Cellboors In The Pharmacy Line
They're the people who yammer away on their cell phones while the rest of us are in the pharmacy line, and then, when asked to pipe down, say, "If you don't like it, go outside!" (Um, sorry, but I don't think that bush out there will sell me the pills I need.)
And yes, I do offer solutions to this and other problems of cellboorage in "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck."
The book is discounted from the $14.99 retail price to only $9.48 at Amazon and $9.67 at Barnes & Noble.
The Cost Of Living Kindly
One from my Pinterest page with quotes from my book, "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck," to be published on Tuesday, June 3. 
Gratuitous Dog Photo
With her favorite toy, a little alligator that looks kind of like a little green Gregg.
Four In Bed: Two People, The State Of California, And The University
There's an editorial in the LA Times about the ridiculous bill before the California State Senate that would require schools in the state receiving funds for student financial aid to include an "affirmative consent standard" as part of their sexual assault policy:
The standard would require that the "person initiating" must ensure that he or she has the consent of the other person before moving forward toward sex. "She never said no" would not be a defense. The question would be, "Did she ever say -- or indicate -- yes"?Initially the bill, introduced by state Sens. Kevin de Leon (D-Los Angeles) and Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara), called for consent given "by words or clear, unambiguous actions," and said that "if there is confusion as to whether a person has consented or continues to consent to sexual activity, it is essential that the participants stop the activity until the confusion can be clearly resolved." The bill noted that relying on "nonverbal" signs could lead to misunderstandings. To critics, that language suggested that students had to pause at each step along the way to the sex act to ask each other -- preferably out loud, in words -- if both parties were still onboard.
That seemed, to say the least, to add an artificial element to sex and to mandate specific behavior in the bedroom that has traditionally been beyond the state's purview. While affirmative consent may be legally and even morally advisable, is it enforceable or the business of the Legislature?
Responding to those and other concerns, De Leon has revised the bill, toning it down slightly to define consent as "an affirmative, unambiguous and conscious decision by each participant" and dropping the language about using "words." He also has pared back the insistence that sex should be halted in cases of confusion. The bill does, however, say that consent must be "ongoing" and "can be revoked at any time."
Why not just require a signed permission slip filed in the Registrar's office?
Are colleges preparing students for adulthood or a second stint in nursery school?
Count Linkula
Dracula's bad seed cousin.
Why, I'm Having Lovely F*cking Afternoon, Thank You Very Much
I just toddled over to Amazon and checked my stats. My book, Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck
Thank you so, so much to everyone who's pre-ordered. I worked really, really hard on this and I hope you like it, laugh your asses off at the funny bits, and get a lot out of it.
The Sweet And Lowdown
Chris Kresser has an excellent post on the subject, laying out what the research does and does not say. I agree with him on his conclusion:
Do Artificial Sweeteners 'Confuse' The Body?
For most of human history, sweeteners were inextricably tied to caloric density. If our sweet taste receptors evolved primarily to help us identify calorie-rich food sources, how will our bodies respond when our taste receptors are consistently bombarded with sweetness, but with no concomitant calorie surge?Animal models certainly indicate that artificial sweeteners can impair the innate ability to regulate caloric intake. Rats who are fed with artificial sweeteners consistently gain more weight than rats who are fed with glucose or sucrose. (22, 23) Additionally, the rats don't tend to lose the excess weight, even after their diets are switched back to glucose or sucrose to re-establish the calorie-predictive nature of sweet taste.
Interestingly, rats who were given stevia solutions gained significantly more weight than the glucose-fed rats, and similar amounts of weight to the saccharin-fed rats. (24) Rats fed with artificial sweeteners also develop an impaired ability to respond to sugar-containing foods. In one study, rats who had been fed artificial sweeteners were unable to compensate for the calorie content of a sugar preload by eating less chow afterwards, while rats who had been fed sugar-containing food compensated almost perfectly for the extra calories in the preload by eating less chow. (25) ... (section cont'd at link)
Should You Be Eating Artificial Sweeteners?
My conclusion might seem a little anticlimactic after all that information, but the point I'd like to drive home is that artificial sweeteners are extremely new to the human diet, and for modern, industrial foods, the operating principle should always be "guilty until proven innocent." We've conducted what are essentially population-wide experiments with the introduction of other industrial foods (such as high omega-6 vegetable oils) because the initial evidence seemed promising, and we can see how well that worked out.Despite some successful short-term weight loss studies, I don't think the potential therapeutic effects of artificial sweeteners have been demonstrated clearly enough thus far to warrant widespread consumption, especially given the conflicting links with disease risk and the questionable influence on appetite regulation and weight control. Ultimately, while artificial sweeteners are perhaps not as scary as some might believe, I don't recommend including them in your diet.
Maybe Rethink Making That Sex Tape
Another fine quote from "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck," from the section on privacy in the Internet chapter.
The Obama Administration Sees Women As Victims To Be Helped After Victimization; Never Mind Prevention
Amy Otto has a smart piece at Pocket Full of Liberty, noting what's wrong with the White House Statement condemning sexual assault on campuses -- that it's all about the aftermath...only. First she quotes Biden:
"Colleges and universities can no longer turn a blind eye or pretend rape and sexual assault doesn't occur on their campuses," Vice President Biden said as a 20-page report was released Tuesday. "We need to provide survivors with more support and we need to bring perpetrators to more justice and we need colleges and universities to step up."--Vice President Biden
Otto writes:
Reading the report, you discover the administration has no real interest in even discussing what could be done to prevent rape. That's right, the entire effort is focused on managing what comes after a rape. I don't know about you, but what I'd much prefer is not being raped. While I'd want justice and removal of the thug from the street, what I'd really want was for it to have not happened. Effective initiatives would reduce rapes rather than merely attempt to make the process afterwards run a little more smoothly.Instead, we get more fear mongering by the administration that is meant to make women feel alone and afraid. Female empowerment is the last goal of this initiative.
She gets it right, too, on who should be prosecuting rapes, and it ain't the university but the courts. Only after courts make a determination that a person is guilty should a university take action like expulsion. But, currently, on campus, there's been a removal of due process, allowing for exploitation of and injustices against -- primarily, if not exclusively -- men.
Otto finishes with this:
The solutions to rape prevention do not belong with institutions that cannot manage spiraling overhead costs, tolerate free speech or provide people with degrees that improve their likelihood for success.What the White House is offering is more of the same failed ideas.
If Universities are now struggling with their main mission, why would we entrust them with stopping crime?
I absolutely agree.
via @instapundit
Randazza On Rodger, The First Amendment, And Ethics
I held back here in how I mentioned Rodger, calling him the "Isla Vista Murderer" and such; not referring to him by name.
This was an effort to deny him having his name out there, with being known as some sort of sick reward for slaughtering innocent people.
But while I did this voluntarily, I stand with Marc Randazza on not wanting speech banned -- even speech that can be used to glorify horrible acts. Randazza writes at CNN.com:
But what of those who believe Rodger is a positive example? Sickeningly enough, some expressed admiration for what he did, as there will always be people who glorify the worst among us. While the overwhelming view is one of horror and disgust, some people put up a Facebook page praising him.As much as I disagree with that view, my beliefs are strong enough that I can tolerate theirs. Some might say that such a perspective must be purged. The First Amendment would find such a purge to be intolerable -- if enforced by the government or force of law. The First Amendment is there to protect unpopular beliefs, and the marketplace of ideas should be open to this -- and I would hope that none would visit the stall in the marketplace to buy them.
That, however, ignores the issue of ethics. I have a blog. If someone wanted to glorify Rodger on my blog, I would say "my blog, my rules," and I would not tolerate it. That would not be a First Amendment violation. In fact, the right not to speak is as precious as the right to speak.
I think that's a very important point.
That said, if someone wanted to glorify Rodger on my blog, I would allow it. In fact, I think it would be a good thing. I know the commenters here would make quick hash of that person, maybe, possibly showing them the error of their ways.
We are prone to keep believing and to seek reinforcement for our beliefs, so maybe they'd just keep on keepin' on. But maybe, just maybe, somebody would get through to them, maybe just a little. And even if they didn't, maybe that somebody would make persuasive arguments that would move other people's thinking forward.
It's through free speech that we advance our thinking and not by silencing the ugly speech. That doesn't make it go away; just go underground, where it's maybe more pernicious, since it can't be challenged. Also, sometimes it's the ugly speech that really gets people thinking -- and doing. You might be motivated to fight ugliness and depravity, not what's invisible.
And sure, when a person pays the bandwidth, they get to choose what goes on their site. But I think even those who deplore certain positions should be more open to having them aired.
Linkle
Like Urkle, but with html.
Okay, Then I'll Be The "Manners Police"
Some jerk of a person -- calling him/herself "The Grammar Police" -- apparently trolls Twitter, pounces on total strangers using the wrong word, and tells them how to correct their grammar. Rude. My reply. (And P.S. I love when David Yontz, who copyedits me, offers his corrections -- but he doesn't just go around hammering strangers who haven't asked.)
And yes, this -- how to deal with rude, unsolicited advice -- is the sort of thing I cover in "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck."
Write If You Want Jerk
This below is, unfortunately, relevant today. But I've learned, when a person or a day shits on my head, to take steps to deal with it the best I can -- take the best possible shot to solve things -- and then I can at least feel good about my behavior.
Which I currently do. Whatever happens. As per this Pin on my Pinterest page, mostly of funny quotes from the book. 
It also helps that my boyfriend is very supportive. When the chips are down, he's right there with a new bag of chips. (Though not literally because he knows I'll kill him if he eats a starchy carb -- lest they kill him eventually.)
Oh, and because no blog post the week before my book gets published is complete without a "Please buy my book!" link to "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck":
The book is discounted from the $14.99 retail price to only $9.48 at Amazon and $9.67 at Barnes & Noble.
Come to my book launch party June 3! If you live close to LA, it would be so wonderful to meet some of you, especially longtime blog commenters. There's a book launch party/reading at Diesel Books in Brentwood, at the Brentwood County Mart, on Tuesday, June 3, at from 6:30 to 8 p.m. (revised time!)
Come a little early! Wine and snacks will be served (thank you, Gregg!).
Please invite people!
Diesel Books, Brentwood Country Mart, 225 26th Street, Suite #33, Santa Monica CA 90402, (310) 576-9960
Also, if you live out of town and want to order a book signed by me, call Diesel by Tuesday afternoon (make sure it's the Brentwood one above), buy a book -- or a stack! -- and leave them the message about what you want me to sign.
Some people like the message I signed for my friend Jill, Mickey Kaus, and a few others last book around: "I'll never forget your huge penis." I'm fine with that. Also, if you want "medium-sized penis," perhaps out of modesty, I'm happy to oblige.
The Audacity Of Kerry Telling Snowden To "Man Up" And Turn Himself In
You may not agree that Snowden did the right thing, but here's a guy who put his principles before his personal welfare. "Man up"? He did, and then some, and then some. Law prof Jonathan Turley has a good analysis:
The ruling class in Washington finds Snowden perfectly incomprehensible. Every aspects of our political system has long been tied down and controlled by the two parties. For such leaders, someone like Snowden is nothing short of an alien visitation -- someone who throws away his career and possible freedom for what he claims to be principle. To make matters worse, Snowden is viewed as a whistleblower, if not a hero, by many in the United States and around the world....Like Clinton, Kerry cannot imagine why Snowden would not trust the system: "If he cares so much about America and he believes in America, he should trust the American system of justice."
As someone who has held top clearances since the Reagan administration, I do not support the release of classified information. However, as someone who has litigated national security cases from terrorism to espionage cases, there is every reason for Snowden to be leery of our system as it currently stands in the post 9-11 world. I have great faith and love for our legal system, but national security law has become increasingly draconian and outcome determinative due to various changes in the last decade. This Administration has continued to use of secret legal opinions and secret evidence in cases. The agencies continue to classify information to prevent the public or defendants from reviewing potentially embarrassing or conflicting material. President Obama has refused to close tribunal proceedings and maintains the same claim of his inherent authority to decide whether people go to real courts or the widely ridiculed tribunal proceedings. Even if in the federal system, the government would hit Snowden with SAMs to cut off any contact and impose limitations on even his cleared counsel in speaking with him. At trial, federal judges are increasingly barring arguments from defendants as "immaterial" even when those arguments are the real reason for their actions.
Thus, the Justice Department would likely move to exclude arguments that disclosure was necessary because Snowden had no real alternative for reform. He might be even prevented from arguing that he was seeking to protect citizens from the systemic and comprehensive denial of privacy. Even if some of that motivational argument were allowed, it would likely trigger an instruction that that is no defense to the charges. Sentencing enhancements routinely used by the Justice Department would guarantee a life sentence if convicted for Snowden.
