Google spies on iPhone users: Should the feds clamp down?

The search giant deployed a special code to bypass Apple's privacy settings — and track millions of users' surfing habits Apple's Safari browser is designed to shield users from tracking by advertisers. This apparently didn't sit well with Google, which decided to give Safari's privacy settings the runaround, according to The Wall Street Journal. As a result, Safari users were tracked without their permission, on both their mobile devices and desktops. When the news got out, Google quickly shut down the code, and stressed that the tracking software — known as cookies — did not appropriate any personal information. But lawmakers are calling for an investigation into the incident, the latest in a slew of privacy controversies for the company. Should the government get tougher on Google?

Yes. Google broke the law — and it's all because of Facebook: Google "has now started to violate the law, and certainly to undermine the trust that the company depends on," says Cory Doctorow at BoingBoing. Why? Because Google is experiencing an "enormous internal urgency" to spread the use of Google Plus, its social-networking component. It bypassed Safari's privacy settings to place a "+1" icon next to ads, just like Facebook's "like" function. It's time for Google quit the invasive tactics and "slow its full-court press" on Google Plus. 
"WSJ: Google caught circumventing iPhone security, tracking users who opted out of third-party cookies"

Google claims it was an accident — but that's what it always says: Google claims that it was merely trying to enhance the experience of Google users on Safari, and that it did not intend to bypass privacy settings, says Ian Paul at PCWorld. But haven't we heard that before? "Every time Google is found to be up to no good, the company uses virtually the same excuse: 'Oops, sorry, that was a mistake, we didn't know we were doing that.'" And if Google simply wanted to improve Safari's "functionality," there was no need to "deploy an invisible method beyond the control of the user."
"Will the FTC investigate Google's Safari gaffe?"

People, relax. You're being tracked whether you like it or not: Did Google "screw up by using underhanded tactics?" asks Jared Newman at TIME. Sure, but as far as privacy violations are concerned, "I rank that pretty low on the list of offenses." The truth is that "data mining is the norm," and the result of Google's behavior — more targeted advertising — "is fairly innocuous." Unless you "take a dozen precautions, odds are that marketing companies already know plenty about you."
"Google's Safari privacy snafu: just not feeling the outrage"

SEE MORE: Coming soon: Google-powered 'Terminator' glasses?

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this topic:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here

The Tebow laws: Should homeschooled kids play sports for public schools?

Virginia is on the verge of passing a law affecting youngsters who dream of following the career path of homeschooled-kid-turned-NFL star Tim Tebow Virginia is close to amending its laws so homeschooled kids can participate in extracurricular activities at public schools — namely, sports. At least 25 states already have some kind of "Tebow law," so named because Denver Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow was homeschooled in Florida but played on a public school football team. The number of homeschooled kids in the U.S. is growing, say advocates: From 1.5 million in 2007 to 2 million now. Are Tebow laws a good idea?

No. Public school isn't "a la carte": If you're a parent who doesn't "think the school's math or English program is good enough for your child, but playing on that school's football team is," you're like a kid who wants dessert without dinner, says Zack Plair in the Paragould, Ark., Daily Press. Tebow law advocates say it's about fairness — we pay school taxes, let our kids play — but such "a la carte" public-schooling is unfair to students who participate in the system. I pay taxes for the whole road, but I can't "drive on the left side of the highway" or "pass on the shoulder." There is "a system in place, and the integrity of that system depends on everyone using it a certain way."
"So-called 'Tebow laws' create slippery slope"

What's wrong with treating schools like a buffet? "What's so terrible about one more choice for kids and their families?" asks Lucy Steigerwald at Reason. In fact, why stop with homeschooled kids? We should open public school sports teams to private school students, too. If public schools want taxpayer funding, parents deserve as many choices as possible, and that includes letting in "a thousand homeschooled Christian dorks so that they too can be future football stars."
"'Tebow law'... already lets columnists complain about too much choice"

Homeschoolers should "meet the public schools halfway": Sports bring people together, and "integrating homeschoolers into our public education system advances the goal of commonality," says Andrew Rotherham at TIME. But if they want to integrate, homeschoolers need to play by public school rules, especially regarding academic eligibility. Linking sports to grades is "a hard-won education reform," and for homeschoolers, academic eligibility means accepting "some sensible regulation of homeschooling quality."
"Should homeschoolers be allowed on public-school sports teams?"

