Apparently the cat behavior in the clip is not that uncommon:
Why, we were just talking about this on this blog! It does seem, does it not, that some Republican politicans in the U.S. care tremendously about displays of pro-lifeyness which include grandiosely stripping Planned Parenthood of aid (which could contribute to preventing pregnancies, but whatever). They don’t seem to fret quite as much about helping along the ascendency of the U.S. to become the #1 country for infant mortality rates (among the 33 countries that the International Monetary Fund describes as “advanced economies”).
Last December we blogged about the UK government’s proposed cuts to legal aid in divorce and family law cases:
The proposals mean that legal aid will be restricted to cases where forced marriage, international child abduction or domestic violence is proven. According to the Guardian, ‘domestic violence’ for these purposes will only include physical violence, not psychological abuse. They report that the Ministry of Justice believed it had to ‘…restrict the definition of domestic violence to one that could be demonstrated through “clear, objective evidence”.’
…[t]he meaning of “violence” in the Housing Act 1996, s 177(1), in the context of “domestic violence”, should be understood as including physical violence, threatening or intimidating behaviour and any other form of abuse which, directly or indirectly, may give rise to the risk of harm. By the time of the 1996 Act, both international and national governmental understanding of the term “domestic violence” had developed beyond physical contact.
Okay, so I know the legal aid proposals aren’t the same as the Housing Act 1996. And I’m not a family lawyer. Or any other kind of lawyer. But if I were, I’d think this might be a useful and important judgment.
A very interesting program caught my attention on BBC 3 today. It asks why opera seems to depend almost entirely on the suffering of dying women.
I was interested because when going to the Traviata earlier this year I was SO irritated by the (in my mind) misogynism (as well as the ridiculous plotline), that it stopped me from just being able to enjoy the music…
For those interested, the program is on again on the 26th of June.
(And I apologise to those outside the UK who can’t access this program!)
SEP ANNUAL CONFERENCE
The 39th annual meeting of the Society for Exact Philosophy will be held at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Canada. May 26-28, 2011. Conference organizers: Chris Tillman and Esa Diaz-Leon.
CALL FOR PAPERS
The Society for Exact Philosophy invites submissions for its 2011 meeting.
ROBIN JESHION (USC)
NATHAN SALMON (UC Santa Barbara)
JESSICA WILSON (Toronto)
Paper submissions in all areas of analytic philosophy are welcomed. A selection of papers from the conference will be published in a special volume of Synthese, guest edited by Marc Moffett.
SUBMISSION DEADLINE: March 8th, 2011.
Authors are requested to submit their papers according to the following guidelines: 1) Papers should be prepared for anonymous refereeing, 2) put into PDF file format, and 3) sent as an email attachment to the address given below — where 4) the subject line of the submission email should include the key-phrase “SEP submission”, and 5) the body text of the email message should constitute a cover page for the submission by including i) return email address, ii) author’s name, iii) affiliation, iv) paper title, and v) short abstract.
Electronic submissions should be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Nota Bene: All submissions will receive email confirmation of receipt. If your submission does not soon result in such an email confirmation, please send an inquiry either to the above address or to the local organizer.
For more information on the conference, please visit the conference web site.
Or contact the conference organizers:
“The SEP is dedicated to providing sustained discussion among researchers who believe that rigorous methods have a place in philosophical investigations.”
Join us in Winnipeg.