As for utilizing the system to make these disclosures before he fled, Snowden had little reason to trust the congressional oversight committees or the agencies themselves. Just for the record, as many of you know, I represented the prior whistleblower who first revealed this program years before Snowden. He tried to use the system. Happily he was not charged and is doing well. However, as I have testified in Congress, the whistleblower system referred to by Clinton is a colossal joke. First, as Clinton must know (but did not mention), there are exceptions under the whistleblower laws for national security information. Second, the House and Senate oversight committees are viewed as the place that whistleblowers go to get arrested. There is a revolving door of staff back and forth to the intelligence agencies and people like Dianne Feinstein have denounced Snowden as a traitor. While one can still criticize Snowden for breaking classification laws, the suggestion that he could have used the whistleblower system is hardly self-evident if you are familiar with the laws or the history of such cases.
Sidewalk-Hogging Pedestrians
It's so irritating when a couple takes over a narrow sidewalk or a line of friends or family take over a somewhat wider one and give no indication that they will move over so you can pass.
Well, my book, "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck," is, in part, about how to not let the rude take advantage of you and here's a tip for that when you encounter these sidewalk-using rudesters.
This really works! I've had success with this for years -- in the U.S. and in Paris. Also, I just got a call from Erin Anderssen, the terrific reporter who did a piece on me and my book for the Globe and Mail, and she was amazed, after trying it over the weekend, to find that people really do move over and let you pass.
Sad Story: Anthropology Student Gets Involved With Yanomami Woman And They Have A Kid
I know Nap Chagnon, with whom this guy worked (who jokes that I say "Yanomami" -- the name of this woman's tribe, which he studied -- like it's a Japanese venereal disease).
There's a story in the NYPost about the child of anthropology student Kenneth Good and the woman from the Yanomami tribe he got involved with and brought back to America. Of course, this worked predictably well, and the kid ended up growing up without a mom. Maureen Callahan writes about the mother:
She was born and raised in the jungle, in a remote village that rarely, if ever, encounters any outsiders, let alone Westerners. Her age is unknown, because the Yanomami count only up to 2; anything more than that is called "many." They have no electricity, no plumbing, no paved roads, no written language, no markets or currency, no medicine.
Good got involved with the mother when she was 12 or 13. He went away for a time and she was attacked and gang-raped -- apparently because he was not there to protect her. He then took her to Caracas for modern medical care -- and then convinced her to come to America. Yeah, take the woman who lives like it's the Stone Age out of her culture and bring her to the most modern country in the world, with all that offers and means. What could possibly go wrong?
At the time, Yarima was nine months pregnant with David. They found a doctor to write a note, falsely claiming she was less far along, so that she could fly.In November 1986, within a week of arriving in Bryn Mawr, Pa., Yarima went into labor and was panicked by the American hospital: the gurneys, the monitors, the machines, the needles. Once admitted, she sprung herself out of bed and attempted to give birth by squatting in the corner of the hospital room.
"It was so unnatural to her," Kenneth says. "It went against Âeverything she ever learned."
After David was born, Kenneth attempted to settle Yarima into modern American domesticity, with a sprinkling of celebrity treatment: Around that time, a reporter at People magazine caught wind of their story, and in January 1987, Kenneth and Yarima -- who spoke no English, no matter -- were profiled in a feature called "An Amazon Love Story: Romance -- and a Jumbo Jet -- Took Yarima from the Stone Age to Philadelphia."
Kenneth got movie offers.
Meanwhile, his wife was becoming ever more isolated and desperate. While Kenneth was teaching, Yarima would take the $20 he left every morning and go to Dunkin' Donuts, then the $10 store, where she never knew how much she could buy. She had to adapt to wearing clothes every day and thought that running cars were animals on the attack. She had no friends."I miss my family," Yarima told People magazine. "I want to go home." Kenneth was her translator.
She went home and stayed, and their son told people his mother had died in a car crash. He then saw her in a photo of her with a bone through her nose and face paint at the Museum of Natural history. And now, as an adult, he's back down there with her.
Should We Rethink Prison Labor?
A question that needs to be asked before reading this story is whether prison is a form of revenge or rehabilitation -- or how much of each it is. What are our real goals in sending people to prison? Do we think we deter others from committing crimes?
(And to answer that properly, I think we have to separate the murderers from the thieves and such.)
There's a long-form piece in the American Prospect, "Modern-Day Slavery in America's Prison Workforce: Why can't we embrace the idea that prisoners have labor rights?" by Beth Schwartzapfel. An excerpt:
Because inmate workers are not considered "employees" under the law, they have none of the protections that word implies. No disability or worker's compensation in the event of an injury. No Social Security withholdings, sick time, or overtime pay. In three states--Texas, Georgia, and Arkansas--they work for free. In Texas, where inmates are required to work under threat of punishment, most do maintenance tasks like Hazen, but some are assigned to "field force" jobs designed to be particularly demeaning. "It wouldn't be an ideal job," says Jason Clark, Texas Department of Criminal Justice public information officer director. "Someone may have had disciplinary issues, so they end up in the field force, doing various things including clearing fence lines. They're out under armed-guard supervision, using their labor."If that scenario sounds familiar, it should. "Thousands of prisoners toil in the hot sun every day and make nothing," says Judith Greene, a researcher and advocate with the nonprofit group Justice Strategies. "Prison guards on horseback, ten-gallon hats, prisoners in their uniforms. It looks like what it is: plantation labor all over again."
...Since prisoners are so far removed from the free market, and since their work is barely recognized as such by government agencies that regulate labor, they have little recourse and few protections. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is one safeguard they do have--federal and some state inmates "working in conditions similar to those outside prisons" can file an OSHA complaint if their workplace is unsafe--but it's toothless because, unlike in a free-world workplace, OSHA has to notify prisons in advance of inspections. A 2010 report by the government's General Accountability Office (GAO) skewered the federal prison system for purposefully hiding from OSHA dangerous practices at an electronics-waste recycling plant where toxic dust sickened hundreds of inmate workers and officers.
Despite the conditions and the pay, most inmates want to work.
...Study after study has found what common sense would suggest: Prisoners who gain professional skills while locked up, and those who earn a decent wage for their work, are far less likely to end up back behind bars. But if prisons in America, with the world's highest incarceration rate, had to pay minimum wage--let alone the prevailing wage--they couldn't keep operating. If inmates like Hazen weren't washing dishes in Massachusetts prisons, the state's corrections department would spend an average of $9.22 to hire someone else to do it (the mean hourly wage for a dishwasher, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics). That's 30 to 45 times what inmates make for performing the same service. As a result, prisons--and taxpayers--use prisoners to save hundreds of millions of dollars each year on labor costs, according to the GAO.
"If our criminal-justice system had to pay a fair wage for labor that inmates provide, it would collapse," says Alex Friedmann, managing editor of Prison Legal News, an independent magazine that promotes inmates' rights. "We could not afford to run our justice system without exploiting inmates."
But aren't they costing us far more than they are saving us?
It turns out that it costs us in recidivism when they get out of prison with no savings for a fresh start.
Here's an idea:
Paying inmates a prevailing wage would eliminate the complaint by free-world competitors and labor unions that prison shops are undercutting wages, since the wages would be the same on the inside and on the outside. It would help inmates make amends for their crimes, too, by allowing them to pay restitution to victims. And it would help them to accumulate some savings so they can rebuild their lives when they're released.But prisons have no incentive to pay inmates better--to the contrary. Unlike workers in the free market, who (theoretically, anyway) can weigh factors like pay, working conditions, and other benefits when deciding where to work, inmates do not have a choice between employers. If they need the money, or the experience, they must take or leave what the prison is offering.
What Color Is Your Linkachute?
Three colors: Dark chocolate, dark chocolate, and dark chocolate. Yours?
Marlboro Manners
Tonight's tip -- a quote from my new book, "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck": 
Seat-Wrangling Jerks On A Plane
Don't just offer to take somebody's seat. Offer cash.
From the "Going Places" chapter (covering cars, sidewalks, public transportation, and airplanes), in "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck."
The Reign In Planes Is Mainly One Of Tiny Space And Often Tinier Manners
A quote from my book, "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck" (June 3, 2014, St. Martin's Press). See many more of these fun quotes on my Pinterest page. 
Please pre-order my book, "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck," if you haven't already!
The book is discounted from the $14.99 retail price to only $9.48 at Amazon and $9.67 at Barnes & Noble.
Come to my book launch party June 3! If you live close to LA, it would be so wonderful to meet some of you, especially longtime blog commenters. There's a book launch party/reading at Diesel Books in Brentwood, at the Brentwood County Mart, on Tuesday, June 3, at 7 p.m.
Come a little early! Wine and snacks will be served (thank you, Gregg!).
Please invite people!
Diesel Books, Brentwood Country Mart, 225 26th Street, Suite #33, Santa Monica CA 90402, (310) 576-9960
"The Vast Majority Of Violent People Are Not Mentally Ill And Most Mentally Ill People Are Not Violent"
Richard A. Friedman, professor of clinical psychiatry and the director of the psychopharmacology clinic at the Weill Cornell Medical College, writes in The New York Times:
Indeed, only about 4 percent of overall violence in the United States can be attributed to those with mental illness. Most homicides in the United States are committed by people without mental illness who use guns.Mass killers are almost always young men who tend to be angry loners. They are often psychotic, seething with resentment and planning revenge for perceived slights and injuries. As a group, they tend to avoid contact with the mental health care system, so it's tough to identify and help them. Even when they have received psychiatric evaluation and treatment, as in the case of Mr. Rodger and Adam Lanza, who killed 20 children and seven adults, including his mother, in Connecticut in 2012, we have to acknowledge that our current ability to predict who is likely to be violent is no better than chance.
Large epidemiologic studies show that psychiatric illness is a risk factor for violent behavior, but the risk is small and linked only to a few serious mental disorders. People with schizophrenia, major depression or bipolar disorder were two to three times as likely as those without these disorders to be violent. The actual lifetime prevalence of violence among people with serious mental illness is about 16 percent compared with 7 percent among people who are not mentally ill.
What most people don't know is that drug and alcohol abuse are far more powerful risk factors for violence than other psychiatric illnesses. Individuals who abuse drugs or alcohol but have no other psychiatric disorder are almost seven times more likely than those without substance abuse to act violently.
I don't think the solution he offers -- keeping mentally ill people or people with a history of substance abuse -- is a real solution, because people who really compelled to kill will get guns. If you want one in my neighborhood, you don't have to go to a gun store. You go to Sixth Street or so, in the hood.
Here's what Friedman writes:
The current guideline for psychiatric treatment over the objection of the patient is, in most states, imminent risk of harm to self or others. Short of issuing a direct threat of violence or appearing grossly disturbed, you will not receive involuntary treatment. When Mr. Rodger was interviewed by the police after his mother expressed alarm about videos he had posted, several weeks ago, he appeared calm and in control and was thus not apprehended. In other words, a normal-appearing killer who is quietly planning a massacre can easily evade detection.In the wake of these horrific killings, it would be understandable if the public wanted to make it easier to force treatment on patients before a threat is issued. But that might simply discourage other mentally ill people from being candid and drive some of the sickest patients away from the mental health care system.
We have always had -- and always will have -- Adam Lanzas and Elliot Rodgers. The sobering fact is that there is little we can do to predict or change human behavior, particularly violence; it is a lot easier to control its expression, and to limit deadly means of self-expression. In every state, we should prevent individuals with a known history of serious psychiatric illness or substance abuse, both of which predict increased risk of violence, from owning or purchasing guns.
The reality is, there may not always be answers -- solutions, that is -- that allow us to prevent mass murders like this.
"If American Veterans Can't Trust The Govt With Their Medical Care, Why Should The Rest Of Us?"
That's the end line of a Paul Hsieh piece at PJMedia. Here's a bit the precedes it:
According to Kaiser Health News, the VA health scandal isn't relevant to their cause because "the VA system is fully government-run, and not the same as single-payer, where doctors and hospitals would remain private, with payment from the government."But this is a distinction without a difference.
The federal government sets the budget for the VA, determines which doctors can work for them, and ultimately controls what care patients may receive. Except for cosmetic differences, the same applies to any single-payer system. Even if doctors remain nominally private under single-payer, he who pays the piper calls the tune.
The Government Punishes The Poor For Working Or Working Harder
Crazy government-think that offers the poor incentive to not work or to not work as many hours:
via @reasonpolicy
Breaking The Law By Providing Poor People With Low-Cost Dental Care
The Arkansas dental board doesn't allow an orthodontist to clean teeth. Because orthodontists are somehow incapable of doing this? No, out of protectionism for dentists.
The wonderful Institute for Justice is on the case.
Yknil
It's backwards day!
(If that was too cryptic for you, like if you're new around here, you can post odd interesting links here.)
Listen To Me Bust Up Silly Etiquette Conventions On So Cal Public Radio At Around 9:35 AM Pacific Time (SCPR.org)
UPDATE: Here's the direct link. Going on right now, 9:44 a.m. Pacific.
