Rotundus.com

A bit of the article:

I step outside my front door and hop on my bike because I’m too lazy to go downstairs in the parking garage to get the car. I pull my bike up to the front door at my destination because I’m too lazy to drive around looking for a parking spot then having to walk from the car to the building.

I ride my bike instead of taking public transit because I’m too lazy to go to the store to buy bus tickets, and I am far too lazy to dig for loose change under my couch. I am also too lazy to transfer from the bus to the subway to the streetcar, preferring to ride directly to my destination without transfers.

... I ride my bicycle past dozens of cars at rush hour because I’m too lazy to be stressed out sitting in traffic and too lazy to explain why I’m late all the time.

I sold the last car I owned in 2010 and bought a couple solid bicycles because I was too lazy to maintain the car*. I was too lazy to renew my license plates each year, too lazy to fill up the gas tank, too lazy to shop around for insurance rates, and too lazy to take it to the car wash.

A simple way to reduce suicides

"Pills should be packaged in blister packs of 16 or 25. Anyone who wanted 50 would have to buy numerous blister packages and sit down and push out the pills one by one. Turns out you really, really have to want to commit suicide to push out 50 pills. And most people are not that committed. Sound ridiculous? Consider some data..."

Ex-Feminists: Do marriage and parenthood make people more conservative about women and families?

"Compared to parents under 50, nonparents under 50 were less likely to say that working mothers made it harder to raise kids (62 vs. 79 percent), less likely to say that working mothers made it harder for marriages to succeed (38 vs. 56 percent), less likely to say that kids were better off if their mothers stayed home (36 vs. 47 percent), and less likely to call unwed motherhood a big problem (49 vs. 63 percent). The tables exposed similar gaps based on marital experience."

A few words on women in NFL locker rooms

In response to the comment that "Female reporters shouldn't be allowed in NFL locker rooms unless male reporters are allowed in WNBA locker rooms!!!!" the author asserts that "Uh, male reporters are allowed in WNBA locker rooms." Can't we just give people a bit of privacy regardless of gender?

Banknotes featuring Scientists and Mathematicians

Interesting.

Justin Holcomb tends to cite bogus figures when it comes to cases of sexual assault, but I find myself in agreement with him on how some are treating a certain case - even somewhat in agreement with Rachel Held Evans as well. Here's some comments cited in a Christianity Today article by a child-abuse investigator named Boz Tchividjian (who has investigated similar cases for several Christian organizations in addition to having been employed in a related capacity by the state of Florida):

Quite frankly, any time a Christian institution responds or defends its behavior as it relates to sexual abuse allegations with quoting laws and hiding behind constitutions, it causes me concern ... An authentic, gospel-centered response to sexual abuse disclosures within an institution is to be transparent and to be vulnerable.

This is in response to the legal defence strategy of Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM) in a lawsuit alleging coverup of sexual abuse in the organization. Basically the legal strategy rested on a combination of claiming protection for freedom of religion under the first amendment to the US constitution and under statute of limitations issues. This defence strategy seems ethically questionable even if valid from a legal standpoint.

Following dismissal of the civil lawsuit proceeding in this case, a few statements were released to which Boz Tchividjian also responded. e.g. there was the The Gospel Coalition statement about which Boz Tchividjian notes:

The statement by the members of the Gospel Coalition says the following as it relates to the statute of limitations and the dismissal of the case:
So the entire legal strategy was dependent on a conspiracy theory that was more hearsay than anything like reasonable demonstration of culpability. As to the specific matter of C. J. participating in some massive cover-up, the legal evidence was so paltry (more like non-existent) that the judge did not think a trial was even warranted. Does this sound like a statement that even appears to make an effort to be objective?

At best that statement seems misleading, and at worst it's an outright lie. On the issue of consistency Boz Tchividjian later notes:

Many of these men have not hesitated to write (or tweet) on the Penn State horrors, homosexuals in the Boy Scouts, and universal healthcare, but have been conspicuously quiet on this issue. And when they finally speak, what is omitted speaks more than what is said.

Here, for example, is Albert Mohler speaking about the Penn State sex abuse scandal. It does seem like rather partial behaviour on the part of those making the statements. It's somewhat natural to want to defend your friends - with the primary one defended in these statements being a friend of the their authors. However, the denomination's legal defence strategy has seemed quite dubious from an ethical standpoint.

The statute of limitations seems like a necessary feature for legal systems to help defend against false accusations. Any system needs to balance the innocent being punished and the guilty going free - you can expect both to happen in pretty much any legal system. To maintain that balance the statute of limitations seems worth retaining despite it possibly meaning some of the guilty go free. Yet, resting a case on that and "freedom of religion" without addressing the remainder of the case seems like a rather slimy defence strategy. It's also worth noting that the statute of limitations seems to only apply to civil claims rather than criminal ones and so far at least one person has been arrested and charged in connection to the evidence gathered as part of the building of the civil lawsuit. Apparently the statue of limitations issue also didn't affect a few of the plaintiffs but, as the alleged crimes in those instances occurred in another state, those plaintiffs were informed they had to file charges there. Of course, the dismissal of the civil lawsuit is also under appeal. We'll have to see what transpires.

Invest in women? The effects of aid on female entrepreneurship

"There is a lot of talk about “investing in poor women”. They will grow businesses, get richer, be empowered, and invest in children. So give them a cow or a grant or a microloan. It’s been a very effective marketing message for aid agencies, but it’s not clear it’s true. Especially the part about women entrepreneurs and women empowered. A lot of the experimental evidence has been pretty pessimistic on this front–to the surprise of many."

How the rest of the world brushes their teeth

"How is it that some people who have never used a toothbrush have also never had a cavity?"

Indian police given moustache pay

"Police in a district in India's Madhya Pradesh state are being paid to grow moustaches because bosses believe it makes them command more respect."

Should one person always stay at home? An economist considers.

Not a statement I was expecting: "Married gay men with kids are actually slightly more likely than heterosexual couples to be in a relationship where one person stays home full time."