Jonathan's blog

From an article of the same title (subtitled "Even Unbuilt, Jerusalem Tolerance Museum at Center of Fight Between Jews and Muslims") by Matti Friedman on abcnews.com:

The Museum of Tolerance started off with good intentions, over $100 million in donations, an eye-catching design by architect Frank Gehry, a 2004 kickoff ceremony attended by Arnold Schwarzenegger, and a great piece of Jerusalem real estate. But underneath that real estate, it turned out, there were Muslim graves. As a result, instead of bringing this contentious city's warring tribes together, the museum has sparked a fight with political, religious and historical dimensions between Muslims and Jews and all this before it has even been built. Months of arbitration have ended in deadlock, the site is enclosed in aluminum walls, and the dispute is now before Israel's Supreme Court. Even if the court gives the go-ahead, however, the Museum of Tolerance could well remain permanently tainted by allegations of intolerance.

In an article of the same title in the Orlando Sentinel, Kathleen Parker says some nice things about Rick Santorum, Republican U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania who is in danger of losing his seat in the upcoming elections. I don't pay all that much attention to politics, but I have heard of Santorum and didn't realize that he had such a good and reasonable record (I had forgotten that he had "...been pushing Congress to donate ever larger sums to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria", see previous blog post:

Rick Santorum can't seem to win for losing, no matter what he does. The U.S. senator from Pennsylvania could save AIDS babies in Africa, end genocide in Darfur and put welfare mothers to work in his own office -- and he'd still be despised by a sizable number of those who hope Democrat Robert Casey Jr. will defeat him come November. Come to think of it, Santorum has tried all those things mentioned above, with some success, but often at great political cost. He has worked for global AIDS relief with Bono, the U2 rock star and one of Santorum's more unlikely fans. For his AIDS efforts, Santorum earned the contempt (and veiled threats) of some in the abstinence-only, family-values crowd. Santorum has been a leader in trying to stop genocide in Sudan, which he views as a front in the war against ideological Islam -- and has sponsored every major piece of legislation created toward that end. At home in Pennsylvania, he put five welfare mothers to work in his own offices while leading the movement that resulted in the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, signed by President Clinton. Santorum, in other words, is one of those rare politicians who puts his money where his mouth is -- even though his usual supporters turn on him as a result. And yet his staunch Roman Catholicism has earned him a reputation in some quarters as a weirdo. If Santorum is "too Catholic," he has company in his opponent, who is also a Catholic and a near-mirror image of Santorum on most of the hot-button issues... The latest Pennsylvania poll, conducted Sept. 22-24 by Strategic Vision Political, shows Casey leading Santorum 50 percent to 40 percent, with 10 percent undecided. It's not clear what voters will gain by electing Casey given that the two candidates are seemingly indistinguishable, but there's no guessing what they'll lose in Santorum. Love him or hate him, for the past decade, Santorum has been the conservatives' point man for the world's disenfranchised -- the poor, the sick and the meek. If he loses, the face of compassionate conservatism will be gone.

From an article of the same title by Jason Scheib on Football Outsiders:

When a football team fails to convert on third down, it usually punts. And when it punts, it is turning the ball over to the other team. So why isn't a punt considered a turnover, just like an interception or fumble? I started with this simple idea and began exploring it as far and in as many different directions as it would take me. Over time, it has grown into a theory that redefines a turnover and uses this new definition to see what a team can do to improve their net turnovers and win more games. This theory presents two significant implications:

• A team would win more games if they never punted, and
• A team that never punts would not just be employing a different strategy but would approach the game in a fundamentally different way, which would further add to their success.