I'm talking about manners and rudeness (and issues specific to LA as well) with the hosts Alex Cohen and A Martinez. The show is "Take Two," and you can listen live at SCPR.org at 9:35 a.m. I'm guessing there will also be a podcast version, which I'll post.
I bust up a few conventions, like the notion that we should only wear white at certain times and tell you the real deal on how to get people texting or talking on their phones in the movie theater. (They know they're being rude and they don't care, so your talking to them probably isn't going to do much, and might even get you stuck with a turkey baster, as happened to a guy who tried to shut up a cell yammerer in an OC movie theater.)
Please pre-order my book, "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck," if you haven't already!
The book is discounted from the $14.99 retail price to only $9.48 at Amazon and $9.67 at Barnes & Noble.
Come to my book launch party June 3! If you live close to LA, it would be so wonderful to meet some of you, especially longtime blog commenters. There's a book launch party/reading at Diesel Books in Brentwood, at the Brentwood County Mart, on Tuesday, June 3, at 7 p.m.
Come a little early! Wine and snacks will be served (thank you, Gregg!).
Please invite people!
Diesel Books, Brentwood Country Mart, 225 26th Street, Suite #33, Santa Monica CA 90402, (310) 576-9960
And in case you aren't sure whether you should attend, my book, "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck," was deemed one of 11 smart books to read for summer by science writer Sam McNerney at the book site 250 Words.
Nothing To Eat But This Big Ball Of Fire
Memorial Day at our friends' place.
This guy was one of three fire dancers.
Photo by Gregg Sutter
Modern Manners Guy Interviewed Me On His Podcast
Modern Manners Guy Richie Frieman asked me a bunch of smart, interesting questions on his podcast, which was just released yesterday. We talked about my book, "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck," and related questions on manners and rudeness.
His tweet:
@mannersqdt: New episode today staring the awesomely funny @amyalkon. We talk all things mannerly http://t.co/pCOy50n2Of @quickdirtytips @StMartinsPress
We had fun and I think you'll enjoy it!
"A Trophy For Everyone!" Is Now The Rating System At U.S. Govt's Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Of course, we taxpayers will be paying for that -- to the tune of over $5 million in increased pay...some of which will go to slackers who won't get rated according to their performance.
Scott Geer writes at The Daily Caller:
One government agency has decided that the results of employee ratings are too discriminatory, and eliminated the process entirely. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced on Monday that it will now award all employees the highest rating regardless of performance reviews.The CFPB, which oversees transactions in the financial sector for the federal government, decided to no longer conduct employee reviews because there were just too many apparent "significant disparities" between the races, ages, and locations of its employees.
According to American Banker, this new policy is set to cost over $5 million dollars, as it will now pay employees as if they received the highest evaluation score. The previous system ranked staff on their performance from a scale ranging from one to five, with five being the best score a CFPB staffer could receive after a review of their work on the job.
...Some have found this new policy to be misguided and believe it to be an overcorrection that will ultimately punish top performers in the department.
"Treating the agency's highest-rated employees the same as its lowest-rated ones is the opposite of fairness, Thomas Brown, a columnist for Bankstocks.com, wrote in a Wednesday piece lambasting the decision. "Hard-working, conscientious workers (and, yes, the federal government does have those) deserve to be treated better and paid more than workers who, say, persistently show up late and turn in shoddy work."
If You Can't Prosecute 'Em Out Of Business, Make It Impossible For Them To Maintain Bank Accounts
Glenn Harland Reynolds writes about disgusting "Operation Choke Point" in USA Today:
They told me if I voted for Mitt Romney, our moralistic Department of Justice would be trying to shut down porn stars. And they were right: I voted for Romney, and sure enough, the Department of Justice is trying to shut down porn stars. Along with a lot of other, perfectly legal businesses. But I'll bet if Romney were in the White House, there'd be more coverage in the press.A while back, some adult performers noticed that banks were terminating their accounts. The reason, it turned out, was a Justice Department program called "Operation Choke Point." This program, apparently, seeks to target businesses regarded as undesirable -- like porn -- by hitting them at a financial "choke point": their bank accounts.
Though the Justice Department can't prosecute people for making porn, because the First Amendment prohibits that, and too many people would think of them as blue-nosed morality police, which is politically undesirable, it can use its power to put them out of business extra-legally, by pressuring banks to cut off their accounts. Prosecutors and regulators have a lot of discretion, and the threat to use (or abuse) that discretion in ways that make banks uncomfortable provides a lot of leverage. Sure, banks make money off of the accounts of porn performers (and other targeted businesses), but not enough to make up for the hassle of being targeted for harassment by the feds.
...So what we have under "Operation Choke Point" is the government deciding it wants to put the squeeze on certain lines of (legal) business, for no other reason than that the Department of Justice doesn't favor them. It seems almost like some sort of conspiracy to deprive people of their civil rights.
Is this the country you want to be living in? Like Glenn, I don't think regulators should be allowed to abuse their discretion to pressure banks to close accounts of legal businesses.
And I sure agree with him on this:
Congress, and the courts, and the press, need to bring the Justice Department to heel. And, in fact, I think that the officials involved should be named, shamed, and disciplined. Because what's going on here doesn't look much like justice at all.
Inky
Dark and lovely links.
What The French Think Of The U.S.
From Thrillist. One of my faves:
"Clément is afraid of rednecks but he probably prefers them over people from LA."
via @emrichard
Federal Appeals Court Reaffirms Your Right To Record Cops, Including Cops At Traffic Stops. Also, Why It's Probably Wise To Do That Surreptitiously
Volokh has the decision here:
This case raises an important question about an individual's First Amendment right to film a traffic stop by a police officer. Carla Gericke attempted to film Sergeant Joseph Kelley as he was conducting a late-night traffic stop. Shortly thereafter, she was arrested and charged with several crimes, including a violation of New Hampshire's wiretapping statute. Gericke was not brought to trial. She subsequently sued the Town of Weare, its police department, and the officers who arrested and charged her, alleging in pertinent part that the wiretapping charge constituted retaliatory prosecution in violation of her First Amendment rights......Based on Gericke's version of the facts, we conclude that she was exercising a clearly established First Amendment right when she attempted to film the traffic stop in the absence of a police order to stop filming or leave the area...
...In Glik, we explained that gathering information about government officials in a form that can be readily disseminated "serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting 'the free discussion of governmental affairs.'" Protecting that right of information gathering "not only aids in the uncovering of abuses, but also may have a salutary effect on the functioning of government more generally." Those First Amendment principles apply equally to the filming of a traffic stop and the filming of an arrest in a public park. In both instances, the subject of filming is "police carrying out their duties in public." A traffic stop, no matter the additional circumstances, is inescapably a police duty carried out in public. Hence, a traffic stop does not extinguish an individual's right to film.
...Reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right to film may be imposed when the circumstances justify them.
The circumstances of some traffic stops, particularly when the detained individual is armed, might justify a safety measure -- for example, a command that bystanders disperse -- that would incidentally impact an individual's exercise of the First Amendment right to film. Such an order, even when directed at a person who is filming, may be appropriate for legitimate safety reasons.
It is especially important that we have checks on the power of the police and I urge anyone stopped by the police to record what goes on. That said, I write about this in "Good Manners For Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck" (in a section on where you draw the line between politeness and self-incrimination in traffic stops).
It's probably best to turn on your cell phone recorder or video camera and place it discreetly out of sight well before the officer gets to your car. Even the most fair and even-tempered officer is unlikely to be charmed and amused by the notion that he could soon go viral on YouTube.
Cops Doing The Mental Health Check On Isla Vista Killer Hadn't Seen His Videos
Martha Mendoza and Oskar Garcia write for AP:
Sheriff's deputies who showed up at Elliot Rodger's doorstep last month to check on his mental health hadn't seen online videos in which he threatens suicide and violence even though those recordings were what prompted his parents to call authorities.By the time law enforcement did see the videos, it was too late: The well-mannered if shy young man that deputies concluded after their visit posed no risk had gone on a deadly rampage on Friday.
The sheriff's office "was not aware of any videos until after the shooting rampage occurred," Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office spokeswoman Kelly Hoover said.
Imagine those parents' call -- noting that they think their son is violent and dangerous. The person they speak to is surely going to ask why.
But then deputies go out -- apparently, utterly uninformed -- and give the okey dokey?
No, it isn't easy to put a psych hold on somebody, but it's probably loads easier if you see videos in which they threaten to slaughter anything hot and female and blonde and any guys who got to go out with them.
It is my experience that you should assume that the police will never solve your crime. Sometimes, a cop will surprise you. But generally, you'll be lucky if your report doesn't immediate get shoved in a file, never to see the light of day again.
This is why I tracked and pursued both my car thief and hit-and-run driver. And pushed to have both prosecuted -- which both were. And even when I handed an LAPD cop, in the stolen car case, and a Santa Monica cop, in the hit-and-run case, a pile of evidence (down to the thief's contact information), they each stuck their thumb up their ass and left it to me.
Link to a more comprehensive piece in the WaPo. And a comprehensive and terrific piece by Kashmir Hill at Forbes.
Linkscream
I've never warmed to pistachio. You?
Jules Verne: "The Ultimate Futurist"
As we were driving last night, my boyfriend told me the details of this documentary he watched that now I want to see, too -- Jules Verne: Prophets of Science Fiction
That's a link to the thing on instant video above. Here's a link to books by and about Jules Verne
To order other stuff off Amazon, here's a link: Amy's Amazon
No Soap, No Radio -- Not Tonight, Anyway
We're going to run a "Best Of" replay of my weekly radio show for the holiday but tomorrow night rather than tonight. Sorry to have a rerun but it's been crazy with the book just coming out! Should be back to live shows in the next week or so!
Science Goddess' Tweet Made My Day
There's nothing for an author quite like that moment -- the first moment, for me -- when you see somebody reading your new book. University biology faculty lecturer Joanne Manaster ("Joanne Loves Science"/@sciencegoddess) got a review copy and is -- thank you, Joanne! -- reading it in a cafe and tweeting about it.
The Isla Vista Killer Was Not Just A Woman-Hater
There were (predictable) claims all over Twitter that this was just a PUA (Pick Up Artist)/men's rights-driven thing, fueled by misogyny.
The guy seems pretty clearly crazy and didn't sex-discriminate in his hate. Here's an excerpt from his attack plan, printed in the LA Times, which includes slaying men -- including, as he wrote, "men who have had pleasurable sex lives while I've had to suffer":
On the day before the Day of Retribution, I will start the First Phase of my vengeance: Silently killing as many people as I can around Isla Vista by luring them into my apartment through some form of trickery. The first people I would have to kill are my two housemates, to secure the entire apartment for myself as my personal torture and killing chamber.After that, I will start luring people into my apartment, knock them out with a hammer, and slit their throats. I will torture some of the good looking people before I kill them, assuming that the good looking ones had the best sex lives.
All of that pleasure they had in life, I will punish by bringing them pain and suffering. I have lived a life of pain and suffering, and it was time to bring that pain to people who actually deserve it. I will cut them, flay them, strip all the skin off their flesh, and pour boiling water all over them while they are still alive, as well as any other form of torture I could possibly think of.
When they are dead, I will behead them and keep their heads in a bag, for their heads will play a major role in the final phase. This First Phase will represent my vengeance against all of the men who have had pleasurable sex lives while I've had to suffer. Things will be fair once I make them suffer as I did. I will finally even the score.
The Second Phase will take place on the Day of Retribution itself, just before the climactic massacre.
The Second Phase will represent my War on Women. I will punish all females for the crime of depriving me of sex. They have starved me of sex for my entire youth, and gave that pleasure to other men. In doing so, they took many years of my life away.
I cannot kill every single female on earth, but I can deliver a devastating blow that will shake all of them to the core of their wicked hearts. I will attack the very girls who represent everything I hate in the female gender: The hottest sorority of UCSB.
...The Final Phase of the Day of Retribution will be my ultimate showdown in the streets of Isla Vista.
On the morning before, I will drive down to my father's house to kill my little brother, denying him of the chance to grow up to surpass me, along with my stepmother ... as she will be in the way. My father will be away on one of his business trips, so thankfully I won't have to deal with him.
The shooter's parents had apparently told police about the threat-filled videos he was posting.
Do You Really Think People's Eardrums Filter Sounds According To The Race Of People Making Them?
Friday night, I was awakened from a deep sleep at around 1:30 a.m., by a really rotten guy parked across the street with his car doors open and his radio blasting.
At first, I hoped the music would stop. I waited about five minutes, lying there in bed, and then I grabbed a flashlight and went out.
A man and a woman were there, making out against his car with the music blasting.
Standing on the opposite side of a fence from them, I pointed out that there were houses all around and people were sleeping in them. At, oh, 1:30 a.m.