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this topic:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here

Unemployment benefits: Should drug testing be required?

Under new legislation, the jobless will have to undergo drug testing in certain cases. If Republicans had gotten their way, it would have been all cases

In a rare show of bipartisanship, Congress passed a measure extending unemployment benefits through the end of 2012 — but the two parties made compromises to get the legislation through. Controversially, for instance, the bill allows states to subject certain applicants to drug testing: Namely, those who were laid off for flunking an employer's drug test, and those seeking jobs that require such tests. An earlier version passed by the GOP-controlled House would have allowed states to drug-test all applicants. Should Republicans have stuck to their guns?

Yes. Businesses shouldn

't have to subsidize illegal activity: Employers pay taxes to maintain the insurance fund, and they can't be asked to prop up "someone's drug habit," says Bill Hammond at The Dallas Morning News. Furthermore, if workers can prove that they are drug-free, it will "greatly increase the chance that they will be hired." In fact, drug-testing would "eliminate the people who aren't ready and available for work," and strengthen the job market.
"Why drug-testing job seekers matters"

Drug-testing is costly — and it just stigmatizes the jobless: A drug-testing regimen only "perpetuates myths and scapegoats the unemployed," says Christine L. Owens at U.S. News & World Report. These proposals "stem from false assumptions that the unemployed are lazy drug users who prefer unemployment checks to paychecks." And drug-testing is expensive at $25-$75 a pop: "Cash-strapped" states would have to put up millions to administer the program. "Is there a more frivolous or unnecessary way to spend taxpayer money?"
"Say no to drug testing the unemployed"

And blanket drug-testing would be unconstitutional: Remember, the Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, writes Andrew Rosenthal at The New York Times. A blanket drug-testing requirement "falls clearly" into the category of an unreasonable search, since the government has no "probable cause" to suspect all unemployment benefit applicants of abusing illegal drugs.
"Drug-testing and probable cause, a response to readers"

SEE MORE: The 'unequivocally strong' January jobs report

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this topic:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here

Iran's latest nuclear advances: 4 reasons the world should worry

The State Department says Iran is overhyping its progress to look strong in the face of punishing sanctions. But how much of a comfort is that, really? With tensions already rising over Iran's nuclear program, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday unveiled two "major" nuclear breakthroughs: Tehran has built faster uranium enrichment centrifuges, and loaded Iranian-made fuel plates into a medical research reactor. U.S. State Department officials insisted that Iran had "hyped" the news to prove it wasn't intimidated by international sanctions, and that the developments were actually "not terribly impressive." But that doesn't mean there's no cause for concern. Here, four reasons to worry:

1. Iran is pridefully defiant
It's true that "the nuclear revelations didn't live up to the hype," says Elise Labott at CNN. But Ahmadinejad's bluster is still troubling, even if it says "more about the defiance of the regime in the face of escalating sanctions" than it does about Iran's actual nuclear progress. With the regime's legitimacy within its own borders tied to the pride Iranians take in the nuclear program, Tehran might never back down.

2. Diplomacy isn't working
There aren't "any diplomatic, financial, or other means for bringing an end to what President Obama accurately calls Iran's 'nuclear weapons program,'" says Thomas Joscelyn at The Weekly Standard. Obama's "outreach to the mullahs failed." Iran has "already suffered substantial costs in terms of international 'prestige' and 'influence' — economic and otherwise — and has unquestionably decided that the benefits of acquiring nuclear weapons are worth it." Military force may be our last remaining option.

SEE MORE: The West's inimical posturing on Iran

3. Iran is pushing oil prices up
Iran's nuclear boasting isn't the only sign of rising tensions. Israel is accusing Iran of planting bombs targeting its diplomats in several countries. Iran has threatened to cut off oil supplies to six European countries and block Persian Gulf exports through the Strait of Hormuz. Put it all together, and Iran's feuding with the West has pushed the price of a barrel of Brent crude to its highest point since last summer, says Eric Lam at the Financial Post, at $119.99 a barrel. Thanks, Iran, for the "further harm [to] the global economy."

