■ If you think that stand-up comics have difficulty coming up with fresh material, consider Proverbs 20:23:
23 The Lord detests differing weights,
and dishonest scales do not please him.
If you're experiencing déjà vu, there's a good reason: the Proverbialist said the same thing just 13 verses earlier:
10 Differing weights and differing measures—
the Lord detests them both.
OK, we get it, Mr. Consumer Reports.
■ More University antics: Texas Southern University president storms into student event, shuts down speech. The TSU Federalist Society had invited Texas state Rep. Briscoe Cain to speak. The event was initially disrupted by student protesters, but campus cops escorted them out. The speech continued until…
Then [TSU] President [Austin] Lane, accompanied by Democratic state Sen. Boris Miles, entered the room. Rep. Cain, a Republican, then exited the room and president Lane invited the protesters back into the room.
Mission accomplished, speech censors!
President Lane's quoted remarks invoked "time, place, and manner" regulation—at least four times—as an excuse for the shutdown. See if you can fit his reasoning in with this explanation of time/place/matter regulation. And see if you can guess how a court case might come out.
■ So I haven't gotten too excited about the Harvey Weinstein thing, because the hypocritical pervyness lurking behind the thin, shiny veneer of the entertainment industry is not exactly shocking to anyone paying attention. But people, like Roger L. Simon, are making some interesting observations: Harvey Weinstein Has Destroyed Hollywood -- Now What?
Hollywood’s politics have always been a self-serving charade, a liberal masquerade for a rapacious and lubricious lifestyle. But now, thanks to the Weinstein scandal, we see it more clearly than ever. And it couldn't be more repellent. (I had always thought Bill Clinton would have made the greatest studio executive of all time. Now I'm convinced of it.)
■ @JonahNRO casts a somewhat wider net: The Harvey Weinstein Scandal Leaves a Trail of Hypocrisy. Specifically, after noting the selective courage of stars who "bravely" spoke out about Trump while giving Weinstein a pass:
So far, many right-wing readers are probably nodding along to this
column. Well, stop. If you never spoke up about Trump, or if you
responded to those accusations with a dismissive, “What about Bill
Clinton?” you should probably just sit this one out.
Because if you decry piggish behavior only when it helps your side, or if you think accusers are telling the truth only when they speak up about people you hate (or don’t need professionally), then you don’t actually care about sexual harassment.
Jonah's right: a lot of folks have forfeited their membership in the Morality Police by looking the other way when members of their political tribe misbehaved.
■ At Reason, Jacob Sullum asks: Does Reproductive Freedom Mean Forcing People to Sin?
Last Friday the Trump administration unveiled regulations that let a wider range of employers claim a religious exemption from the Obamacare mandate requiring health plans to cover birth control. Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) responded by invoking The Handmaid's Tale, the Margaret Atwood novel, now a Hulu series, set in a patriarchal dystopia where the government controls women's bodies and forbids them to read, write, or work outside the home.
Lowey is not the only critic of the new regulations who conflates freedom from coercion with a right to forcibly extracted subsidies. Such overwrought reactions obscure the real issue raised by religious exceptions to the contraceptive mandate: When does respect for religious freedom require relieving some people of the obligation to obey rules that everyone else has to follow?
Sullum does a fine job delineating the areas of controversy in a short column.
■ And Gregg Easterbrook, the Tuesday Morning Quarterback, didn't watch the games this week. (He has a good excuse.) But he makes a decent argument as to why we should Ban Youth Football. After summarizing recent research:
Such research suggests a bright line. Organized tackle football
before age twelve does engage tremendous neurological risk; but
don’t start football until middle school and the sport’s
neurological hazards are roughly the same as those associated with
soccer, diving, and bicycling. Maybe someday soccer, diving,
bicycling, and football all will be banned as too dangerous. Based
on what’s known today, football is not notably more dangerous—so
long as you don’t start until middle school age.
If youth tackle football were abolished by legislation—or if parents and guardians refused to allow young children to join full-pads leagues and endure helmet-to-helmet hits—the societal harm caused by football would decline dramatically.
I find Easterbrook's argument pretty convincing, but see what you think.