Yeah, I know -- "racist!" of me.
That's what the woman with him snarled at me -- and "white bitch!" (which she started yelling at me repeatedly) -- because yes, people who like sleeping through the night are, of course, just haters.
I've had this sort of late-night accusation of racism against me before -- by Asian guys doing the same: blasting their radio late at night feet from houses, and accusing me of being racist when I said something about it.
Much easier on the ego to accuse me of being a hater than to be accountable for being rude. Apologize and all.
And even if I were the most hardened racist, do we really think my eardrums would selectively choose to awaken me: "Hey, there are Asians..." or "Hey, there are black people..." outside your house.
No, lady, the problem isn't that you're black. It's that you're loud, rude, assholes.
Well, make that a loud, rude, racist asshole, in your case, for making it about race.
Really, my need and my neighbors' to sleep through the night has not a thing to do with anyone's skin color. Promise.
Laws Are For The Little People
CNN's Political Unit posted that a federal judge has ordered Michigan to put U.S. Representative John Conyers back on the state's primary ballot:
State election officials had said the Democratic lawmaker had fallen short of requirements to make the ballot because two people collecting signatures for him were not registered voters, as required by state law.Conyers, 85, has served in Congress since the mid 1960s, and was planning to seek reelection as a write-in candidate, if his ballot appeal was denied.
It should have been denied. Laws should be laws and not turned into Spandex for some.
Cluelink
Professor Plum left his in the dining room with...with...?
Cellboors In The Celery And Other Grocery Store Sections
The quote below is from my book, "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck" (St. Martin's Press, June 3), which I would be thrilled if you ordered and especially if you pre-ordered. Amazon generally ships before the on-sale date -- typically, when they get books to their warehouse, so pre-ordering might get you the book early.
I really am having some fun on Pinterest putting up quotes from my book. (In fact, I'm addicted and love running around my house shooting backgrounds.)
Follow my board on manners and rudeness at this link. If you want to share this one, here's the link: 
The book is a highly practical and funny manners advice book, with much of the advice based in science, but written to be a fun, easy read for even people who don't care about science.
It includes topics you don't find in manners books, like where you draw the line between politeness and self-incrimination in traffic stops, quoting cops and civil liberties lawyers in that particular section and taking a realistic approach.
What the book lacks is prissy advice on where to put the doily or how to address a wedding invite to a divorcée. As I write in the first chapter:
Except for a few "in case you were raised by coyotes" tips on basic table manners, I've omitted picky etiquette stuff I'd only read at gunpoint, such as the correct way for married people to monogram their towels (a question which, per Google, is covered by a mere 19,400,000 web pages).
As I told Erin Anderssen at The Globe And Mail and then Pinned yesterday night: "I don't know how to set the table and I don't care..."
The book is discounted from the $14.99 retail price to only $9.48 at Amazon and $9.67 at Barnes & Noble.
Come to my book launch party June 3! If you live close to LA, it would be so wonderful to meet some of you, especially longtime blog commenters. There's a book launch party/reading at Diesel Books in Brentwood, at the Brentwood County Mart, on Tuesday, June 3, at from 6:30 to 8 p.m. (revised time!)
Come a little early! Wine and snacks will be served (thank you, Gregg!).
Please invite people!
Diesel Books, Brentwood Country Mart, 225 26th Street, Suite #33, Santa Monica CA 90402, (310) 576-9960
Funny Bus Poster For French Magazine That Would Cause People To Chase The Editor With Pitchforks And Torches In USA
Photo taken by a friend of mine in Paris. Posted as a link so I could put it up full size rather than blog-sized.
Translation: "The French, Politics, and Sex."
"Gauche" is left. "Droite" is right. "Hollande" is this guy. Most of the rest, you can probably manage by yourself. The Islam one is particularly funny, as is the vegetarian.
Arguing Against Arguments Against Plastic Surgery
Greg Stevens has a piece on plastic surgery at The Daily Dot, reprinted in The Week. He asked how people who consider themselves to be politically liberal (people he surveyed at "Being Liberal" on Facebook) could be so judgmental about what other people choose to do with their own bodies:
After setting aside spurious arguments about cost and risk, the most common responses fell into three categories:(1) People who elect to have cosmetic procedures must be insecure.
(2) People who elect to have cosmetic procedures must be shallow and care more about looks than who they are "inside" as a person.
(3) People who elect to have cosmetic procedures are reinforcing the more systemic problem of looksism and narcissism in our culture, and are symptomatic of culture that constantly tells people that they aren't attractive unless they look a certain way.
We are living in a time of enormous progressive social change, as we increasingly become comfortable with the fact that different people have different values, desires, religions, and moral systems, and that maybe we can all co-exist peacefully.
So how is it that the same people who say "two consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want in the bedroom" end up being so presumptuous about the shallowness or insecurity of people who want cosmetic procedures? The irony is that the same politically liberal crowd usually sees tattoos, piercings, and other body modifications as artistic expression and individual choice -- yet somehow it's shallow or neurotic when a person wants a nose job or fuller lips. Do you really feel comfortable making these prejudgments of people?
I think we think it's cheating that people can, through modern medicine, upgrade their looks.
Of course, it doesn't always turn out to be an upgrade. The epidemiologist I'm friends with cautioned me on the horrors and drawbacks of breast implant surgery when I wrote a piece on it.
He didn't want me to credit him, but it's his thoughts that went into my column, "Girls Just Wanna Have Funbags":
You're unlikely to die getting a little more junk in the top bunk, but you may suffer complications like a buildup of scar tissue, which can cause painful tissue contraction and -- whoops! -- deformed breasts. Mmmm, sexy! And then, like toupees and car tires, implants eventually need to be replaced. Maybe every 10 years; maybe more often if you're one of the lucky ones who springs a leak. (Are we having funbags yet?)
Mom Meets Pinterest. Well, Almost.
I sent my mom a link to a quote from my book that I thought she and my dad would find amusing. She wrote back:
Amy,
Is this from you?
What is Pinterest?
I am suspicious of being hacked when I have to click on a site I am not familiar with.
Mother
My reply:
Yes, it's from me. Mom, hackers are not funny and do not promote books that happen to be written by your daughter.
Linkbot
Have your robot send links to my robot.
Stopping What I Call "Social Thuggery"
The very first interview a reporter did with me on my new book, "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck," was in the paper today -- on the front page of the features section of Canada's national newspaper, the Globe And Mail. The reporter, a real pro, was Erin Anderssen. An excerpt:
Are we more rude today?What's happened is that we now live in societies too big for our brains. This is my theory about why we're rude, and it's based on work done by [British evolutionary anthropologist] Robin Dunbar, who figured out that our brains have a capacity for 150 relationships, and beyond that things break down. We can behave badly when we are around strangers, and we're around strangers almost all the time. This allows people to do stuff they would never do to a neighbour. The guy that's flipping you the bird in traffic is counting on the fact that he's never going to see you again.
You write about rudeness as if it's a crime.Rude people are stealing our time, our good night's sleep, our attention. If we feel, wow, we are being robbed, we can get mad about standing up to what is essentially social thuggery.
You don't spend the book teaching how to set the table, or the proper way to write a thank-you note. Do you think those rules are old-fashioned?Frankly, I don't know how to set the table and I don't care. People aren't living like it's Downton Abbey any more.
You argue that rather than the Do Unto Others rule, too many people today are living by the Up Yours rule? What's the most egregious example?Cellphone rudeness: that I am going to jam my life into your brain whether you like it or not. It's privatizing public space; it's stealing someone's attention and doing it in the pharmacy line or on the bus - anywhere people can't get away from you. Should people have to leave a restaurant, take their meal in a doggie bag, because you want to talk loudly about your bad day [on the phone] with your girlfriend?
Much more at the link.
12 Days To Good Manners! Today: On How Good Manners Also Involve Being Considerate To Yourself
I hope you've gotten the idea that my book, "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck," is a very unconventional manners book -- not some prissy tome on where to put your fork. (In fact, the first chapter is called "I Don't Care Where You Put Your Fork (as long as you don't stab anyone in the eye with it)."
Today's snippet from the book, which I also put on Pinterest and hope you'll share on social media, is an example of exactly how different it is. This is one of the tips on how good manners also involve taking care of your own needs, both out of self-consideration and so you won't fester with resentment at another person until you finally blow.
Please consider pre-ordering my book.
Pre-orders help give the book "heat." (Also, every time you pre-order a copy, a kitten lives and my electricity stays on for another 20 minutes!)
The book is discounted from the $14.99 retail price to only $9.48 at Amazon and $9.67 at Barnes & Noble.
Come to my book launch party June 3! If you live close to LA, it would be so wonderful to meet some of you, especially longtime blog commenters. There's a book launch party/reading at Diesel Books in Brentwood, at the Brentwood County Mart, on Tuesday, June 3, at from 6:30 to 8 p.m. (revised time!)
Come a little early! Wine and snacks will be served (thank you, Gregg!).
Please invite people!
Diesel Books, Brentwood Country Mart, 225 26th Street, Suite #33, Santa Monica CA 90402, (310) 576-9960
Iranian Actress Faces Flogging For Kiss On The Cheek From Prez Of Cannes Film Festival
This was a violation of Sharia Law, plus there was the matter of how her headscarf didn't totally cover Leila Hatami's hair. Damien McElroy and Ahmad Vahdat write in the Telegraph/UK that university students in Iran reported her to the country's courts and are seeking a public flogging as punishment:
According to the Guards-run Tasnim news website, the Hizbullah Students organisation called for Hatami to be flogged for "kissing a strange man". The maximum sentence the offence can incur is 50 lashes.Iran's Islamic rules stipulate that a man and a woman who are unrelated cannot embrace in public. Moreover a woman should not have her hair on display. The actress had a scarf around her neck but had not covered the crown of her head.
"We, the undersigned, who are a group of student Muslim brothers and sisters, ask the cultural and media branch of the judiciary to prosecute Leyla Hatami for her sinful act of kissing a strange man in public, which according to article 638 of Islamic Criminal Justice carries a prison sentence," the petition read.
"Furthermore, the action of this film star has hurt the religious sentiments of the proud and martyrs breeding nation of Iran and as such we also demand the punishment of flogging for her as stipulated in the law."
...The daughter of the late internationally acclaimed film director Ali Hatami, Leyla Hatami gained worldwide recognition for her role in Asghar Farhadi's A Separation, which won the 2012 Academy Award for best foreign language film.
Hatami is one of five women members on the Palme d'Or prize jury, which includes actress Carole Bouquet and directors Sofia Coppola and jury president Jane Campion.
While she is visiting the south of France for the annual Cannes festival in southern France, the actress lives in Iran.
I'm guessing she'll be moving soon.
The New Inquisition -- Policing Private Speech
We say things in private that we may not want broadcast to the public. It is the speaker's right to decide whether their thoughts go public -- not a person they've spoken to in a certain confidence: that of what used to be thought of as private life.
I write about this in a section on privacy in "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck" -- quoting the famous (and wonderful-to-read Harvard Law Review article from 1898, by Brandeis and Warren).
Brendan O'Neill writes at Spiked that the new speech police want to control what we can say in private:
Slowly, tentatively, today's self-styled warriors against hateful or offensive speech are turning their attentions from the public square to the private sphere, desiring nothing less than the punishment of men and women for saying apparently bad things in their own homes or in utterly cut-off chats with mates. Having outlawed certain forms of public speech, they're now hell-bent on criminalising certain forms of private chatter, and even thought itself.Over the past month, there have been a handful of scary cases on both sides of the Atlantic that have exposed our betters' latent urge to violate the once-sacred space of private life and tell us what we can think and say there. In Britain, the chief executive of the Premier League, Richard Scudamore, was hauled over the coals for things he said in private conversations with, as he describes them, 'friends of many years'. In the course of completely private email chats, Scudamore used fruity or sexist language (depending on your point of view) to describe women. His friends and he referred to someone having sex with 'skinny big-titted broads'. They used Carry On-style double entendres in a chat about golf, with one saying he had spent 'all day fending Edna off my graphite shaft'. (The subject of that somewhat infantile banter, one Peta Bistany, says she wasn't offended by the emails.)
...His emails were leaked to the Sunday Mirror by his (personal assistant), Rani Abraham, who has since become a feminist icon and tabloid star for claiming she felt 'humiliated and belittled' by Scudamore's email banter. It is testament to how far today's poisonous culture of betrayal-sanctioning, Wikileaks-style leaking has gone when a woman who read and then helped to publish a man's private thoughts is treated as the hero of the story. Truly do we live in an Orwellian society when snitching is treated as the highest public duty, and public exposure of someone for having the 'wrong' private thoughts is applauded by media and politicians.
