This page about sums up where we are on ecigarettes. It’s a news article about a cancer institute that’s somewhat optimistic about ecigarettes that plans to study them… with various “Related” stories embedded with figurative ominous music about their menace.

Statewide minimum wage pre-emption bills are a bad idea for the same reason that setting too high a statewide minimum wage is a bad idea. Different places have different needs, and I think we can handle some patchwork.

Megan McArdle says that the Panama Papers actually reflect pretty well on capitalism, and mostly reflects well on weak institutions and corruption.

Hearing that there was talk of Mayim Bialik being underpaid relative to Kelly Cuoco on Big Bang Theory had me prepared to say “Cry me a river” to Bialik because she is secondary cast, but she’s actually pretty gracious and that’s actually a really hard pay gap to justify. Hopefully she negotiates something better.

Proposed labor reforms in France are not going over well. Even worse, economic unrest is causing alcohol abuse.

Marine Major Mark Thompson (no relation) believes – credibly – that his military trial for rape was badly flawed. He’s fighting it hard. There’s only one problem…

If you’re a smart dude, women in STEM careers may not be the optimal place to look for a partner.

Sweden has a national phone number, which you can call to talk to a random Swede. I don’t know why I consider this such a neat idea since I can’t imagine I would ever do this and I don’t know who would. Maybe a journalist who needs a “word on the street” on some upcoming election?

I don’t think this is how population distribution works. (Or, for that matter, anti-discrimination law?)

In response to a previously linkied piece by Eli Lake on the French police state, Todd Seavey argues that domestic and foreign force cannot be so easily separated.

Unlike some scoffers, I actually think union exemptions to minimum wage have a decent rationale, but I can understand the resentment here.

My daughter is, unfortunately, at the age where I have to watch what I’m watching around her.

An interview with Johnathon Schaech, who you may recognize as the asshole lead singer on That Thing You Do, but is also known for being Ellen Degeneres’s fake boyfriend prior to her coming out.

Outside of Austin, they’re building a village for the homeless with some kind of nice and neat houses.

Since I periodically link to articles on the overaggressiveness of child protective agencies, it’s only fair to link to one where they did absolutely nothing except maybe help cover things up.

I hadn’t heard of the Vyapam Scam in India before. Oy.

A long while back, I jotted a short post comparing the treatment of two coaches at the University of Texas. Football offensive coordinator (at the time) Major Applewhite was caught having sex with a student and was let off with a slap on the wrist. This was revealed when track coach Bev Kearney was caught having sex with one of her runners and summarily fired. This was presented as something of a double-standard on account of sexual-orientation or race, and maybe it was to some extent. But there were also some rather critical differences. Specifically, the student that Applewhite had sex with was not under him in any organizational chart, while Kearney was the coach of the student in question.

Counterfactuals are hard. My view of the Applewhite situation was that he benefited greatly not only because of the org chart but because he was something of a hero who had stored up a lot of goodwill while that’s not the case with Kearney. I don’t honestly think that sexual orientation played a roll with Kearney, though, because coaches having sex with players is something that you just don’t do and get to keep your job. Or do they?

We finally have something closer to an apple-to-apple comparison on at least part of the equation. Louisiana Tech coach women’s basketball head coach Tyler Summitt has resigned upon the revelation that he had a relationship with one of his players:

“It is with great regret that I resign from my position as head coach of the women’s basketball program at Louisiana Tech University,” he said in a statement released by the university Thursday. “I am profoundly disappointed in myself for engaging in a relationship that has negatively affected the people I love, respect and care about the most.

“My hope, plans and prayers are to repair those relationships. I am appreciative of the opportunity I was given to coach at Louisiana Tech. I am heartbroken that my time has ended in Ruston, [Louisiana], but because of my respect for the institution, it is best that I resign. I am hopeful the media and the public will respect the privacy of my family and me as we deal with this difficult situation I have caused.”

This is a resignation rather than a firing, but it was the obvious result. Unlike Applewhite, Summitt was not a hero at Louisiana Tech, but the Summitt is a big name in college basketball to the point that the storied Louisiana Tech women’s basketball program* was willing to hire him at the crisp young age of 25. There also may be a pregnancy involved.

So yeah, if you’re a coach at the collegiate level, straight or gay and black or white, don’t have a sexual relationship with your players.

