You might have heard about the lesbian couple that went into the fertility clinic and came back with a surprise, in the form of a black baby. She, in turn, is suing the clinic that gave her the wrong sperm.

I’d had the thought prior to Kevin Williamson articulating it, but it actually represents something of a clash of liberal pieties:

While one must pity the poor little girl who is being treated like a defective Honda Civic, it’s a delicious clash of progressive pieties. The mother — and somehow I suspect that I’ll be informed five minutes from now that it is wicked to call the half of the couple who carried the child and gave birth the “mother” — Jennifer Cramblett, among other things complains that it is difficult to find a place to get her daughter a decent haircut. It should be a hoot watching her make that case in court. I’m a white, conservative guy from Texas, and even I know better than to go skipping merrily into the cultural minefield that is black women’s hair, a subject that calls to mind my favorite cowboy proverb: “Never miss a good chance to shut up.”

Same-sex couples are riding a wave of cultural ascendency, but we should not kid ourselves: This is America, and race still trumps everything. You doubt me? In 2008, I reported in National Review about the case of an adoptive couple who had raised several children with severe disabilities but was denied the opportunity to adopt another disabled child because the authorities doubted their commitment to preserving the girl’s cultural authenticity — they’d said they intended to raise their children to be “colorblind” — and because their community in Alaska was judged to be too white, something that might damage the girl’s self-esteem. The girl in question suffered both from fetal-alcohol syndrome, which had left her mentally disabled, and from Russell-Silver Syndrome, a form of dwarfism that left her with an asymmetrical body, a triangular face, a malfunctioning digestive system, and other problems. It is unlikely that she would ever develop the mental capacity to feel racial alienation, much less that that would ever become a top-ten problem in her life. But race is the alpha and the omega to some people. If only we had a good word for people like that…

I had actually bet that it would go in the other direction. On the one hand, you do have the racism and a sort that, had it come from a married couple in Arkansas or South Dakota – even ones registered to the Democratic Party – would be called out pretty freely, and the protestations dismissed. While racism may be the greatest of all sins, there is a greater quantity of liberal values in the other direction.

The first and foremost is the homosexuality. That itself may not be such a big thing – though it’s definitely something – except that it’s a story about two women. Two women seeking to exert their reproductive freedom. Conservatives and pro-lifers often look at “reproductive freedom” as a euphemism for the right to kill, but it genuinely does go beyond that. The only fathers in the entire country who are excluded from having to pay child support are sperm donors. Further, those who have sought to hold men accountable for their offspring have never even broached the issue. Why? Because hurting these men would hurt the women who want desperately to have children.

In feminism versus racism, I’d honestly bet on feminism most of the time these days. So while some are surprised by the sympathetic or at least comparatively neutral coverage these women have received, I’m not. So when the couple argues that it’s not about race, some liberals are – even those that see race everywhere else – are going to believe them.

With the petty politics out of the way, let’s get to the meat of the issue.

When I tweeted a link to the original story – retweeting someone who thought the lawsuit was awful – Dave in Hackinsack wanted to know what grounds there were for objection. Especially given that it’s undisputed that the clinic did, indeed, screw up.

This is a fair point, but ultimately I find it unconvincing. If we had to use a donor to have children, like this couple I would (probably) check the Caucasian box. And though I disagree with the clinic here, I might look a bit askance at someone who specifically wanted a child of a different race (though that would depend on the reason). Some of that is the desire that the kid look like the rest of the family. Some of it is the concerns brought up by Cramblett. A lot of it is concern over the assumption that the child isn’t mine – or ours – and that he might be mistaken for a burglar when coming home. But these, ultimately, are pretty First World Preferences. And it’s a difference between all-things-being-equal preferences, and initiating a lawsuit over. If you want a child, and you get a child, you love the child as best you can. And if it was a mistake, you file it away as the best mistake ever. Loving the child you have, instead of any inkling of regret over the child you would have had if everything had gone according to plan.

So while I am vaguely sympathetic to the pickle that this woman is in, and the legal case does seem substantive, there are some lawsuits you don’t file even if you can.