Kindergarten Court (Neighbor v. Neighbor)
Beautiful stuff. Justice E.M. Morgan writes about the wealthy idiots in this case:
In my view, the parties do not need a judge; what they need is a rather stern kindergarten teacher.
via @Popehat
Where In The World Is Osama Bin Sandiego?
Computer game reference, in case you didn't know.
Republican Senator Bob Corker, of Tennessee, writes in the WaPo that Congress needs to update the 9/11 resolution on use of military force, reasserting congressional oversight:
One week after the 9/11 attacks, Congress authorized the president "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." More than 12 years later, the president continues to rely on this 60-word authorization to fight terrorist organizations around the world. This week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on this subject, the first step in an effort to reassert congressional oversight of this issue, which has fundamentally changed from the initial hunt for Osama bin Laden.A recent State Department report revealed how the diminishment of al-Qaeda's central leadership corresponds with the growing strength and proliferation of its affiliates and other terrorist groups, contributing to a 43 percent increase in global terrorist attacks in 2013. Today's terrorists may invoke the brand and methods of al-Qaeda, but they have evolved in ways that suggest that our legal foundation for conducting drone strikes or raids is outdated and inadequate.
For example, al-Qaeda's recent expulsion of the ruthless Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant from its ranks has forced the Obama administration's lawyers to question whether, under the auspices of the 9/11 law, the president still has the authority to target that group. In other words, there are legitimate doubts about whether the president can take necessary actions against the most dangerous terrorist group in Syria in a conflict that -- according to recent congressional testimony from the director of national intelligence -- has attracted more than 7,000 foreign fighters from 50 countries, some with aspirations to attack the U.S. homeland. This follows the testimony of Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who conceded that the terrorists responsible for killing four Americans in Benghazi are not covered under the current resolution.
These incidents seem to suggest that the September 2001 Authorization on the Use of Military Force (AUMF) is too narrow and that the president is hamstrung by stale semantic distinctions. But there are also legitimate reasons to believe it is too broad. Both the Obama and Bush administrations have stretched the resolution's authority well beyond its words to go after groups that have little to no connection to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
We are having some serious strains on the limits of powers, and we need to restore checks and balances on them.
Related: Check out all the African countries the U.S. military has troops in.
Linkieshines
BYO Monkey.
13 Days To Good Manners! Today: Internet Manners
My science-based, funny manners advice book, "Good Manners For Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck," will be out on June 3, via wonderful St. Martin's Press.
There's a good bit of proactivity I suggest in the Internet manners chapter. I just joined Pinterest so people could share quotes from my book on social media, and I'll share just a snippet -- this Pin I did yesterday.
(This can be shared at the link -- with the Facebook link or by clicking the photo to pull up Twitter and more.)
Please consider pre-ordering my book.
Pre-orders help give the book "heat." (Also, every time you pre-order a copy, a kitten lives and my electricity stays on for another 20 minutes!)
The book is discounted from the $14.99 retail price to only $9.48 at Amazon and $9.67 at Barnes & Noble.
Happy reading!
Rising College Costs? Thank The Government
College administrators are paid buttloads of money while professors, those doing the actual teaching of students along with research, are not. And the student loan bajillions provided for students taking feminist basketweaving are also a factor.
But at Chronicle.com, Arthur F. Kirk, Jr., president of Saint Leo University, points out another reason for the high cost of college -- compliance costs for all the meddling the government demands colleges do:
I also cannot argue that increasing the number of administrators doesn't increase the cost of a higher education. It does.In recent years at Saint Leo University, we have added positions in risk management, internal audit (two), legal compliance, financial-aid regulatory compliance, human resources, accounting, security and safety, athletic training, athletic compliance, and university-accreditation compliance. In every one of these instances, we are generally responding directly or indirectly to federal regulatory mandates, legal trends, insurers' expectations, accreditors' requirements, and so on.
Take internal audit. The federal Sarbanes-Oxley legislation was a reaction to the collapse of the energy-trading behemoth Enron Corporation in 2001 and to legitimate concerns about corporate accounting accuracy, integrity, and boards of directors fulfilling their governance-oversight responsibilities. However, it has driven significant changes in our nonprofit board's concerns, oversight, and actions. The resulting increased financial oversight, internal audit, and risk management are all reasonable and responsible activities--and all require administrative staff and add substantial real costs. Students and parents pay.
...Here is our latest one--not driven by law but by federal administrative fiat. It calls for the establishment of a central complaint system for all military and veteran students and requires every institution to identify a single point of contact for all complaints. That person must also document every complaint, record the actions to respond to the complaint and resolve it, as well as the outcome, all subject to federal scrutiny by several agencies. Who will do this work?
I could go on with more examples, but I hope I have made my point. Much, but certainly not all, of the much-maligned "administrative bloat" is driven by external forces, societal demands, and regulations from the federal government, the states, the NCAA, accreditors, and insurers. In addition to state and local laws, higher-education institutions are required to comply with federal laws too numerous to count. The website of the Higher Education Compliance Alliance lists many of them, but there are others.
Let's Bring Back Shame: Post A Shaming Note About Persistent Dog Barking
Wednesday morning, there was a dog barking in my neighborhood. And barking. And barking. And barking.
I had a lot to do, or, as I tweeted and then Pinned:
Well, the barking continued and continued, and I could feel the clouds forming for a migraine and much of the day spent in the dark.
I typed up a note and went out to follow the rather faraway sound of the dog -- only to discover that there were actually two barking dogs, and they were not in a house but -- awful! -- locked and left alone in a minivan in the city lot right by my house. Just left to bark their upset and probably lonely little heads off.
I taped this note to the back of the minivan. I also tossed a bunch of these notes in the open windows of their vehicle.
Turns out my neighbor also called the cops, but they just stood there for a while and apparently did nothing and then left. It seems Animal Control now has to deal with barking dogs in LA (cite the owner, etc.). Whether they'll come about barking dogs that aren't a regular problem in a neighborhood remains to be seen. (I'm waiting for an answer.)
For more of this sort of thing -- how to refuse to be abused or at least refuse to go quietly (or wordlessly) when you can't stop the abuse -- buy my book, "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck."
The Black Hole Of "Affordable" Care Losses -- Sneaky Adjustments To ACA Providing Taxpayer Bailouts For Insurance Companies!
Noam Levey writes in the LA Times that the Obama administration has "quietly adjusted" key bits in the healthcare law to potentially make good on ACA-related losses to insurance companies -- to the tune of billions of additional taxpayer dollars:
The move was buried in hundreds of pages of new regulations issued late last week. It comes as part of an intensive administration effort to hold down premium increases for next year, a top priority for the White House as the rates will be announced ahead of this fall's congressional elections.Administration officials for months have denied charges by opponents that they plan a "bailout" for insurance companies providing coverage under the healthcare law.
They continue to argue that most insurers shouldn't need to substantially increase premiums because safeguards in the healthcare law will protect them over the next several years.
But the change in regulations essentially provides insurers with another backup: If they keep rate increases modest over the next couple of years but lose money, the administration will tap federal funds as needed to cover shortfalls.
Linkyuns
Like Funyons, but without the carb load.
Electrify Dad!
Electri-FY, not electrocute! Father's Day deals in electronics at Amazon.
To buy other things at Amazon and credit me, supporting this site -- which I truly appreciate -- use this link: Amy's Amazon
And to get free shipping, why not throw in a copy of my book, "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck"? It's funny, I worked hard on it, and I tell you many tricks on how to stop the rude -- without getting stabbed in the neck with a turkey baster, like the guy in the OC movie theater who made the mistake of trying to silence some woman on the phone. (In movie theaters, where a person on the phone knows they're being rude and don't care, you need to call a professional -- the usher. Trying to do it yourself will likely meet with a lack of success -- and sometimes a violent one.)
Government Overestimated Your Obamacare Subsidy? Private Debt Collectors May Come After You
There's a bill in the Senate now to have tax bills and other IRS receivables turned over to private debt collectors. This has been done before -- disastrously -- and lost money, though making money is program's entire reason for existing, points out taxpayer advocate Nina R. Olson.
Lori Montgomery writes in the WaPo:
The provision was tucked into a larger bill, aimed at renewing an array of expired tax breaks, at the request of Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), whose state is home to two of the four private collection agencies that stand to benefit from the proposal.It requires all "inactive tax receivables" to be assigned to private debt collectors if the IRS cannot locate the person who owes the money or if IRS agents are unable to make contact within a year.
Some taxpayers would be spared the barrage of notices and phone calls, including innocent spouses, military members deployed to combat zones and people "identified as being deceased."
But bereaved relatives could find themselves under siege for unpaid estate taxes under the proposal. So could people who incur a tax debt under the new Affordable Care Act -- either because they owe a penalty for not buying health insurance or because the government was too generous in estimating the size of their health-care tax subsidy.
And there's this:
Schumer spokesman Matt House added that the senator is open to clarifying the measure to ensure that tax debts resulting solely from the Affordable Care Act would be exempted.
Yes, Schumer, whose district would benefit from jobs from this, will do what he can to grrrease this through.
Olson on the details:
Although the IRS aggressively pursues those judged able to pay, Olson, an IRS employee who serves as the taxpayers' voice in the agency and before Congress, said the agency takes a more flexible approach to those who are struggling financially. In many cases, she said, the IRS simply waits for the taxpayer to amass a refund and uses that money to bring the account current."Why am I paying the private collection agencies 25 percent when just for the cost of the machine running we get the money anyway?" she said.
More to the point, Olson said, private debt collection has not worked well in the past. During the most recent attempt, from 2005 to 2009, IRS information shows that private agencies collected about $98 million. But they were paid $16.5 million in commissions. And it cost the IRS an additional $86 million to administer the program, including money spent to make sure the contractors did not use sensitive IRS data to benefit their private customers, such as credit card companies.
14 Days To Good Manners! Today: Why Forcing Others Around You To Listen To Your Cellphone Call Is Rude
My science-based, funny manners advice book, "Good Manners For Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck," will be out on June 3, via wonderful St. Martin's Press.
Today's quote is on cellphone manners, from the chapter "The Telephone."
In the book, I explain, based on a growing body of scientific research, that cellphone conversations we are forced to overhear -- even from people trying to be quiet -- are more disturbing to the brain than two people sitting talking at a table...
"...because a one-sided conversation commandeers the brain in a way a two-sided conversation does not, apparently because your brain tries to fill in the side of the conversation you can't hear. (It doesn't help that people tend to bark into their cell phones in the way white men in cowboy movies talked to Indians.)"
In the book, I give a number of ways to -- actually, politely -- shut these yammerers up.
I also note that they are stealing our attention, which most certainly does not belong to them, by forcing us to hear their BLAHBLAHBLAH.
Seeing their rudeness as theft helps people not usually comfortable with speaking up to strangers to do it -- as do the solutions I come up with for how to do this, which have been tested by me and are not the sort that are likely to lead to calls to the coroner.
Here's a Pin I just did on this topic. Please consider sharing on social media (go to the link to do that). 
Please consider pre-ordering. The book is discounted from the $14.99 retail price to only $9.48 at Amazon and $9.67 at Barnes & Noble.
Come to my book launch party June 3! If you live close to LA, it would be so wonderful to meet some of you, especially longtime blog commenters. There's a book launch party/reading at Diesel Books in Brentwood, at the Brentwood County Mart, on Tuesday, June 3, at 7 p.m.
Come a little early! Wine and snacks will be served (thank you, Gregg!).
Please invite people!
Diesel Books, Brentwood Country Mart, 225 26th Street, Suite #33, Santa Monica CA 90402, (310) 576-9960
And in case you aren't sure whether you should attend, my book, "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck," was deemed one of 11 smart books to read for summer by science writer Sam McNerney at the book site 250 Words.
Trigger Warnings: In The Beginning, God Created...Eek!
From a Sac Bee editorial:
One can only imagine the warning label on the Bible: (TW: "fratricide," "infanticide," "genocide," etc.).
"Old Yeller"? What about "Old Yeller"?
There's a place for people who are too fragile to deal with the ideas in a book and it's where they have round-the-clock aides to make sure everyone takes their meds in between muttering about how the government faked the moon landing.
Sandy Springs, Georgia Gets All Up In People's Sex Toys
Elizabeth Nolan Brown writes at Reason about a ban on the sale of sex toys in a Georgia city to anyone without a "medical, scientific, educational, legislative, or law enforcement" purpose.
(I'm pretty sure playing cop and speeder without any panties on doesn't count.)
A Georgia woman, Melissa Davenport, has filed suit against the city:
In effect, Sandy Springs residents are required to have a doctor's prescription or otherwise prove they only intend to use that vibrator for state-sanctioned reasons."(Some people) have this dirty mind about how people are going to use it," plaintiff Melissa Davenport told Atlanta's WSB-TV 2. "People really do need devices because they need it for health reasons and to have a healthy intimate life with their spouse."
