1. My first reaction to this:

Bad principal. Bad. No more treats.

Then I realized he's in a really tough situation.

Principal Timothy Voels and a sign language translator were waiting for Cave and Simba at the entrance and laid down the law[.]

First, if the school provided an interpreter at all times, the need for a service dog would be moot. But I can also see how the kid might prefer being more independent, which the dog would facilitate by eliminating the need for a human shadow tagging along all day.

But school officials think the Labrador Retriever could aggravate or serve as a distraction to students with severe allergies and would pose a danger during fire and emergency lockdown drills.

I can understand the worry about allergies. But distraction? After awhile the novelty would wear off. And if the kid knows what he's doing, he won't let people randomly pet and/or interact with his service dog. Lastly, a danger during drills? I don't quite see that. But I'm open to a more specific explanation.

Cave's family countered that the 1,500-student school could be outfitted with air filters.

Now that's a bit excessive, I think. But then again, do they really have students so severely allergic to dogs that they can't stand being in the same classroom with one for, say, one hour a day?

Also, judging by the photo accompanying the article, that dog is not old enough to be done with its training. It looks like a half-grown puppy. I could be wrong about that. And even if I'm right, I'm not sure what the implications for this case would be, other than complicating matters because the dog is in training and therefore not yet an official service animal (though in-training guide dogs are given the same access as trained guide dogs, apparently).

2. Have I talked about this before?

Even if I have, it's worth another mention. I mean, come on. It's Jesus Christ: Vampire Hunter.

3. So the church-sponsored month-long sex-fest is over.

If the goal was to improve marriages, I can't say I agree with their methods. I'd wager that most people's sex drives aren't ideally sated with daily sex. In fact, I'd say that's overkill for most people. Can't the married couples just talk to each other about what their ideal schedule would be? Wouldn't that serve the same purpose? And wouldn't daily sex between an already-incompatible couple only aggravate the problem further? Though I suppose from a practical standpoint, that's probably good. If the marriage isn't working, it's probably best to end it sooner rather than later (except where there are kids involved). And I doubt the church wanted this exercise to result in divorces.

Doug learned that Lorena's top need is spending time together. Lorena learned that Doug's top need is openness and honesty.

"We're finding things out about each other that we didn't know,'' he said. "It's really brought us together as a couple.''

Shouldn't they have known that already, without forced sex as a catalyst for disclosure?

The same goes for Paul Wirth, the pastor at Relevant Church. He and his wife of 16 years, Susie, took the challenge to refocus their relationship and inspire others, using the Bible as their guide.

Are they saying the Bible encourages daily sex for married couples? Can I see a citation, please?

4. An interesting discussion of legalization of prostitution. Before, I'd probably say I was for legalization, simply because I don't think government should prohibit victimless behaviors for the sake of moral policing. But there are some compelling arguments here:

The Netherlands formally adopted the legalization model in 2000, and there were modest public health benefits for the licensed prostitutes. But legalization nurtured a large sex industry and criminal gangs that trafficked underage girls, and so trafficking, violence and child prostitution flourished rather than dying out.

And again, Sweden comes to the rescue:

In contrast, Sweden experimented in 1999 with a radically different approach that many now regard as much more successful: it decriminalized the sale of sex but made it a crime to buy sex. In effect, the policy was to arrest customers, but not the prostitutes.

Some Swedish prostitutes have complained that the policy reduced demand and thus lowered prices, while forcing sex work underground. But the evidence is strong that the new approach reduced trafficking in Sweden, and opinion polls show that Swedes regard the experiment as a considerable success.

Interesting approach.

I think that the problem with legalization schemes is that prostitution is more, for the majority of the customers, about buying the opportunity to treat a woman like utter trash.

Sadly, this is often the case, I'd wager. But it's definitely not 100%. And what about male prostitutes? Or dominatrixes? They're paid to be the treater-like-trash, not the treatee.

Which is why I tear my hair out at the people who focus on the exceptions, like Kerry Howley arguing that prostitution is about women who love sex so much they want to make it a career.

Meh. I think that's a weak and possibly false argument. Though there are probably a few cases that would confirm it.

There’s probably a few high class hookers that fit the “love sex so much I do it for a career” model, and probably even more that are just really good looking women who figure it’s easy cash, even if they don’t have any illusions that it’s a great time having sex with the kind of assholes who pay for it.

I'm actually going to come to the defense of people who pay for sex here, strangely. I doubt they're all assholes. What if someone just wants an honest sexual experience without worrying about the emotional pitfalls otherwise (often) inherent in the process? The fact that it's not an experience I would seek out doesn't mean I have the right to condemn those who would seek it.

5. Didn't this already happen a few years ago? Anyone else remember that?