Robbie Waeschenfelder argues that employers should look for people with no experience.

I’m becoming a crotchity old man when it comes to Kids Today… but I have to say that if this piece is correct, I approve of what they’ve done to car sales.

By way of Annie Murphy Paul, Patricia Greenfield makes the case that a balanced education involves video games.

“The Match”, which matches prospective residents with programs, is undergoing an overhaul.

Free college in Finland is aiding young people to use college to hide out from the labor market.

E-reader readers recall the material about as well as paperback readers, except when it comes to collating the events.

Adam Ozimek questions the conventional wisdom about part-time jobs. Namely, that the increase in part-time work has coincided with more inflexible schedules on the part of the employer.

Munich made waves in the Linux community by switching over to Linux. It hasn’t worked out well, though it doesn’t look like a switch back is imminent.

James Hamblin looks at the link between Diet Coke and obesity, and finds that Diet Coke doesn’t necessarily cause weight gain, if used strategically.

Frank Miller helped define Batman, but doesn’t own him.

Atlantis never sank-it just became Cuba.

In 1965, the Soviets created a documentary about lunar colonization. You can see it (and commentary) here.

The good news is that a major network is developing a TV show based on the movie Devil’s Advocate, which I loved. The bad news is that it’s NBC.

Retail fronts may be able to compete with ecommerce after all.

After a workout at a gym, Amy Salloway was hooked on a House marathon and set up a chair to keep watching. A picture taken of her went viral. Here’s her story.

Though Hit Coffee Weekend has been retired, I can’t resist bringing it back for something that it’s best that y’all watch on the weekend and not from work. Two of these three videos are rather… sensual… (the last just goofy) though there’s nothing explicit in it. But even so, here are three music videos I’m going to have to drop from our rotation at home for Lain’s benefit:

The first you may be familiar with. It won a lot of awards and is the music video of a classic:

The next is the tale of a woman who done a man wrong, from the woman’s point of view:

Fair’s fair, and the last one is the tale of a man trying to get the attention of all of the women around him. The main reason I love this video is what starts happening after 2:50 or so:

The success of some charter schools is often attributed to their ability to kick out underperformers and problem kids. A new Mathmatica study makes the case that it isn’t true for KIPP programs. Personally, I question whether KIPP is scalable, but not on the basis of student selection.

True love waits! Or more precisely, early sex is a pathway to non-marital cohabitation, while waiting to have sex is a pathway to marriage (and better marriages, at that). Beware confounding factors, of course.

According to a study in the Oxford University Press, children of two-parent households do better even when there is a generous welfare state. (PDF) Another study by the NIH looking at Sweden shows that the effects on criminality among teenage mothers is attenuated when looking at other factors, though educational attainment (of the children) is not.

The case for universal basic income, with empirical evidence!

Shouldn’t The Economist know better than to pretend that job scarcity and falling wages in Japan are not paradoxical?

Telegram not dead STOP Alive, evolving in Japan STOP

Chris Bowyer makes the case against college in five parts (and counting).

On the other hand, it pays to go to college if you want to be a prostitute.

Maybe political polarization isn’t so bad, if the alternative is Rhode Island.

How do you stop a gas well blowout? With a nuclear bomb, of course. (link via Vikram Bath)

Coal ash is responsible for more radiation than nuclear energy.

Tim Wu is alarmed at the number of attempts (of varying degrees of credibility) against Barack Obama, which is six and counting. I actually think that six is a really small number, all things considered. All in all, it’s actually quite amazing to me that there haven’t been many more. Truthfully, it’s kind of a surprise that none have succeeded in over fifty years, and none have reached the point of a gunshot in over thirty.

I mean, rationally, it rarely makes sense to kill a president. They picked their vice president, after all. Removing somebody that you see evil while they are running may make sense, though at that point you have to worry about martyrdom and backlash.

Leaving aside the sheer number of enemies a president makes, and the average number of completely crazy people in a nation of over 300,000,000, if nothing else you’d think by the law of numbers some wacko would be jumping the fence every few days. It seemed something like that, for a brief interval during the Clinton years, though Wikipedia only shows two in proximity.