Davenport, 44, has multiple sclerosis, which interfered with her ability to enjoy sex. She credits the introduction of sex toys with "saving" her marriage of 24 years. Not that it should make a damn bit of difference why anyone wants to buy a sex toy or how they intend to use it.
Ostensibly Sandy Springs residents can turn to online sex toy retailers with little problem. But in ordering Internet dildos, they would still officially be breaking the law. I'm glad Davenport--a spokeswoman for sexual health in the MS community who seeks not just to purchase but also to sell sex toys in Sandy Springs--is challenging the ordinance as a violation of her 14th Amendment rights to privacy and liberty.
Richard Milhouse Obama
Law prof Jonathan Turley compares them to explore the imperial presidency, how presidents override the checks and balances on power. Look who comes out worse:
Four decades ago, Nixon was halted in his determined effort to create an imperial presidency with unilateral powers and privileges. But in 2013, Obama wields those very same powers openly and without serious opposition.-Surveillance. Nixon's use of warrantless surveillance was cited as one of his greatest abuses and led to the creation of the special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Obama, however, has expanded warrantless surveillance programs to a degree that dwarfs anything Nixon imagined, including initiating a program that captured communications of virtually every U.S. citizen.
-War. Nixon's impeachment included the charge that he evaded Congress' sole authority to declare war by invading Cambodia. Obama went even further in the Libyan war, declaring that he alone defines what is a "war" for the purposes of triggering the constitutional provisions on declarations of Congress. That position effectively converts the entire provision in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution ("Congress shall have power to ... declare War") into a discretionary power of the president.
-Kill lists. Nixon ordered a burglary to find evidence to use against Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers, and was accused of a secret plot to have the White House "plumbers" "incapacitate" him in a physical attack. People were outraged. Yet Obama has asserted the right to kill any U.S. citizen without a charge, let alone conviction, based on his sole authority. Internal documents state that he has a right to kill a citizen even when he lacks "clear evidence (of) a specific attack" being planned.
-Reporters/whistle-blowers. Nixon was known for his attacks on whistleblowers, using the Espionage Act of 1917 to bring a rare criminal case against Ellsberg. He was vilified for this abuse of the law, but Obama has brought twice as many such prosecutions as all prior presidents combined. Nixon was accused of putting a few reporters under surveillance. The Obama administration has admitted to putting Associated Press reporters, as well as a Fox reporter, under surveillance.
-Obstruction of Congress. Nixon was cited for various efforts to obstruct or mislead congressional investigators. The Obama administration has repeatedly refused to give evidence sought by oversight committees in a variety of scandals. In one case, Congress voted to move forward with criminal contempt charges against Attorney General Eric Holder, which Holder's own Justice Department blocked. In another case, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper lied before Congress on the surveillance programs, and later said that he offered the least untruthful statement he could think of. The Obama administration, however, refuses to investigate Clapper for perjury, let alone fire him. Recently, the administration was accused of searching Senate computers in an investigation of the CIA and trying to intimidate congressional investigators.
These examples are simply those connected with the growing internal security state. Other characteristics of an imperial presidency are equally evident, particularly in the repeated circumvention of Congress in ordering unilateral changes to federal law or suspending federal laws.
While many hail Obama for not taking "no" for an answer from Congress in areas such as health care and immigration reform, they may rue the day another president uses the same powers to negate environmental or anti-discrimination laws.
Blurkie
Linkie from another planet.
The New Feminism -- Being Powerful Enough To Call A Man To Ask Him To Do It For You
I tell people I'm not a feminist because I'm for equal treatment for all, not special treatment for some under the guise of equal treatment -- which feminism too often is.
However, if there were a new feminism, here's one segment of it I'd propose.
The new feminism: Being capable of fixing it yourself if you tried -- probably -- but smart enough to call a man when he can do it without as much effort.
This came out of a comment by a writer friend of mine about being tech-impaired, inspired by an article in the NYT about our fellow writer friend Sandra Tsing Loh.
I wrote back:
I'm not tech-impaired. When something goes wrong with my computer, I am perfectly capable of bursting into tears and then calling my boyfriend so he can tell me what I need to do to fix it.
The reality is, when you don't feel like a worm, you don't have to march around asserting yourself all the time. Instead, you freely admit that there are things other people -- even those people with penises -- do better.
To The Class Of 2014: The Right To Offend And The Responsibility To Learn To Deal With Being Offended
In the WSJ, in the wake of students on various campuses protesting away commencement speakers they disagree with, Bret Stephens speaks to the Class of 2014, telling them that students who demand emotional pampering deserve intellectual derision. A few choice excerpts:
Allow me to be the first to offend you, baldly and unapologetically. Here you are, 22 or so years on planet Earth, and your entire lives have been one long episode of offense-avoidance. This spotless record has now culminated in your refusals to listen to commencement speakers whose mature convictions and experiences might offend your convictions and experiences, or what passes for them.Modern education has done its work well: In you, Class of 2014, the coward soul has filled the void left by the blank mind.
This is the bind you find yourselves in, Class of 2014: No society, not even one that cossets the young as much as ours does, can treat you as children forever.
...And at least one basic teaching of true liberalism is that the essential right of free people is the right to offend, and an essential responsibility of free people is to learn how to cope with being offended.
...No consequential idea ever failed to offend someone; no consequential person was ever spared great offense. Those of you who want to lead meaningful lives need to begin unlearning most of what you've been taught, starting right now.
Psst, you cannot demand that real life come with "trigger warnings."
Richard Davidson, commenting at the WSJ, has the right idea on some of the problem:
Back in the days when we matriculated, the role of a college president was to provide football for the alumni, parking for the faculty, and sex for the students.I wish they would all go back to their former ways.
Just When You Thought Facebook Couldn't Get More Annoying
They now have a button so you can ask people about their relationship status.
No word on whether they have, as an option to reply, "Fuck the hell off."
And no, I don't have a favorite sports team, except maybe whichever one isn't playing and snarling LA traffic in the process.
Blinky
One-eyed links. No relations to One-Eyed Jacks
16 Days To Good Manners! Today: The "Do Not Ever Call" Rule
My science-based, funny manners advice book, "Good Manners For Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck," will be out on June 3, via wonderful St. Martin's Press.
Today's snippet is from the chapter "The Telephone":
Especially for people under forty, the spontaneous phone call has largely become rude.Unless you are employed by a police state as a roving interrogator, you probably wouldn't storm into somebody's office, sweep their work off their desk, and bark, "Tell me what I want to know right this second!" But, that's pretty much what you're doing if you engage in promiscuous phoning -- ringing somebody simply because the urge to know right now happens to strike you and right now happens to be convenient for you.
In general, if you are not on fire, having a heart attack, or in some sort of business where your phone calls are expected and appreciated, the default position on phoning people should be what I have deemed the "Do Not Ever Call" rule.
There are now more demands on our time than ever, along with more ways than ever to reach people that do not require their immediate attention. In addition to the classics -- the U.S. mail, a message in a bottle, and telepathy -- it is now possible to text, tweet, e-mail, or Facebook-message one's quarry. If you must have a phone conversation with somebody, err on the side of using one of the above options to arrange a mutually convenient time for it. (continued...)
Please consider pre-ordering. The book is discounted from the $14.99 retail price to only $9.48 at Amazon and $9.67 at Barnes & Noble.
Also, for those of you with a commute, there's a fantastic audio book version of the book, read by Carrington MacDuffie, who has a deep, interesting voice and doesn't go all cutesy like some women do on humor. I should soon have an audiobook sample to post, and you can also pre-order that version -- and I hope you will! It's just $10.76 at Amazon and just $10.11 at Barnes & Noble.
Wanting What They Don't Pay For
I'd want access to a building's special amenities, like a gym or special individual storage lockers, if I were living in a rental in New York City.
But I sure wouldn't expect to get them if I had some kind of subsidized rent instead of paying market rate.
There's a story in The New York Times about irate tenants paying subsidized lower rents for apartments in luxury buildings who aren't allowed access to, say, a special playroom for toddlers, a rooftop garden, or the building's gym.
Ronda Kaysen writes:
In recent years, developers who have earned tax credits by promising to provide affordable housing have built luxury condos with separate entrances and lobbies for the affordable rental units. The so-called "poor door" makes it easier to restrict who gets access to amenities. Last summer, 40 Riverside Boulevard, a luxury condo rising on the Upper West Side, drew criticism for a design in which low-income tenants enter through a separate door and do not share amenities with owners."The city has just begun to wake up and see that if we don't act, this is going to be an increasing problem," said Mark Levine, a member of the New York City Council who represents part of the Upper West Side. He is drafting legislation with Corey Johnson, another West Side council member, to expand the city's anti-discrimination code to include rent-regulated tenants.
Last February, tenants gathered in the community room of Stonehenge Village, an Upper West Side rental complex, to hear about its new gym. Management explained that only market-rate tenants -- fewer than 40 percent of the residents -- would have access, said Jean Green Dorsey, the president of the tenant association.
I don't get it. If your rent doesn't pay for a doorman or fancy furnishings, why should you have access to them?
More from the piece:
"It's a subtle form of harassment. It sends a message: You're not as good as my tenants who pay more," said New York State Assemblywoman Linda Rosenthal, who introduced legislation requiring landlords to offer amenities to rent-regulated tenants.
No, it sends a message: You're not paying as much as tenants who pay more.
Also, there's this -- government always mucks things up:
Developers point to rules governing rent-regulated leases as a reason for restrictions. If a developer offers a gym to a rent-regulated tenant and later decides to remove it, the landlord would have to get permission from the Division of Housing and Community Renewal, the state agency that oversees rent rules. Otherwise, tenants could be entitled to a rent reduction and reinstatement of the service.
An example:
At the Windermere, tenants living in the nearly 140 rent-regulated apartments have been barred from using the new spa with a pool, yoga studio and gym. As part of a $10 million renovation, Stellar Management is also adding a sky lounge, a bar and planters to the roof. Rent-regulated tenants, who pay about $1,000 a month for a one-bedroom, had socialized on the roof for years, but will no longer be allowed to use it when construction is complete.
Commenter Liz writes at the NYT:
As for the fairness argument - you get what you pay for. The market rate tenants are paying for the construction, maintenance and upkeep of the amenities. A rent regulated tenant typically pays barely enough to keep the property taxes, building insurance, heat and water bills paid. If you want access to the amenities, you have to pay for them, one way or another. Had these amenities been built under the Capital Improvement provisions of rent regulation, there would likely have been an uproar over the rent increases for an amenity the tenants didn't want and would not use (at least not until they were built at no cost to them).
Turnabout Is Right On
The guy who ended up being the Haverford College commencement speaker -- after student protests and their ensuing list of demands led to the withdrawal of the previous speaker -- lambasted those students for their actions, writes Susan Snyder in the Philly Inquirer:
William G. Bowen, former president of Princeton and a nationally respected higher education leader, called the student protestors' approach both "immature" and "arrogant" and the subsequent withdrawal of Robert J. Birgeneau, former chancellor of the University of California Berkeley, a "defeat" for the Quaker college and its ideals.Bowen's remarks to an audience of about 2,800 that gave him a standing ovation added a new twist to commencement speaker controversies playing out increasingly on college campuses across the nation. Bowen faced no opposition, but chose to defend a fellow speaker who was targeted, calling the situation "sad" and "troubling."
Rutgers University also held commencement on Sunday without former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who withdrew after professors and students there protested her appearance for her role in the Iraq war. Smith and Brandeis, too, saw the loss of speakers this year.
Part of what's great -- and important -- about free speech is the ability to hear opposing points of view. Even if your opposition is strengthened, you learn something by hearing them. If you can possibly open your mind, you might see that some of your opposition to their thinking is maybe part of sticking with your political "team," which psychological research has shown we are prone to do.
Loogie
Hockalinkie!
Advice Goddess Radio, "Best Of" Replay, Tonite, 7-8pm PT, 10-11pm ET: Dr. Jesse Bering On Sex, What's "Normal," And The Sexual Deviant In All Of Us
Amy Alkon's Advice Goddess Radio: "Nerd Your Way To A Better Life!" with the best brains in therapy and research.
Join me for a "Best Of" replay -- a thought-provoking, mind-opening show on the underpinnings of our sexuality.
Dr. Jesse Bering's book, "Perv," is subtitled "The Sexual Deviant in All of Us." This is a book about weird sex but it's also a book about all of the ways that even "normal" people fall along the spectrum of "perversions."
Tonight's show, like Bering's book, will be a fascinating inside look into how our specific sexual desires seem to be shaped in childhood, how sexually not "normal" some of the most seemingly normal people are, and how human psychology leads us to find others' sex practices upsetting and creepy instead of just different from our own.
As Bering writes, "Humans aren't the only sex deviants in the animal kingdom. But we are the only ones to stigmatize each other as disgusting perverts."