* – I’m not being sarcastic. There are only three women’s programs that have won over 1,000 games, and Louisiana Tech is one of them. Another is Tennessee, where Tyler Summitt’s mother alone racked up over 1,000 wins.

I’ve hit the big time! There is a parody account of me on Twitter! Came about in a conversation where I was complaining about parody Twitter accounts on Twitter, and most specifically that they often use the same avatar as the real account.

Notably, the parody has over five times the number of followers I do.

Gotta figure out a way to make bank here.

This doesn’t make sense. I’ve been informed repeatedly that the left-wing lurch of young people has nothing to do with youthful exuberance untethered by sufficient life experience.

In Canada, one cost of nationalized health care is that they become more selective about who they let into the country.

Oh, Hillaryoutlawed it.

The progress of unisex bathrooms took a hit at the University of Toronto.

Supporters of raising the minimum wage argue that low minimum wages are a drain on the public coffers. True, though so can high minimum wages.

Excellent: Scott Walker signed a bill allowing for alternative certification for vocational educators.

Resolved, boring and dependable guys are the best.

Massachusetts is going after ITT Tech! The venerable institution decided that, among anything, janitorial work counts as IT because there were computers at the facility.

Though there was a lot to like about Obama’s plan for making colleges accountable, this was the sort of thing I was concerned about. (Now, if we could just incentivizing not allowing weaker students, rather than just poorer ones, that could work.) (But, of course, that runs contrary to certain aspirations.)

I guess I’m glad to know it’s not just American parents who are crazy.

Well this seems about right. As when Rincewind falling off the side of the Discworld, what else is there to do?

I think they certainly have their limitations and liabilities of small-rooms-large-commons housing, but I don’t quite think this level of animosity is justified. And really, to the extent that we can get people to buy in, I think this sort of thing should be encouraged.

Hey, look, every feminist right-wing thought I have ever had about the sexual dynamics of young poeple has just been confirmed. {Somewhat related}

Cool kid problems: According to The Guardian, Portland is experiencing an affordability crisis that could prove to be an existential one.

This month, it was really odd to watch a rhetorical contagious appear out from the void and suddenly start appearing anywhere:

@libbycwatson I don't know but my one year old son watching Trump just now said "They all promise to move the embassy, but they never do it!

— Christopher Hayes (@chrislhayes) March 21, 2016

Counterpoint: no she didn't. https://t.co/R6Fhl2RUYV

— Freddie deBoer (@freddiedeboer) March 21, 2016

It was really kind of weird. To answer Watson’s question as to when this became a thing, it was during the Republican debate before the New Hampshire primary. At least, that was when I first saw it. Everyone claimed that their x-year old child entered the room and noticed that Rubio was repeating himself. Coincidentally, Rubio repeating himself is exactly what everyone on Twitter was talking about.

So why did this particular thing take hold? The most obvious answer is that it was a quick way to convey that it’s not just political geeks on Twitter noticing Rubio’s repetition. It’s a tihng! If my ten year old kid is noticing, then this must be really bad for Rubio! It was, of course, bad for Rubio. It’s less clear, though, that it was the debate performance itself than the news coverage afterwards. But if eight year old kids around the Twitterverse are to be believed, it was noticeable by just about anyone who happened to be entering the room.

It’s still an interesting tack nonetheless. Especially given that it, as demonstrated above, continued afterwards. That people will use others as a device is not surprising. That’s the way people are. But why filter complex political issues through children who are least likely to understand them. Partially, I would guess, a desire for simplicity. It’s so simple that Rubio is a robot or whatever. That Trump is a “scary man.” And it feeds into this notion that children are especially enlightened in a way, able to see through all of the bullspit we erect.

Politics seems increasingly geared towards simplistic narratives. I mean, it’s always been the case that we like our stories simple, but with realignment last decade occurring primarily along culture war lines rather than strong adherence to ideology (to whatever extent that was ever the case) and economics. This is not just a US phenomenon. Over fifteen years ago, George W Bush achieved the presidency largely through cultural affectation. This year, in Canada, Justin Trudeau has done the same. There are the saved and the damned. White hats and black hats.

Nobody understands that better than kids do.

Branson’s Virgin America airlines might be gobbled up by Alaska Air. Virgin loyalists will likely be disappointed, but Alaska Air is the best airline around.

Academic tracking is branded as racist by some, but it’s good for minority honor students.