4. This all helps fear-mongers push for war
If anything, Iran's focus on producing fuel rods for a medical reactor backs up its claims that it wants nuclear knowledge for peaceful purposes, says Iran's Press TV. It's sad that media outlets are portraying this news as "a provocative step toward building nuclear bombs." We saw this before with Iraq, says Glenn Greenwald at Salon. "Fear-mongering" propagandists "exaggerate or fabricate bad acts by the designated Enemy du Jour," without bothering to check the facts, and we move closer and closer to an avoidable and unnecessary war.

SEE MORE: Coordinated attacks on Israeli diplomats: Payback from Iran?

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this topic:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here

How Apple should spend its $98 billion cash reserve: 4 suggestions

It's a problem just about any business would kill for: Apple's savings account is so flush it's making investors antsy Apple is sitting on top of the corporate world — and on a huge pile of cash, about $97.6 billion. As CEO, the late Steve Jobs was a stickler for hoarding the company's cash reserves for when Apple hit a rough patch, but it's looking like the tech giant will finally part with some of that money. New CEO Tim Cook hinted as much on Tuesday in his address to the Goldman Sachs Technology and Internet Conference. "I'd be the first to admit, we have more cash than we need to run the business on a daily basis," said the famously frugal Cook. But Apple will continue to spend its money judiciously, he added. "We are not going to run out and have a toga party." With a $100 billion toga party off the table, here are four things Apple might do with its mountain of cash:

1. Buy, buy, buy!
My advice, says Tom Taulli at InvestorPlace: "Get much more aggressive with acquisitions,"  Dealmaking is the quickest way to enter new markets, something Apple must do "to keep up the sizzling growth." Purchasing a company like Salesforce.com would allow Apple to conquer business-oriented cloud computing, to go with its consumer-oriented iCloud. Or, Apple could buy Sony, says Brier Dudley in The Seattle Times. "A steal for $19 billion," it would be great fit for a company entering the TV business: "Sony makes nice TVs, but it could use better software."

SEE MORE: Irony alert: Steve Jobs, vinyl music fan? 

2. Finally give investors a dividend
Cook told the Goldman conference that Apple shareholders "don't want us to act like we are rich." But after 17 years, "many shareholders wouldn't mind if Apple were to issue a dividend," says John Paczkowski in All Things D. Steve Jobs was adamant about Apple keeping its money for investing in the business, but "surely a meaningful one-time payment like that would have little impact to the company's earnings or cash flow these days." IBM, Microsoft, and Intel do it, "so why should Apple shareholders be denied?" says InvestorPlace's Taulli. "Dividends are a nice bonus for loyal shareholders."

3. Improve working conditions for its Chinese laborers
A dividend? "Keep dreaming," says The Seattle Times' Dudley. But maybe Apple would "pay a special dividend — to Chinese sweatshop workers who make Apple gadgets." A tenth of 1 percent of the company's $100 billion would go a long way toward creating "better conditions in Shenzhen," or starting a health care fund for those workers. Improving their quality of life is "the right thing to do," says Farhad Manjoo in Slate. But this goes beyond ethics. Apple's brand is crucial to its success, and the reports about its "dark underbelly" threaten its longterm profitability.

SEE MORE: The Steve Jobs FBI dossier: 5 surprises

4. Give it away
Not known for philanthropy, Jobs "even said he opposed giving away money," but Cook is more charitable, says Dana Kerr in CNET News. Since taking over, he's contributed $100 million of Apple's cash to local hospitals and disease-fighting nonprofit Product RED, and agreed to match up to $10,000 a year in charitable giving by employees. Note: On the same day Apple reported its "stupendous profits," Microsoft founder Bill Gates was challenging world leaders to fight poverty and disease, says The Seattle Times' Dudley. With $100 billion, "what could Apple do to make the world a better place for everyone?"