Listen at this link from 7-8 pm Pacific, 10-11 pm Eastern, or download the podcast afterward:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/amyalkon/2014/05/19/dr-jesse-bering-on-sex-whats-normal-and-the-sexual-deviant-in-all-of-us
Don't miss last week's show, Nina Teicholz On Why Butter, Meat, And Cheese Are The Foundation Of A Healthy Diet.
Saturated fat is your friend. Really.
It turns out everything we've been told about eating fat is wrong. On tonight's show, meticulous journalist Nina Teichholz will lay out the scientific errors, ego, and dangerous misrepresentations that have underpinned the dietary dogma of the past 60 years.
She'll also lay out the findings of solid science -- why eating more dietary fat will lead us to better health and fitness.
Join us as she discusses all of this and more from her brand new book, "The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat & Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet."
Listen at this link or download the podcast:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/amyalkon/2014/05/12/nina-teicholz-on-why-butter-meat-cheese-are-the-foundation-of-a-healthy-diet
Join me and my fascinating guests every Sunday, 7-8 p.m. Pacific Time, 10-11 p.m. Eastern Time, at blogtalkradio.com/amyalkon or subscribe on iTunes or Stitcher.
My show's sponsor is now Audible.com. Get a free audiobook download and support this show financially at no cost to you by signing up for a free 30-day trial at audibletrial.com/amya (It's $14.95 after 30 days, but you can cancel before then and have it cost you nothing.)
Guns: Spot The Contradiction
In case the sign on the left is too small to read, I'll help (scroll down below photo).
Sign on the left says "Armed Response."
Consistency seems to demand an edit: "If you break in, we will throw a box of paper clips at you. So there!"
And A Good Morning To You, Too
Either somebody is engaging in an early-morning goat slaughter or somebody needs to socialize their young child a little better.
Nevada: Sure, We Collect Data On Your Kids, And Seeing It Will Cost You $10K
That's basically what they told a Nevada father who wanted to see his four children's records kept by the school system. Perry Chiaramonte writes at Fox:
Nevada dad John Eppolito got a bad case of sticker shock when he asked state education officials to see the permanent records of his four children.He was told it would cost $10,194.
A Lake Tahoe-area real estate agent by trade and a fierce opponent of Common Core, Eppolito was concerned about Nevada's recent decision to join a multi-state consortium that shares students' data. He wanted to know exactly what information had been compiled on his school-age kids. But state officials told him he would have to pay fees and the cost of programming and running a custom report.
"The problem is that I can't stop them from collecting the data," Eppolito told FoxNews.com. "I just wanted to know what it [collected data] was. It almost seems impossible. Certainly $10,000 is enough reason to prevent a parent from getting the data."
...The Nevada Department of Education attempted to justify the hefty price tag for viewing copies of student records in a response to Eppolito.
"Because the SAIN system is not designed to create reports that display individual student data in a readable format, the parent was initially told that the requested reports do not exist and cannot be produced," reads the sheet viewed by FoxNews.com "Upon continued insistence from the parent, [Nevada Department of Education] staff assessed how much programming time would be required to write new queries and develop a data table to create readable reports for the parent. Staff determined that it would take at least 3 weeks (120 hours) of dedicated programming time to fulfill the parent's request. At the applicable wage rate of $84.95/hour, the requested work resulted in a $10,194 price tag."
How much of a data load do they have that it would take three weeks of work to fulfill the parent's request? Scary.
Okay, they do say it's about format.
If there's data being collected that can't be read, except at a vast cost, isn't this an enormous waste of taxpayer dollars?
And shouldn't it be a reasonable and expected request, parents asking to see what's in their children's files?
Gratitude: NBA MVP Kevin Durant's Inspiring Speech
Compare this guy's attitude, humbleness, and heart to Donald Sterling's blather. This video of his incredibly moving speech is a lesson in how to be a person:
Via Wharton School professor @AdamMGrant, who writes about the benefits of gratitude and generosity in his terrific book, Give and Take: Why Helping Others Drives Our Success
Leeky
Links with long green onions.
17 Days To Good Manners! Today: Group Facebook Messages Do Send A Message -- Basically, That You're Too Lazy To Be Considerate
Every time somebody replies to one of these Facebook mass messages, everybody in that group is included in whatever incisive bit of wit they've added -- such as, "LOL, Dood!"
This is one of the tech topics I cover in my science-based, funny manners advice book, "Good Manners For Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck,", which will be out on June 3 via the fabulous St. Martin's Press.
Here's a bit from the book on the subject of Facebook mass-messaging:
• Mass-messaging: Don't eat people's time because it's easier for you to send an invite to your entire friends list.Refrain from mass-messaging an invitation to everyone on your friends list unless you will be giving away bars of gold bullion or all of your invitees are actual real-life friends who live close enough to come. I typically won't drive thirteen miles to Hollywood for a party; I'm not taking three planes and a shuttle bus to get to "Karaoke Nite!!!" in Tampa.
Please consider pre-ordering. The book is discounted from the $14.99 retail price to only $9.48 at Amazon and $9.67 at Barnes & Noble.
And for all you book-listeners out there, there's also an audio book version, also available for pre-order. It's just $10.76 at Amazon and just $10.11 at Barnes & Noble.
FYI, Pre-orders help give the book "heat." (Also, every time you pre-order a copy, a kitten lives and my electricity stays on for another 20 minutes!)
I worked very hard on this book and I hope you all like it and find it helpful and insightful -- and get some laughs.
Face Recognition Software Is A Danger To Our Civil Liberties
The problem is, when we have technology, the impulse is to put it to use. We want to put it in place, press those buttons, sound the bells, blow those whistles.
As I write in "Good Manners For Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck", privacy concerns often take a back seat to the impulse to try groovy new technology.
Natasha Singer writes about this software in The New York Times, quoting one of the pioneers of modern face recognition, Joseph J. Atick:
Face-matching today could enable mass surveillance, "basically robbing everyone of their anonymity," he says, and inhibit people's normal behavior outside their homes. Pointing to the intelligence documents made public by Edward J. Snowden, he adds that once companies amass consumers' facial data, government agencies might obtain access to it, too.To many in the biometrics industry, Dr. Atick's warning seems Cassandra-like. Face recognition to them is no different from a car, a neutral technology whose advantages far outweigh the risks. The conveniences of biometrics seem self-evident: Your unique code automatically accompanies you everywhere. They envision a world where, instead of having to rely on losable ID cards or on a jumble of easily forgettable -- not to mention hackable -- passwords, you could unlock your smartphone or gain entry to banks, apartment complexes, parking garages and health clubs just by showing your face.
Dr. Atick sees convenience in these kinds of uses as well. But he provides a cautionary counterexample to make his case. Just a few months back, he heard about NameTag, an app that, according to its news release, was available in an early form to people trying out Google Glass. Users had only to glance at a stranger and NameTag would instantly return a match complete with that stranger's name, occupation and public Facebook profile information. "We are basically allowing our fellow citizens to surveil us," Dr. Atick told me on the trade-show floor.
Where do we -- and where can we -- draw the line?
They Should Call It The "You're Not So Special, Princess" Bill
The bill would keep Members of Congress from spending taxpayer money on first-class airplane seats. From ABC/WATE:
The "If Our Military Has to Fly Coach Then So Should Congress Act" was recently introduced by Rep. Paul A. Gosar (R-Ariz.), with his colleagues Reps. Raul Ruiz (D-Calif.), Walter Jones (R-N.C.) and John Barrow (D-Ga.).Each member of Congress receives an average of $256,574 as a base allowance for travel, according to the Congressional Research Service, which would not be affected by the bill. The bill would instead prohibit members of Congress from using that allowance on first-class travel,according to ABC News.
Politicians would still be able to use their numerous frequent flier miles to upgrade their seats.
via @Instapundit
Losers Pay, For A Change
You may have heard claims about Barnum & Bailey and elephant cruelty. Turns out the charges were trumped up.
From the WSJ:
Animal-rights groups that made phony claims of abused circus elephants continue to pay for their bogus litigation. On Thursday Feld Entertainment, owner of the Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus, announced a legal settlement under which it received $15.75 million from the Humane Society of the United States and other animal-rights groups. This follows a 2012 agreement by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to surrender $9.3 million to the producer of family-friendly entertainment.The activist groups aren't settling out of a spirit of generosity. They're paying up because Feld exposed their payments to a former circus employee who offered false testimony. And as Judge Emmet Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia noted last year, "the plaintiffs were unable to produce any credible evidence that any of them had standing to pursue their claims." He called their lawsuit "frivolous, unreasonable and groundless" and ordered them to pay Feld's attorneys fees. Total settlements of roughly $25 million now cover the costs of a defense that began in 2000 when the activists first lobbed their spurious claims.
On Thursday Feld Chairman and CEO Kenneth Feld said in a statement: "We hope this settlement payment, and the various court decisions that found against these animal rights activists and their attorneys, will deter individuals and organizations from bringing frivolous litigation like this in the future."
Linkery
Dinkery, dock...
Day. Made. And It's Only 9:15am.
The site "250 Words: the wisdom of business books" posted "11 Smart Books You Should Read This Summer."
Check out #5! Sam McNerney writes:
5. Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck, by Amy Alkon (June 3)I'm normally not interested in "advice columns" and tend to avoid the self-help aisle. Alkon is different. She incorporates contemporary psychology into her columns, citing researchers like Francesca Gino, Adam Grant, and Dan Ariely. She's also funny. Here's an except from the first chapter:
The good news is, we can dial back the rudeness and change the way we all relate to one another, and we really need to, before rudeness becomes any more of a norm. That's why I've written this book, a manners book for regular people. The term "nice people who sometimes say f*ck" describes people (like me and maybe you) who are well-meaning but imperfect, who sometimes lose their cool but try to be better the next time around, who sometimes swear (and maybe even enjoy it) but take care not to do it around anybody's great-aunt or four-year-old.
Woo!
Hoo!
18 Days To Good Manners: Whether To Approach A Problem Neighbor
My science-based, funny manners advice book, "Good Manners For Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck," will be out on June 3.
When giving advice, I try to do something I see too few advice-givers do -- take reality into consideration: How people actually think and behave. How a course of action that seemed like a brilliant idea at first it is actually likely to play out in real life.
Here's an example of this -- a snippet from my section in the chapter, "The Neighborhood":
Where there's land, there's room for land mines: Whether to approach a problem neighbor.In a neighborhood spat, when you feel strongly that you're on the side of what's good and right, it's tempting to let that drive your approach to conflict resolution. Keep in mind that it takes surprisingly little for even the pettiest neighborhood squabble to escalate to DEFCON Boiling Your Cat And Feeding It To The Squirrels. As entertaining as it can be to, say, watch two housewives cage-fighting in the homeowners association gazebo, if you prefer that your life be consumed by living rather than revenge seeking, there are a number of things you should take into account when trying to resolve some issue with a neighbor.
•Proximity
In neighborhood dispute resolution, as in real estate, location is everything. The closer a neighbor lives the more forbearance you need to show. For example, a next-door douchenozzle who often plays loud music with all his windows open is to be communicated with using the utmost in polite restraint. Not because he is in the right but because he is in the right place to replace your sleep and maybe your every waking moment of peace with music that makes your soul break out in hives.
Please consider pre-ordering. The book is discounted from the $14.99 retail price to only $9.48 at Amazon and $9.67 at Barnes & Noble.
Also, for those of you with a commute, there's a fantastic audio book version of the book, read by Carrington MacDuffie, who has a deep, interesting voice and doesn't go all cutesy like some women do on humor. I should soon have an audiobook sample to post, and you can also pre-order that version -- and I hope you will! It's just $10.76 at Amazon and just $10.11 at Barnes & Noble.
Hey, US Postal Service: Perhaps I Should Try Fireworks...
Perhaps spelling out in fireworks in the sky, "Please deliver my mail...pretty please!"?
(Read my tweets from bottom to top. That top one with the picture link just goes to an "Error: 500" message that kept coming up when you click on the USPS complaint page.)
The note from the post office telling me to go there and get my parcel claims no one was home to receive the package.
But I was home the entire day Wednesday and Thursday, writing feet from the door, looking out the window for the postal carrier -- and going out to check probably six times on Thursday alone.
There was no knock either day. Not even a tiny tap. Aida, who seems to have bionic hearing, would have barked up an operatic little storm. No storm. Just the non-sound of Aida napping and gnawing her little alligator that looks kind of like Gregg.
And besides that -- see above -- there are TWO more permanent notes pasted on my mailbox saying that packages should be dropped over my fence (a six-foot fence with a locking gate). BOTH IGNORED!
The postal carrier apparently didn't want the hassle of, you know, actually delivering the mail.
This is the sign that was over my mailbox yesterday and then thumbtacked to the gate, smack-dab in the middle, today. It's actually neon pink, though it doesn't really look it from this photo. 