I support localized minimum wages in part because a lot of the jobs affected are not those that can easily be relocated. When you’re talking about a statewide $15/hr minimum wage, though, you’re talking about over 1/3 of the manufacturing jobs in California.

Even if Trump is thwarted, I don’t think I’ll ever forgive the Trumpkins for driving me to vote for Ted Cruz. To be honest, I am still not sure whether he is a phony careerist or a genuine maniac.

If you care about smoking, drinking, and vaping, here’s a helpful index on where in Europe you should live.

Accusations are flying that through “acting workshops,” actors are being forced to pay for auditions. {via Saul}

how-to-hack-an-election/”>hacking elections in Latin America for a while. If the Trump era passes, maybe the GOP should give him a call.

We really, really hate each other. Relatedly, Alan Jacobs riffs off Scott Alexander’s seminal piece on hating the outgroup.

I’ll confess, I was hoping this article would be about Saddam-like body doubles for Ted Cruz.

Melvin Rogers argues that civility matters.

The UK is moving closer to mini-nuclear.

Bren Smith says that seas will save us! Well, more specifically, ocean farming.

Join the Wizard’s Chill Quest. If he’s a wizard, though, why does he need a Kickstarter?

I sort of want to go to this impersonating a Monsanto executive to give Rearden’s speech from Atlas Shrugged.

Vigilantism! With drones! Not sure it’s actual vigilantism, but it’s certainly interesting. Other sex-worker “vigilantism,” though, may be backfiring.

I’m reading a book on parenting difficult children (I love Lain, but we have a difficulty problem). I may have some more thoughts on the book to share at a later date, but there was one disconnected tidbit I wanted to share. The author, John Rosemond, was trying to make the case that parents should not ask their children questions that (a) the parent knows the answer to and (b) the child doesn’t want to answer. In the specific context of the book, it was “Do you have chewing gum in your mouth?” and the rationale against this is that the child will lie or evade answering and it creates unnecessary drama. Instead, the parent should simply say “You have chewing gum in your mouth and you need to spit it out.” It’s a fair point, within certain constraints. But I found the example he used to be kind of funny:

If a state trooper pulled you over and asked, “Excuse me, but were you speeding?” would you admit it if you had been? C’mon! Be honest! The closest you’d come to telling the truth would be, “I don’t think so.” That’s why state troopers, when they pull you over, simply say, “I stopped you because you were speeding.” If they ask no questions, speeders are far less likely to tell lies.

I found this funny because, well, isn’t it the case that the cops always ask you a question when they approach you? That question isn’t “Were you speeding?” but rather “Do you know why I pulled you over?”

The rationale, from what I understand, is that if you give the correct reason, you’re going to have a hard time denying it later. Or something like that. Apparently the question has gone out of style, but I think a lot of cops never got the memo if that’s the case.

In response to a hate crime, a German soccer team digitally altered a photo of their team to make the players appear black to “make it clear that [players who were victims of hateful acts] are an inherent part of our team, and not a minority on whom you can use violence to let off your personal frustration.” Which naturally lead to some concern:

Is this ever a good idea? After two of their teammates were victimized by what the club called a racist attack, members of Deinster SV posted a photo showing their faces digitally altered to make them appear black skinned. The highly questionable bit of photoshopping actually came from a good place – their teammates are Sudanese refugees and the players wrote on their Facebook page:

“Violence against refugees is pathetic. Emad and Amar, you are one of us just like everyone else and we’re happy you are with us.”

In fairness to the players, their post has more than 17,000 responses on Facebook, almost all of which are positive. But a few commenters couldn’t help but note that even this well-intentioned gesture hits a little too close to home for some.

The author asks “Is this ever a good idea?”

Well, in the US it’s certainly not. Not ever. The thing is, though, that this wasn’t the US. We were not the target audience. The African-American population here that understandably objects to blackface was not the audience here. Whether they should have done it, or not, is not especially our business. Or, more precisely, it is not up to a German soccer team to conform to our sensibilities. If the applicable population in Germany feels the same way, then the team ought to apologize. If a bunch of people half the world away, who were neither the targets of derision or sympathy object, it’s not really our business any more than a swastika in India.

We have a very specific history with blackface, as outlined in the article. Though I sort of take exception to the example of Aloha (wherein, from what I understand, looking white was an intended part of the character), we have a history of minstrels and mockery. Does Germany have that history? Or is the blackface more associated with the Dutch holiday? The article simply doesn’t say, and we’re not really qualified to fill in all of the blankis.