Or, given that there are tens of thousands of suicides each year, it’s a little surprising that none of them try to go out in a blaze of glory for an instant entry into the history books.

Perhaps it’s that the likelihood of success is considered so small.

If you were to ask me what bothers me most about the guy who jumped the fence, it’s that. At least the illusion of a real possibility of success. And some crazy guy out there.

Husain Abdullah is a safety for the Kansas City Chiefs who recently scored a touchdown. It was what happened after that garnered a lot of publicity:

Early in the fourth quarter, Abdullah dropped deep in a zone coverage, read Patriots quarterback Tom Brady’s eyes and broke hard, intercepting his pass.

Abdullah then dashed 39 yards to the end zone, slid on his knees and bowed in prayer.

His celebration drew a 15-yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty, but the NFL said Tuesday that Abdullah should not have been penalized.

This provided the opportunity for various heralds of multiculturalism and religious freedom to blow their horns. Such as:

This is manifestly unfair. Abdullah, like Tebow, is known for his devotion to his faith. Abdullah missed the entire 2012 NFL season so that he could undertake a pilgrimage to Mecca, and he fasts during Ramadan, which means he cannot eat food or drink water during daylight hours for a month, despite his grueling NFL training schedule. And yet Tebow’s prayer during games earned him respect, but Abdullah’s earned him punishment.

The NFL has admitted that the referee was wrong to penalize Abdullah. NFL spokesman Michael Signora wrote in an email to USA Today that, although there is a rule against players engaging in celebration while on the ground, “the officiating mechanic in this situation is not to flag a player who goes to the ground as part of religious expression, and as a result, there should have been no penalty on the play.”

And yet there was. Abdullah’s team was given a penalty.

It didn’t matter towards the game. The NFL realized that their ref screwed up. There really isn’t much of a story here, except – at worst – a ref not recognizing a Muslim prayer (or the difference between a Muslim prayer and a banned celebration). From a player that rarely scores touchdowns. This was not anti-Islamic bigotry. at worst, it was split-second ignorance. Which the NFL recognized. We can say “But what if the game had been on the line?” Well, then a blown ref call would have cost a team a game. It wouldn’t be the first time. But it didn’t, and it wasn’t, and all that can really be said is that we all learned something.

This all overlooks the possibility of the flag being for the slide rather than a prayer. A slide, not being a prayer, would be an infraction. But the NFL said they screwed up, and we should pretty much take them at their word.

The conversation actually gets derailed a bit by Tim Tebow. The thing is that even though Tebow is known for his devotion and prayer, he does not generally do so in the manner that Abdullah was penalized, comments that Tebow does this “all the time” notwithstanding. In fact, I can’t find a single incident of him doing so. He prays before games and after games. The most cited case shows him after the 2012 AFC Wild-Card game between the Broncos and the Steelers. If you see a picture of him praying in an endzone, that’s probably it. Except that was after the game [video here]. And if you think you found another picture of him doing so, the fact that his helmet is off is a pretty good indicator that he didn’t just score a touchdown.

However, the Tebow distraction aside, there are numerous documented cases of penalty-free prayer. I find other attempts to draw a distinction (one knee down versus two) unconvincing. So the point stands. If it wasn’t for the slide, it was a bad call. Like the NFL says.

There are some broader issues at work here. Like whether there should be any religious exemption at all. Some argue that the penalties against excessive celebration are themselves excessive. Some argue that it’s racist or racialist, and if you single out white players doing it you’re just doing so to cover the racism. Personally, I think they do go too far. I don’t mind saying “no spiking the ball” or “no throwing the ball” or “no taunting” (celebrations directed, explicitly or implicitly, at the opposition). But kneeling in any context? While I think people that make it to the endzone should act like they aren’t surprised to be there, some exuberance is pretty understandable. The rules are also pretty vague, which is also something that should be corrected.

The original narrative, though, that the NFL thinks that Muslims should be penalized for doing what Tim Tebow is celebrated for, just doesn’t fit. In the end, it was a bad call by someone who thought one thing was happening when another thing was happening.