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this topic:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here

Why China should bail out the eurozone: 3 theories

The EU is practically begging for a financial lifeline from the world's most populous nation. China isn't eager to get involved — but maybe it should be As the European debt crisis lurches into its third year, super-rich China finds itself with cash-strapped European suitors lining up on its doorstep. With $3.2 trillion in foreign exchange reserves, China appears to be in prime position to provide a lifeline to the debt-beleaguered continent. Prime Minister Wen Jiabao recently pledged China's aid, but his vague promise didn't entail any firm commitments, and many Chinese officials are still wary of exposing the country to risky bonds from Greece and other debt-burdened European nations. But maybe they should think again. Here, three reasons why China would be wise to rescue Europe:

1. If Europe falters, it would cripple China's economy 
China's economic growth could be cut in half if the eurozone enters a recession, warns the International Monetary Fund. With annual trade valued at 560 billion euros ($730 billion), Europe is China's largest trading partner. In addition, Chinese business investments in Europe more than doubled from 2010 to 2011. Propping up Europe now could forestall a far-more-expensive economic collapse down the road.

SEE MORE: Will debt downgrades doom the eurozone recovery?

2. China could gain political leverage over the West
In "desperate need of financial support," Europe might be willing to make big political concessions to China, writes Thomas H. Naylor at CounterPunch. For instance, as a prerequisite for aid, China demand that the West quit threatening Iran over its nuclear program. Such a move would "effectively checkmate" the U.S. and Israel. "All of this makes Washington very nervous," and the U.S. "does not relish the thought of the EU becoming financially dependent on Beijing."

3. China could also bolster its clout at the IMF 
China should "pony up," writes Wayne Arnold at Reuters, but buying European bonds directly is "too risky." Instead, China should funnel its aid through the IMF — and thereby earn a "bigger role at the world's currency watchdog." The U.S. dollar is still the world's reserve currency, which leaves China vulnerable to the whims of U.S. monetary policy. China views the IMF as the "best counterbalance to such tides," and winning more influence at the powerful organization ought to be a "no-brainer."

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this topic:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here

Why Republicans should lay off China

Pete Hoekstra sparked a media firestorm with his racist "yellowgirl" ad. Sadly, he's hardly the only Republican trafficking in xenophobic Beijing-bashing Earlier this month, lucky Michigan viewers of Superbowl XLVI were serenaded with a political attack ad that is, to borrow a word from the ever poetic Mitt Romney, "severely" stupid. It takes the game of China-bashing to a new level, just as Chinese President-Select Xi Jinping arrives in the United States for a friendly visit.

The 30-second ad, put out by Michigan Republican Senate candidate Pete Hoekstra (who hopes to take on incumbent Democrat Debbie Stabenow in the fall), opens with a Fu Manchurian clang of a gong, followed by a young Chinese woman riding a bike leisurely down a narrow dirt path lined by rice paddies. Sashaying to a stop, she delivers a beguiling Anna May Wong smile, and speaks in a sweet voice peppered with just enough grammatical errors to bite like salt on a fresh wound: "Thank you, Michigan Senator Debbie Spend-it-now. Debbie spends so much American money. You borrow more and more from us. Your economy get very weak. Ours get very good. We take your jobs. Thank you, Debbie Spend-it-now." The scene then cuts to an avuncular Hoekstra summarizing the moral of this tale about faraway places: "I think this race is between Debbie Spend-it-now and Pete Spend-it-not." Zing.

SEE MORE: China's 'Year of the Dragon' baby boom: A guide

America has plenty of problems that need fixing. Pretending they're the fault of some menacing Red threat won't help us solve them.

For decades, Michigan has sadly watched the decline of its prized auto industry — a loss that has led to racially-driven anger and sledgehammers smashing Japan-made cars. It all culminated in the tragic death of Vincent Chin in 1982. Chin was beaten to death with a baseball bat by a Chrysler plant superintendent, after being mistaken for someone of Japanese heritage (as if that would have made it okay). Considering that history, the racial insensitivity of running this ad in Michigan of all places, and dubbing it "yellowgirl" in the HTML code on Hoekstra's campaign website, is simply beyond the pale.

