Great Headline

From WaPo Express comes this classic:

And, of course, the all time greatest, undefeated champion headline is HERE.

Found at The Volokh Conspiracy.

Semantics

From Greg Mankiw's blog:

Consider these two policies:  

A. An employer is required to provide its employees health insurance that covers birth control.

B. An employer is required to provide its employees health insurance.  The health insurance company is required to cover birth control.

I can understand someone endorsing both A and B, and I can understand someone rejecting both A and B.  But I cannot understand someone rejecting A and embracing B, because they are effectively the same policy.  Ultimately, all insurance costs are passed on to the purchaser, so I cannot see how policy B is different in any way from policy A, other than using slightly different words to describe it.

Yet it seems that the White House yesterday switched from A to B, and that change is being viewed by some as a significant accommodation to those who objected to policy A.  The whole thing leaves me scratching my head.

Me too.

What a difference four years will make

From a Bloomberg story on the SOTU:

Of all the themes and subjects absent from Obama’s speech, however, the most depressing omission was also the most unquantifiable: hope. The word itself appeared just once. Obama as candidate was all about offering hope. Obama as president -- somewhat understandably -- has been more about staving off despair. Double-digit unemployment will do that to a president. 

Guess we won't be seeing those HOPE posters this time around.

Pass the nuts, mate

Having journeyed to Australia, Mister Bear knows that it's a spirited place with plenty of individualism to go around.  Leaving out the part about those koalas that try to be "bears" but aren't, the Land Down Under is a great place.  They've also got some common sense, IMO, in their legal system.  Or at least in this case.

From the Daily Mail comes this story:

A nutty snack company in Australia has won the right to call itself Nuckin Futs, despite an official ruling that it was offensive.

A solicitor representing the Gold Coast company argued that the name was not offensive because the words it suggested were commonplace in everyday Australian language.

It has taken almost a year but after rejecting the initial application, the Trade Marks Examiner has now agreed to accept the Nuckin Futs trademark - as long as the company does not aim its marketing at children.  Mr White said that would not happen.

Hat tip to the Language Log.