...here's a TV report on how to do a TV report:
11 hours ago
Friday, January 29, 2010
A 2-tiered system of religious liberty
A case in California challenges the state's system of recognizing only five faiths -- Protestant Christianity, Catholic Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Native American spirituality -- in authorizing who is to be prison chaplains. (h/t The Wild Hunt)
And a conservative religious organization called the WallBuilders seeks a ruling that reinforces that two-tiered system.
A couple of thoughts...
1) UUs should be (and I'm sure are) part of the coalition seeking to overturn that discriminatory law, purely on grounds of our broader principles. But bluntly, since so many people consider UUs not Christian, I can't help wondering if non-Christian UU chaplains would be rejected too?
2) I can't think of a more appropriate name for the petitioning anti-pagan group than WallBuilders. (Even if that's not how they meant it.)
And a conservative religious organization called the WallBuilders seeks a ruling that reinforces that two-tiered system.
A couple of thoughts...
1) UUs should be (and I'm sure are) part of the coalition seeking to overturn that discriminatory law, purely on grounds of our broader principles. But bluntly, since so many people consider UUs not Christian, I can't help wondering if non-Christian UU chaplains would be rejected too?
2) I can't think of a more appropriate name for the petitioning anti-pagan group than WallBuilders. (Even if that's not how they meant it.)
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Did you know...
...that the blogger and frequent commentator on Middle East matters, Juan Cole, has a UU connection?
(If yes) Well, it was news to me.
(If no) Yeah, I didn't either.
(If yes) Well, it was news to me.
(If no) Yeah, I didn't either.
How to write a blog post
A step-by-step guide.
(H/t: Andrew Sullivan)
Update: Read the comments, too. But swallow your beverage and don't take another sip before you open the link.
(H/t: Andrew Sullivan)
Update: Read the comments, too. But swallow your beverage and don't take another sip before you open the link.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Less sex ed, more pregnant kids
That's the headline on this Salon story: 'A 2006 spike in teen parenthood coincides with increased abstinence-only sex education.'
And this comment gets the prize for best comment ever.
And then, there's this story about so-called "sexting". It's horrifying.
And this comment gets the prize for best comment ever.
And then, there's this story about so-called "sexting". It's horrifying.
Is this a phony story? (Updated)
Lenore Skenazy at Free Range Kids tweeted this, which is how I found it:
"Advert for 'reliable workers' banned as discrimination..."
(Lenore has had an eagle eye out for British nannyism, especially for policies such as one that makes a silly assumption that all men are pedophiles.)
So I read the story from the Telegraph on the "banned" job advertisement. If I were the city editor who was handed that story, I'd be kicking it back to the reporter:
1) Spokespeople for something called "The Campaign Against Political Correctness" and for the job placement agency involved are never named. Now, maybe that's some weird British journalism convention. I think it's just sloppy reporting.
2) I get no sense that the job agency was pressed for more information about broader policies on job ads.
3) The story is completely fuzzy on exactly how the ad ran. First, the headline says it was "banned." Then the story says that the placement agency employee who "claimed that the job centre could be sued by unreliable people if they placed the advert ... told Ms Mamo it will remain on their website."
4) So was it banned or wasn't it? And if it did run, was the offending language included or not? Basic facts that simply should be there...aren't.
5) More to the point, the job agency spokesperson (again -- no name!?) -- seems to deny the whole thing happened (although she declines to discuss the specific incident): “Reliability is important to employers, as it is for Jobcentre Plus -- and we welcome ads seeking reliable applicants.”
I went looking at the job website to see if I could find the listing in question. I didn't. But I did find one that included "reliability" as a desired quality.
Something just doesn't smell right here. It makes me wonder if it's another case of not letting the facts get in the way of a good story...
Update
I just checked back on the story. I'm wishing I'd printed it out as I linked to it this morning, because it looks to me like some of it has changed. Some of the phrasing I saw and highlighted above now appears to be missing.
For the heck of it, I also Googled the words discrimination against unreliable and saw, predictably, that the story has lit up the intertubes.I have yet to find any skepticism toward it.
One element that appears to have not been clear before may be that the ad was allowed on the Web but not on a job board at the agency for walk-in clients. But the inconsistencies I noted earlier still exist.
Update No. 2
Oh frabjous day! I did find a skeptic -- after I added the word hoax to the string above.
Update No. 3
And another one!
"Advert for 'reliable workers' banned as discrimination..."
(Lenore has had an eagle eye out for British nannyism, especially for policies such as one that makes a silly assumption that all men are pedophiles.)
So I read the story from the Telegraph on the "banned" job advertisement. If I were the city editor who was handed that story, I'd be kicking it back to the reporter:
1) Spokespeople for something called "The Campaign Against Political Correctness" and for the job placement agency involved are never named. Now, maybe that's some weird British journalism convention. I think it's just sloppy reporting.
2) I get no sense that the job agency was pressed for more information about broader policies on job ads.
3) The story is completely fuzzy on exactly how the ad ran. First, the headline says it was "banned." Then the story says that the placement agency employee who "claimed that the job centre could be sued by unreliable people if they placed the advert ... told Ms Mamo it will remain on their website."
4) So was it banned or wasn't it? And if it did run, was the offending language included or not? Basic facts that simply should be there...aren't.
5) More to the point, the job agency spokesperson (again -- no name!?) -- seems to deny the whole thing happened (although she declines to discuss the specific incident): “Reliability is important to employers, as it is for Jobcentre Plus -- and we welcome ads seeking reliable applicants.”
I went looking at the job website to see if I could find the listing in question. I didn't. But I did find one that included "reliability" as a desired quality.
Something just doesn't smell right here. It makes me wonder if it's another case of not letting the facts get in the way of a good story...
Update
I just checked back on the story. I'm wishing I'd printed it out as I linked to it this morning, because it looks to me like some of it has changed. Some of the phrasing I saw and highlighted above now appears to be missing.
For the heck of it, I also Googled the words discrimination against unreliable and saw, predictably, that the story has lit up the intertubes.
One element that appears to have not been clear before may be that the ad was allowed on the Web but not on a job board at the agency for walk-in clients. But the inconsistencies I noted earlier still exist.
Update No. 2
Oh frabjous day! I did find a skeptic -- after I added the word hoax to the string above.
Update No. 3
And another one!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