SEE MORE: China's 'amazing' construction of a 30-story building in 360 hours

What Hoekstra didn't realize, apparently, was that the setting and costume used in the ad is identifiably Vietnamese, not Chinese. Indeed, the ad has drawn attention in China not for its Sinophobic content, but for its comical misidentification. 

Of course, the "yellowgirl" ad is not a single, standalone incident of China-bashing, but one of the many we have seen and will continue to see in political campaigns as well as media coverage. The disturbingly long list includes the infamous "Chinese professor" ad put out by Citizens Against Government Waste during the midterm elections in 2010, Rush Limbaugh's ridiculous mimicry of the Chinese president's speech ("ching chong, look see"), and countless attack ads in state-level elections that flash an opponent's unflattering headshot with the words "China" and "jobs" looming in the background.

SEE MORE: China's economic growing pains

Among the many perils of China-bashing is that it leaves voters misinformed. But it also unfairly and xenophobically blames the "other" for America's abundance of self-inflicted problems. Case in point: As a member of Congress, Hoekstra voted for the $700 billion bailout of the financial system in 2008. He voted again and again for budgets with big-time deficits — trillions of dollars worth, over time. That's not exactly the fault of our "yellowgirl." Forget "Pete Spend-it-not." This big-spending Republican is more like "Pete Hoe Extra."

SEE MORE: The $1.2 million Rolls-Royce that's selling out in China

The truth is, blaming China or any other country for the loss of American jobs focuses on symptoms rather than disease. In our global economy, capital, given its greedy nature, flows to wherever it can reap the best profit. It is incumbent upon national governments to create attractive environments for investment. As for trade imbalance, the root cause is not currency manipulation, but economic ideology. As long as our national economic life is fixated on finance — and Americans are more focused on buying mutual funds than on growing apple orchards in their backyards —the traditional mode of production will take a backseat. Take GM. Prior to the banking crisis, the financial arm of the company, GMAC (now Ally Financial), had grown so big that its revenue exceeded the actual car-making business. When an automobile company makes more money in finance than in manufacturing, should we really be surprised to see the flight of manufacturing jobs?

The miraculous turnaround of GM — it rose from near bankruptcy to become the No. 1 auto company in the world — is not only a powerful testament to the importance of government and industry working together to create jobs. It also sheds light on the futility and irresponsibility of politicians who continue to bash China. It wasn't politically-motivated scapegoating of foreign automakers that fixed GM.

SEE MORE: Is China really on the verge of surpassing the U.S.?

But look at the GOP presidential field. Mitt Romney wants to wage a trade war with China. Not to be outdone, Rick Santorium simply wants to go to war with China: "I don't want to go to a trade war, I want to beat China. I want to go to war with China." Newt Gingrich has a bold plan for a moon colony, a pipe dream strongly motivated by the Cold War era desire to beat the Chinese. When Jon Huntsman withdrew from the race, Republicans lost the only candidate who had any credibility or capability of dealing with China as effectively as the Obama administration has.

The Obama approach is two-fold: On the one hand, he welcomes the rise of China, acknowledging its benefit to the United States and the world. On the other hand, he continues to chide and pressure China to play by the rules and to improve its human rights record. Criticism and competition are healthy. Bashing and warmongering are not. You can't blame a country for continuing to loan you money, buying up your Treasury bills to sustain your lavish lifestyle of deficit spending. You can't criticize a country for having a poor human rights record when your own companies, such as Apple and Cisco, are helping to fuel the rise of poor, exploitive working conditions at Chinese factories, or assisting to modernize the surveillance technology of Chinese police departments that crack down on the people.

SEE MORE: Xi Jinping: The 'mystery man' in line to lead China

It's time to lay off China. America has plenty of problems that need fixing. But pretending they're the fault of some menacing Red threat won't help us solve them.

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this topic:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here

Should glitter bombers get jail time?