There are other cases where maybe we can get involved, but only if we own some ownership over the situation. Telling Southern Italy “Hey, it’s actually not cool to use the Confederate Flag like that” is somewhere between entirely appropriate or understandable. It’s our symbol. Even then, there should be a degree of mutual understanding that it doesn’t quite mean to them what it means to us. But somebody’s gotta tell them, if they don’t know. If they do? Well, there’s global multiculturalism for you, I guess.

They sort of admit the context angle at the end, but nonetheless close with “our cultural referees to pull out a red card in protest” as though it’s our business to be referees in this particular case.

Connecticut is looking at instituting a Yale Tax. Specifically, a tax on endowments for universities meeting certain qualifications. Basically, Yale.

Taking a suggestion from Yale alum Walter Olson, Ira Stoll argues that the university should consider relocating to Boston. Boston? Meh. That might help with the tax situation, and he makes some other arguments, but on the whole seems penny-wise and pound-foolish and ignores other Yale issues.

Florida Governor Rick Scott has extended an invitation:

Florida Governor Rick Scott on Tuesday called on Yale University to consider a move south if Connecticut legislators follow through on a proposal to tax the net investment profits of the university’s $25.6 billion endowment. {…}

“With news that the Connecticut Legislature wants to unfairly tax one of the nation’s most renowned universities to deal with the state’s budget shortfall, it is clear that all businesses in Connecticut, including Yale, should look to move to Florida,’’ Scott said. {…}

“If Connecticut lawmakers are seriously considering another tax on Yale, businesses and families should be concerned about the other tax increases their Legislature will consider. We would welcome a world-renowned university like Yale to our state and I can commit that we will not raise taxes on their endowment. This would add yet another great university to our state.”

General Electric may have moved out of the state, but of all of the institutions to leave a state for tax reasons, universities would be among the most difficult. And sure enough, the university has expressed disinterest in the prospect.

That’s a shame. (Sort of.)

I have long been of the belief that it’s been to the detriment of this country that as our population has grown considerably, our premier institutions of higher learning have not. I’ve long said “We should have a Harvard West! Harvard Texas!” But hey, Yale Florida would work.

The typical argument against my proposal is that you just can’t have more than one Harvard and have it hold the same prestige. This is both true and false. It is true that the prestige of Harvard and Yale revolve around their exclusivity, but it’s not as though we have fewer premier academics per-capita than we did fifty years ago. It’s not as though we have fewer stellar students per capita that we did fifty years ago. The universities themselves talk about how nearly impossible it is to choose among such an amazing crop of students. There are probably enough students that could have gotten into Harvard fifty years to fill a dozen schools. It’s just that now they go to Rice, Duke, and other universities. But no matter how good those schools get, even if their median student is better than that of Harvard of yesteryear, almost none of them will completely get their due.

For the most part, it’s not in the interest of the universities to be anything but as selective as they can be. If only being able to accept 1 out of 50 of the equally indistinguishably greatest students in the country is good, then accepting only one out of 250 is even better! Or something like that.

Yale, though, could be an exception. Not just because of the tax thing, but also because being where it is it lives so much in shadow of Harvard. I mention above that the students accepting the Harvard students (and Harvard professors) of yesteryear aren’t getting their due, but there is one major exception: Stanford. There’s the Ivy League, and there’s Stanford. Arguably, these days, there’s Harvard and there’s Stanford. Stanford has a benefit that separates itself from every other Not Harvard, which is that it is far away from Harvard’s shadow. Yale, in contrast, seems to exist almost entirely in Harvard’s shadow.

Florida would fix that!

Now, Rick Scott wants them to move their entire university. That really doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. But if Yale set up a school in Florida, that could be a different story. Why would anyone go to Yale if they can go to Harvard? Most of the time, I’m not sure. Stanford, sure! Silicon Valley and California weather. Florida has no Silicon Valley, and the weather is different, but it has a great winter climate and beautiful beaches. There are students and faculty who would likely be interested in going there for all sorts of lifestyle reasons that Connecticut just can’t provide. They can move the endowment there and along with student tuitions the thing could pay for itself.