This is not about taking more risks and punting less often. That could cost you games depending on when you decided to punt and when you decided not to. The key is to never punt. Never punting takes away the risk because it allows the averages to work in your favor. It also opens you up to different play calling opportunities, primarily on third down. The two go together and are dependent on each other in order to make this work... Everybody knows that in football you have four downs to gain 10 yards or you lose control of the ball. But everybody approaches football as if you only have three downs to gain 10 yards or - most of the time - you punt. There may be exceptions to that when a team gets close to the end zone, but in general that is the primary approach. Think about that. Convention says that you are better off punting. And maybe that's true if you approach the game as if you only have three downs. The difference is mindset. That's the difference between saying you should be more aggressive and punt less often, depending on the situation, and saying that you should not punt at all. The first statement is based upon still approaching the game with a three down mindset. The second statement is based on approaching the game with a four down mindset. So what exactly is four down mindset? It means you look at EVERY first-and-10 as if you have four tries for a first down instead of three. After all, the rules of the game say you have four tries. How does this affect strategy? Well, primarily it affects what you do on third down. On third down, instead of having the mindset that you need to convert or the punting unit comes in, you have the mindset that all you need to do is get closer to the first down marker so as to put you in a better position to convert on fourth down.

The article contains a ton of statistics and analysis and makes an interesting argument.

From an article of the same title by Steven Greenhouse and Michael Barbaro in the NY Times:

Wal-Mart, the nation's largest private employer, is pushing to create a cheaper, more flexible work force by capping wages, using more part-time workers and scheduling more workers on nights and weekends. Wal-Mart executives say they have embraced new policies for a large number of their 1.3 million workers to better serve their customers, especially at busy shopping times - and point out that competitors like Sears and Target have made some of these moves, too. But some Wal-Mart workers say the changes are further reducing their already modest incomes and putting a serious strain on their child-rearing and personal lives. Current and former Wal-Mart workers say some managers have insisted that they make themselves available around the clock, and assert that the company is making changes with an eye to forcing out longtime higher-wage workers to make way for lower-wage part-time employees. Investment analysts and store managers say Wal-Mart executives have told them the company wants to transform its work force to 40 percent part-time from 20 percent. Wal-Mart denies it has a goal of 40 percent part-time workers, although company officials say that part-timers now make up 25 percent to 30 percent of workers, up from 20 percent last October.

Here's a link to an article that argues that Target may be "as bad as Wal-Mart".

From an article of the same title by Stephanie Simon in the LA Times:

With a pivotal election five weeks away, leaders on the religious right have launched an all-out drive to get Christians from pew to voting booth. Their target: the nearly 30 million Americans who attend church at least once a week but did not vote in 2004. Their efforts at times push legal limits on church involvement in partisan campaigns. That is by design. With control of Congress at stake Nov. 7, those guiding the movement say they owe it to God and to their own moral principles to do everything they can to keep social conservatives in power... The Rev. Rick Scarborough, a leading evangelical in Texas, has recruited 5,000 "patriot pastors" nationwide to promote an agenda that aligns neatly with Republican platforms. "We urge them to avoid legal entanglement, but there are times in a pastor's life when he needs to take a biblical stand," Scarborough said. "Our higher calling is to Christ." The campaign encourages individual pastors to use sermons, Bible studies and rallies to drive Christians to the polls - and, by implication or outright endorsement, to Republican candidates. One online guide to discussing the election in church, produced by the Focus on the Family ministry, offers this tip: If a congregant says her top concerns are healthcare and national security, suggest that Jesus would make abortion and gay marriage priorities. At a recent rally in Pennsylvania, Focus on the Family founder James C. Dobson told a crowd of 3,000 that it would be "downright frightening" if Republicans lost control of Congress. If there's a good Christian on the ballot, he said, failing to vote "would be a sin." The law restricting political activity of churches and charities dates to 1954, when then-Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson pushed it through in a pique of anger over a nonprofit's effort to derail his reelection. Tax-exempt organizations, including churches, may not participate or intervene in political campaigns on behalf of any candidate. Intervention is broadly defined as "any and all activities that favor or oppose one or more candidate for public office," according to the Internal Revenue Service. That sounds straightforward. In practice, though, there are many ways around the restriction, as the faithful recognize.

Did Dobson really say that? Failing to vote for a Christian "would be a sin"? It wouldn't be the first time (see the profile by Michael Crowley titled "James Dobson. The religious right's new kingmaker" on Slate.com from a couple years ago). Dobson has probably done a ton of good in his career, but at the moment he seems to have lost it...calling it a sin to not vote for a Christian...erecting road blocks in the way of AIDS funding.