A Colorado college student could wind up behind bars for throwing glitter on Mitt Romney. Excessive punishment or a necessary deterrent? Colorado's Tuesday state caucuses were tough on Mitt Romney. Not only did he lose, he was glitter bombed. Colorado authorities this week filed misdemeanor criminal charges against Peter Smith, a 20-year-old college student, for throwing glitter on Romney to protest the Republican presidential candidate's general platform. Though glitter bombers have similarly enhanced Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul — more typically to protest the candidates' position on gay marriage — Smith is the first person criminally charged for the increasingly popular stunt that could, say some medical professionals, lead to scratched corneas or even loss of sight. If convicted, Smith could face up a $1,000 fine and up to six months in prison. Fair punishment?

It's about time one of these fools went to jail: Enough is enough, says the Duluth, Minn., News Tribune in an editorial. "Arresting a glitter bomber may seem unnecessary and over-the-top, but a criminal record and fine (or other punishment) can send a message to would-be copycats" before someone decides glitter isn't "flashy enough," and tries throwing something more serious, "like acid or worse." Besides, there are more effective ways to take a stand than "making yourself into a public spectacle."
"Why no arrests after glitter-bombings?"

At most these harmless protesters deserve a warning: "This is absurd and outrageous," says gossip blogger Perez Hilton. Smith absolutely does not deserve to go to jail for such a "totally nonviolent act of protest" — especially one that was "barely even successful!" The young man was merely expressing his political views in a way that was "pretty much harmless." At most, they should let him off with a stern warning.
"WTF! 20-Year-Old Student who glitter bombed Mitt Romney may get jail time!"

Eventually, someone was bound to end up behind bars: The authorities looked the other way the first time a GOP presidential candidate was glitter-bombed, says Erik Hayden at TIME. And the second. And the third. But at this point "nearly every single GOP presidential candidate has faced the ire of the glitter bomb[er]," and it's getting increasingly difficult to condone these assaults. The more the glitter piles up, the more likely it is that the authorities will use prosecution, and jail time, as a deterrent.
"'Glitter-bombing' a politician could get you six months in jail"

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this topic:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here

Should glitter bombers get jail time?

A Colorado college student could wind up behind bars for throwing glitter on Mitt Romney. Excessive punishment or a necessary deterrent? Colorado's Tuesday state caucuses were tough on Mitt Romney. Not only did he lose, he was glitter bombed. Colorado authorities this week filed misdemeanor criminal charges against Peter Smith, a 20-year-old college student, for throwing glitter on Romney to protest the Republican presidential candidate's general platform. Though glitter bombers have similarly enhanced Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul — more typically to protest the candidates' position on gay marriage — Smith is the first person criminally charged for the increasingly popular stunt that could, say some medical professionals, lead to scratched corneas or even loss of sight. If convicted, Smith could face up a $1,000 fine and up to six months in prison. Fair punishment?

It's about time one of these fools went to jail: Enough is enough, says the Duluth, Minn., News Tribune in an editorial. "Arresting a glitter bomber may seem unnecessary and over-the-top, but a criminal record and fine (or other punishment) can send a message to would-be copycats" before someone decides glitter isn't "flashy enough," and tries throwing something more serious, "like acid or worse." Besides, there are more effective ways to take a stand than "making yourself into a public spectacle."
"Why no arrests after glitter-bombings?"

At most these harmless protesters deserve a warning: "This is absurd and outrageous," says gossip blogger Perez Hilton. Smith absolutely does not deserve to go to jail for such a "totally nonviolent act of protest" — especially one that was "barely even successful!" The young man was merely expressing his political views in a way that was "pretty much harmless." At most, they should let him off with a stern warning.
"WTF! 20-Year-Old Student who glitter bombed Mitt Romney may get jail time!"

Eventually, someone was bound to end up behind bars: The authorities looked the other way the first time a GOP presidential candidate was glitter-bombed, says Erik Hayden at TIME. And the second. And the third. But at this point "nearly every single GOP presidential candidate has faced the ire of the glitter bomb[er]," and it's getting increasingly difficult to condone these assaults. The more the glitter piles up, the more likely it is that the authorities will use prosecution, and jail time, as a deterrent.
"'Glitter-bombing' a politician could get you six months in jail"

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this topic:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here

Should Plan B pills be available in vending machines?