While Harvard Texas would run a risk of being a notably inferior institution, Yale Florida would have a lot more potential to possibly even exceed Yale Connecticut or at least challenge it like Stanford challenges Harvard. The biggest problem with my preference for expanded Ivy League schools is real estate, and regional campuses can be a tough sell. Yale Florida satisfies both concerns.

Also, tax breaks.

A new study suggests that laws banning drug tests and credit checks may hurt black applicants:

Why were African-Americans put at a disadvantage when states banned employer credit checks? It could be that black job-seekers found it harder to meet the increased education and experience requirements that employers started to impose. Or it could be that employers simply started to become tougher on black applicants because they couldn’t verify their credit histories and assumed the worst.

A powerful study published last year in the Review of Economics and Statistics shows something of the opposite happening: When employers began to require drug tests for job applicants, they started hiring more African-Americans.

“The likely explanation for these findings is that prior to drug testing, employers overestimated African-Americans’ drug use relative to whites,” the study’s author explained in an op-ed. Drug tests allowed black job applicants to disprove the incorrect perception that they were addicts.

This corresponds with a thought that I’ve been having for a while now on a related issue: IQ tests. While IQ tests are not universally banned in hiring, they do leave companies with hoops to be willing to jump through if they’re challenged, and so a lot of companies that might utilize them don’t.

Which, as the article points out, can lead to an increase in requiring credentials that aren’t challenged. I’ve been wondering if we could poach the higher ed bubble (if there is one) by simply applying disparate impact to that as a job requirement, leaving it to employers to demonstrate that the job really requires a degree. But in addition to potentially contributing a bit to credential inflation, the thought had occurred to me that it could actually hurt high IQ black applicants. Potentially by requiring a college degree that they don’t have, or by leaving it to (possibly unconscious) racist hiring manager judgment.

Which is to say, if allowed to take a test, David Alexander can demonstrate his intelligence. So a hiring manager that subconsciously looks at a black man and thinks “probably dumb” can have his concerns in that area satisfied. If the manager is systematically underestimating black IQ’s, this can act as a corrective! At least in individual cases. Now, you don’t even have to believe in the validity of the IQ test, so long as he does. If you don’t, you can try to disabuse him of that notion, but it might be better for David (or any other individually intelligent black person) to simply be able to produce a good score.

Instead of using an IQ test, you could use “successful at Super Mario Bros 2.” If some employer believes that’s a worthwhile metric, then that gives minority applicants, poor applicants, and whatever else something to strive towards. Only if they can get ahold of the game, though, which is a concern. Also a concern is that if this became widespread, you’d start to see training classes and it might become a part of the curriculum in well-heeled suburban schools. Asian-Americans might become unusually good at it. Then you might run into a Disparate Impact problem as black and Hispanic kids are disproportionately be unable to buy the game, unable to afford SMB2 tutors, and won’t have playing that game ingrained in their culture. But even then, at least it would provide an opportunity to answer the important-to-the-employer “Can play Super Mario Bros 2” metric. And it would be vastly less expensive than the alternative, which might be “Has a Bachelor’s Degree.”

Of course, that’s not what we want employers to do. Because as we know, SMB2 performance bears no resemblence to the ability to do all but a few jobs. And we want to be fair. In a perfect free market economy, we might say “Employers that make their hiring decisions based on a lackluster video game will be at a competitive advantage and so they’ll weed themselves out.” But that’s probably not what would happen. What we would be left with is a hiring qualification with the only three advantages being (a) less susceptible to stereotypical impressions than subjectiving interviewing, (b) not as reliant on networking as recommendation hiring, and (c) less expensive than college.

Which, come to think of it, isn’t the worst list of advantages I’ve ever heard. But it’s transparently dumb. Less transparently dumb is the subject of the Washington Post article, credit checks. You can at least see the rationale for using that as a criterion. But by its very nature it’s discriminatory towards those we as a society don’t want discrimination against: Poor people, those down on their luck, people who have gotten sick, and so on. Like companies refusing to hire people that are unemployed, it may make sense for any given company (whether the metric itself has empirical foundation or not) but is not good for society as a whole.

In this sense, the laws against credit discrimination continute to make sense. They are still too unfairly discriminatory. That they are not as discriminatory towards black folks in particular as the next most likely alternative may be unfortunate, but stands in suggestion that maybe bad, discriminatory policies don’t have to disproportionately affect non-Asian minorities in order to be bad policy.