As riveting as the sport can be at its most intense moments, baseball’s primary activities are the pitcher staring at the catcher to decide what to throw and the batter stepping in and out of the batter’s box. It doesn’t have to be that way.
May we suggest two simple rule changes: Once batters step into the box, they shouldn’t be allowed to step out. Otherwise it’s a strike. If no one is on base, pitchers get seven seconds to throw the next pitch. Otherwise it’s a ball.
For many countries, one response has been welfare-to-work programs, in which advisors meet with job seekers to help them find the right employment opportunities. With over $600 billion spent annually on unemployment benefits and programs within the OECD, improving the system for compensating the unemployed and moving them back to work can save billions of dollars, as well as boosting economic growth. And much as the private sector has widely adopted segmentation strategies—dividing customers into distinct groups and personalizing products and services to match each one—governments are likewise finding that welfare-to-work programs are well suited to the approach.
In the current cases these distinctions between corporate forms are meaningless. The Constitution’s free-exercise clause does not evaporate when someone forms a faith-based for-profit corporation. Can the government compel a Jewish deli not to be kosher? The radical implication of the White House argument is that the Constitution doesn’t apply to commercial activity.
If the mandate is overturned, birth control will continue to be widely available and at low cost for all Americans. Nine of 10 health plans already cover contraception, and business owners would gain no right to interfere with the choice of their workers to use or not use it. But no one would be required by law to violate their deepest religious convictions.
We no longer have one, and haven’t for more than two decades. Fewer and fewer debate coaches are communication scholars, which is fine because Communication Departments don’t consider us anything more than the bastard cousins who show up at the family reunion piss-drunk and demanding more potato salad. Our activity long ago (40 years?) lost any resemblance to a public speaking event attracting outside audiences. The problem is we vacated that academic space without being able to find a home anywhere else. Despite the pious assumptions of some with “policy” in mind, we are not a legitimate “research” community of scholars. The “portable skills” we currently engrain in our students via practice are: all sources are equivalent, no need for qualifications; “quoting” a source simply means underlining ANY words found ANYWHERE in the document, context and intent are irrelevant; and we are the only group outside of Faux News that believes one’s argument is improved by taking every point of logic to its most absurd extreme. Simply put, 99.9% of the speech docs produced in debates would receive no better than a C (more likely F) in any upper division undergraduate research-based class. Comically, we are the public speaking research activity that is atrocious at oral persuasion and woefully in violation of any standard research practices. But this letter is not intended to bury Debate, even though it’s hard to praise it in its current state. Before any peace treaty ending the Paradigm Wars can be signed and ratified, an honest appraisal of where Debate fits in the Academy is necessary.
The Danish company has an unusual method of filling this position. Rather than conducting formal interviews, Lego invites the most promising applicants to its headquarters to sketch and build Lego sets in front of a panel of senior designers.
None of this is to say, obviously, that taxing people at a rate of 100% wouldn’t be a gross moral wrong. I wouldn’t even deny that it would be wrong for many of the same reasons that slavery is wrong. But it’s not the same thing. And it’s not anywhere close to the same magnitude of wrong.
Early last week, the District of Columbia found it had forgotten to include anti-scalping language in its big rewrite of the part of the municipal code that also governs food trucks, effectively legalizing the practice — by accident. Officials promised that the situation would be rectified promptly. But they never answered the question: Wait, why do D.C. and dozens of states still restrict scalping in the first place?