The health center at Pennsylvania's Shippenburg University installs a controversial new unit to dispense emergency contraceptives for students

Vending machines already dispense everything from iPods to live crabs. Now, a new dispenser at Shippenburg University's health center in Pennsylvania is selling morning after pills to students for $25 a pop. The private clinic is only accessible to registered Shippenberg students who are required to check-in at a front desk, thus deterring those under the legal age of 16 from using it. The idea is to expedite the process by giving young women already seeking the pill an alternative to going off campus. But are college health officials crossing a line by making the drug so readily available? 

It's a "brilliant" move: The Plan-B pill "is most effective if taken within five days of unprotected sex," says Jessica Wakeman at The Frisky. So — "the sooner the better." A machine not only provides a degree of privacy, but takes away "a lot of frantic scrambling at an already stressful time." All in all, it means fewer unwanted pregnancies and thus fewer abortions — something that "both anti-abortion folks and pro-choice folks can all agree on."
Brilliant Idea: PA College Dispensing Plan B From Vending Machines

But it might not be a good idea: This is part of a trend "with serious pitfalls" in which consumers can buy drugs "without interface with a pharmacist or doctors," Alexandra Stern, a professor of the history of medicine at the University of Michigan tells Bloomberg Businessweek. After all, medical professionals — even those behind a pharmacy counter — are there for a reason, especially when it comes to helping young people choose the right course of action.
"Pa. vending machine dispenses 'morning-after' pill"

Well, it's a start: Are you kidding me? It's not like students will be picking up their contraceptives "where they get their Twix," says Anna North at Jezebel. "Basically, it sounds like the school has found a simple, semi-private" and affordable way for students to get "a very safe medication that can prevent pregnancy." The only other "real solution" would be to just make emergency contraceptives available over the counter for everyone. But "that's not happening anytime soon."
"University Scandalizes Everyone With Whorish Plan B Vending Machine"

SEE MORE: Are married people 'nearly a minority'?

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this topic:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here

Should Amazon build a brick-and-mortar store?

Rumor has it that the premier online retailer is taking a page from Apple and opening a retail "boutique" in Seattle. Does that compute?

Online retail giant Amazon will open its first retail store in just a few short months, according to Michael Kozlowski at Good E-Reader. Citing "Amazon sources close to the situation," Kozlowski says the company is planning to take the "small boutique route," opening a high-end, Apple–like shop in Seattle that focuses on Amazon Exclusives books, Kindle e-readers and tablets, and other accessories. If the store is a hit, Amazon would expand nationwide. This is clearly still just a rumor, but even if Amazon isn't truly thinking of getting physical, should it be?

An Amazon store is madness: Amazon flirting with brick-and-mortar retailing "may be a sign that 2012 really is the year of the apocalypse," says Peter Pachal at Mashable. Yes, it worked for Apple. But it would be "a strange move for a company synonymous with the efficiency and convenience of online retail." Amazon thrives because it pioneered the art of foregoing the overhead costs of real-world stores. Embracing them now is "akin to Google creating a microfiche search service."
"Amazon to open retail store"

Actually, this would be a good move: Amazon is "not an online seller, it's a seller," says Ryan Kim at GigaOm. And a curated space to showcase Amazon's growing collection of Kindles and other branded products could help. Why should these gadgets simply "vie for shelf space in Best Buy"? A retail shop would also give Amazon a place to sell the books from its new publishing house, which stores like Barnes & Noble won't stock. This "would be a big turning point for Amazon, and one that ultimately makes sense." 
"Why it makes sense for Amazon to open its own stores"

Let's not get too worked up about this rumor: The market isn't wild about the idea: Amazon's stock sank Monday, says Dan Mitchell at Fortune. But investors and bloggers are overreacting. This isn't even the first time Amazon store rumors have popped up. It was only in December when we heard that Amazon was considering "big, Costco-like stores." And even if the latest rumor is true — so what? A trial Amazon store "might work... or it might not." If it's a hit, great. And "if not, it won't be a great loss," for Amazon or us.
"Will Amazon really go retail?"

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this topic:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here