ABI), though it has gone up and come back down a couple times in the meantime. Notably, in 2006 and 2007, the rates were also very similar to the current rates. Something happened in 2008 (hmm, what could that have been) that caused the rates to spike and we can see that the rates were already coming down in 2010 before Obamacare was implemented. Interestingly, there was a dramatic drop in the bankruptcy rates in the mid-2000s. I'd love to know what caused the rise from 1994 and the sharp drop around 2005.

This makes me think that we shouldn't stigmatize bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is meant as a safety net for those who experience major setbacks in life. We are upset when we see it abused by those taking unnecessary risks but we should appreciate that it is also a good way to help people recover after truly extraordinary challenges. Not everyone can afford medical insurance (especially in its current form). Bankruptcy might be a more efficient way to protect them from impossible costs than to try to insure them.

Looked at from this perspective, insurance is really just a way to shield the medical industry from the risks of bankruptcy. If the medical industry were made to take on some of the risks of non-paying customers, it might be encouraged to control costs more. As it is, there is little incentive for medical professionals to limit the cost of care if the patients are not paying directly.

Of course, insurance companies can negotiate rates down, but they will almost always pay something, and probably more than a patient would pay on their own. My insurance was charged over $300 for a checkup where a nurse recorded my vitals and the doctor came in for five minutes to listen to my chest and give a few basic suggestions for healthy living. I only had to pay $20.

If patients with insurance are not much concerned with how much their doctor charges the insurance company as long as they only have to pay the copay, a patient without insurance may not pay much at all if they have to file for bankruptcy. So universal insurance can only provide limited downward pressure on costs while bankruptcy forces doctors and hospitals to focus on controlling costs.