And in case anyone's wondering, when the mail carrier knocks on the gate -- or the UPS or Fedex guy does -- I run out there like I'm on fire. I don't want to be rude or princessy by keeping them waiting at all.
Tomorrow, I'm taping the mailbox shut with the note so the carrier can't just drop the note in there and be on their way. Predictions on success rate?
And a thought: I wonder whether they're hiring people who don't speak, read, or write English -- or do those things very well.
The Sun'll Come Out Tamale
Is anybody else in So Cal pretty sure they were kidnapped and left in the Everglades in a perfect replica of their house?
Yes, My Maturity Level Is Set At Around Age 9
I couldn't help myself: 
Next Time, Let The Banks Go Bankrupt
James Pethokoukis at The Week says there's a way to make sure we never bail out Wall Street again, and it's letting the banks fail but giving tax breaks to families and businesses:
Remember, what Washington did in 2008 was authorize the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. It eventually pumped some $400 billion of taxpayer dough into American financial institutions -- whether they wanted the cash or not. The politicians could have let insolvent banks simply go bust. True, such a move would have hammered an already weak economy. To avoid a terrible collapse in spending and investment, however, Washington could have deeply cut taxes or sent tax rebates to households and businesses. How to pay for all those checks? Borrow the money from the Federal Reserve which, after all, owns the printing presses. Fiscal stimulus meets monetary stimulus.Some of the money would have been spent, some used to pay off debt, some saved. But the net result likely would have been a far shallower economic downturn, especially if combined with a clear and explicit Fed promise to support spending no matter what. Former Fed chairman Ben Bernanke recommended just such a "helicopter drop" of money to boost the stagnant Japanese economy back in 2003. Too bad he didn't make the same case to Team Bush and Team Obama five years later.
And what about the banks? For starters, a more modest recession and faster recovery would have limited bank failures. And the assets of the ones that did sink could have been purchased by stronger remaining institutions. Indeed, Geithner writes that legendary investor Warren Buffett told him that without TARP, "everything would have crashed, and I would have been the first to buy." Regulators also could have loosened rules to make it easier for startup banks to replace the failed old ones.
The U.S. has experienced a financial crisis, on average, every decade or so for nearly 200 years. Odds are the most recent one won't be the last one. Forcing banks to maintain a much larger capital cushion would go a long way toward avoiding future disasters. But if Big Finance should stumble again, Washington should let it fall. Wall Street banks won't need a bailout, but their Main Street customers will.
I Love Nature -- Except When I Long To Gun It Down
Why am I awake at 4am? Of course because there's a bird outside my window shrieking, "Wake up, dumbass!" in bird language. (Any pellet gun stores that deliver 24/7?)
Linkie Betty
Find the ugly and the hilarious and post it here.
Rebecca West Side Story
To borrow from/rejigger Rebecca West: "A 'bitch' is what people call me when I fail to act like a doormat."
19 Days To Good Manners! Today: Table Manners Basics
My science-based, funny manners advice book, "Good Manners For Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck," will be out on June 3.
As I write at the beginning of the book, "This is not an etiquette book, filled with prissy codes of conduct to help you fit in to upper-class society (or at least passably fake it)..."
However, in the Eating, Drinking, Socializing chapter, I touch on the essentials of at-the-table etiquette, but only briefly (in 10 bullet points), because this stuff should be obvious to anyone not raised in the woods by a family of wild animals. Here's one:
Coyotes lick their paws while eating for good reason-- because animals that die on the side of the road rarely do so next to place settings complete with a napkin.
--Amy Alkon, "Good Manners For Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck"
Please include the book and my name if you quote that! (It's the polite thing to do!)
And since I've told you what this book isn't, I'll also tell you what it is: a book on why we behave as we do (because knowing this is the best way to behave a little better), how to stand up to the rude, and ultimately, how we make the world a better place, one kind act we do for a stranger at a time.
Please consider pre-ordering. The book is discounted from the $14.99 retail price to only $9.48 at Amazon and $9.67 at Barnes & Noble.
Pre-orders help give the book "heat." (Also, every time you pre-order a copy, a kitten lives and my electricity stays on for another 20 minutes!)
Peer Pressure Isn't Always A Bad Thing. Sometimes, It Saves Kids' Lives
Behavioral science researcher Francesca Gina, author of Sidetracked: Why Our Decisions Get Derailed, and How We Can Stick to the Plan
When we hear that someone succumbed to peer pressure or conformed to group expectations, we are inclined to think about it in negative terms. We imagine a young person smoking his first cigarette or an adult parroting the consensus of her community. We know that these social forces can cause people to act in ways that are harmful to themselves and others; but every day we are discovering more ways that they can be harnessed to solve problems in health, education and other areas....Consider water. Impure water can cause diarrhea, which kills 760,000 children under 5 each year.
In Kenya, for example, an organization not only developed a new chlorine dispenser to clean water but they used the power of peer pressure to get people to use it.
They installed the dispensers at communal water sources, where neighbors could see one another using it, and feel pressure to follow suit. They enlisted a community member to be a "promoter," whose job is to refill the chlorine tank each month, teach the community about the importance of chlorine, and report problems to the local health ministry.The combination of a convenient, free device and social pressure to use it changed people's behavior. In a randomized control trial, IPA found that two years after installing the dispenser, 61 percent of sampled households had chlorine in their water, compared to less than 15 percent of households in the control group.
"If you accept the basic framework that we make decisions to maximize our happiness, there are two parts that incorporate other people," said Dean Karlan, a Yale economics professor who is the founder of IPA. "One part is that our happiness isn't just a function of what we eat, drink and consume: it's also our image to others, and our reputation. The second way that people influence decisions is through their information networks. I get information from friends, and that information will affect the decisions I make. [Many public health] interventions are using those levers: They're using peers to send information."
"You need opinion leaders in a community to do something, which gets other people to mimic that behavior," added Jeremy Hand, who ran IPA's safe water program. "The other driver is the idea of peer pressure: if you know that you're being observed, and the community accepts this behavior as healthy, that peer pressure factor can be a big driver of adoption."
I also write in "Good Manners For Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck" about how creating a "manners gang" -- of only two -- can sometimes be all it takes to persuade a rude person to stop behaving so rudely.
If one person asks some cellphone bellower to pipe down, that person might ignore them or even tell them to fuck off. I have found that if a second person simply says so much as "Hey, it's bothering me, too," the cellboor will often -- in fact, usually -- get off the phone or leave the place where they're disturbing everyone.
Pride In Silly Things, Like "Natural Childbirth"
"Natural childbirth" is what women have died in for centuries.
There's apparently come to be some Whole Foods Mama religion against the epidural, the powerful injected anesthetic that makes pregnancy not an unholy hell of hells due to the pain.
Dr. Jen Gunter has a wise and apparently controversial post on this -- on the opposition to epidurals and the ridiculousness of it.
She points out, as does an epidemiologist I talk about such things with, that all drugs have side-effects and possible complications.
Still, the benefits seem to shine through here. She blogs about the positives:
•Epidurals provide excellent pain relief. For labor and delivery they are superior and safer than any medication that can be given as a shot, by intravenous, or inhaled.
•Untreated pain can have significant consequences beyond the agony of the pain itself.
•Untreated severe pain in labor is linked with postpartum depression and post traumatic stress disorder.
•Epidurals do not increase the risk of a c-section.
•Epidurals do not impact APGAR scores or effect the neonatal outcome.
•Epidurals can slightly increase the need to have oxytocin (a medication to increase the strength of contractions). A meta-analysis indicates the chance that a women might need oxytocin increases by about 19%. However, when this is needed and done right it is A) safe and B) does not increase the risk of a c-section.
•Epidurals do lengthen the 2nd stage of labor by an average of 15-30 minutes (the time between being fully dilated and having the baby).
•Epidurals are associated with a 42% increased risk of needing a vacuum or a forceps delivery. This may be because the numbing impacts the descent of the baby or how well a woman can feel to push. However, if the 2nd stage of labor is taking too long or pushing isn't going well the epidural can always be turned back. The baseline risk of an assisted vaginal delivery in the United States is 5% (this includes all deliveries, epidural and unmedicated, and is very regional and operator dependent). So MOST women with an epidural will not need an operative vaginal delivery.
She winds up with this:
If labor is not very painful then pharmaceutical relief many not make sense. I have seen women wander into L & D who aren't even sure they are in labor only to find that they are 8 cm. However, fear about epidurals just doesn't pan out. Any person offering birth assistance, OB/GYN or midwife, should not talk up or talk down epidurals. If a woman desires to labor without pain relief that is her choice. Some women might be coping just fine without help and others may want to know if they can do it, after all that is why some people run marathons (although at least with a marathon the physical activity improves health, a painful labour does not). However, it is important not to decide against an epidural because of misperceptions about safety or impact on fetal health. If the risk of 4 in a million of a serious complication is too much then you shouldn't choose an epidural. If a 19% increase in the need for oxytocin is not acceptable to you then you shouldn't have an epidural.Everyone has a different pain tolerance. Different people have different ideas about their ideal birth experience. Everyone has a different risk-benefit ratio.
Epidurals have risks, but it is important to put those risks in perspective to make an educated choice. Driving a car has risks. Pregnancy has risks.
Regardless, health care providers who speak ill of epidurals are uninformed and I have to ask what they are really afraid of? A unmedicated delivery is not better in any medical sense it's simply a choice. To make an informed choice you need facts not fear.
Sensible stuff.
The Death Of Free Speech On US Campuses
I write and say it with some frequency: The answer to speech you deplore is more speech, not shutting down the person doing the speaking.
Daniel Henninger writes in the WSJ about the hot new trend on campus. Unfortunately, it does not involve a new style of footgear everyone's picking up on, but a bunch of students banding together, on campus after campus, to keep commencement speakers out whose views they disagree with.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali was the first -- at Brandeis. Next, Christine Lagarde, the French head of the IMF. "Off with her head," said the Smith College witch hunters.
And what might the problem be with Madame Lagarde, considered one of the world's most accomplished women? An online petition signed by some 480 offended Smithies said the IMF is associated with "imperialistic and patriarchal systems that oppress and abuse women worldwide."...On Tuesday, Haverford College's graduating intellectuals forced commencement speaker Robert J. Birgeneau to withdraw. Get this: Mr. Birgeneau is the former chancellor of UC Berkeley, the big bang of political correctness. It gets better.
Berkeley's Mr. Birgeneau is famous as an ardent defender of minority students, the LGBT community and undocumented illegal immigrants. What could possibly be wrong with this guy speaking at Haverford??? Haverfordians were upset that in 2011 the Berkeley police used "force" against Occupy protesters in Sproul Plaza. They said Mr. Birgeneau could speak at Haverford if he agreed to nine conditions, including his support for reparations for the victims of Berkeley's violence.
In a letter, Mr. Birgeneau replied, "As a longtime civil rights activist and firm supporter of nonviolence, I do not respond to untruthful, violent verbal attacks."
Smith president Kathleen McCartney felt obliged to assert that she is "committed to leading a college where differing views can be heard and debated with respect." And Haverford's president, Daniel Weiss, wrote to the students that their demands "read more like a jury issuing a verdict than as an invitation to a discussion or a request for shared learning."
Mr. Birgeneau, Ms. McCartney, Mr. Weiss and indeed many others in American academe must wonder what is happening to their world this chilled spring.
Here's the short explanation: You're all conservatives now.
This is the antithesis of what a college education is supposed to be. Go in with closed minds; come out with them sealed even more tightly shut.
Also, the notion that people whom you disagree with -- even deeply -- have no value, is immature and ridiculous. I was very much against the Iraq War, as, writes Damon Linker at The Week:
The situation involving Condi Rice, by contrast, is a much more typical case of academic moral grandstanding: liberal and left-wing faculty members strenuously objected to extending a speaking invitation to a leading official in a Republican administration who played an important role in prosecuting a deeply unpopular war and justifying highly controversial methods of interrogation that many describe as torture.Lord knows, I detested the Iraq War as much as anyone. But you know what? The world is an imperfect and morally complicated place, filled with people who regularly do things I consider wrong, stupid, misguided, foolish, and unethical. That doesn't mean they should be excommunicated, ignored, or banished from public life.
This is especially true when that wrong, stupid, misguided, foolish, or unethical individual also happens to be, as in Rice's case, a very impressive person who's an esteemed scholar and pianist, a former university provost, and someone who has devoted a large chunk of her life to public service. (Yes, service to the administration of George W. Bush still counts.)
Condoleezza Rice is, without question, one of the most accomplished African-American women in U.S. history. And the faculty of Rutgers University has just told her, in effect, to go to hell.
Why is such moral preening so common in the university? Why are professors so prone to ostracize those who they disagree with? Especially when it accomplishes nothing whatsoever beyond convincing the protesters of their own moral superiority?
Sssslinks
Links with snakes on a plain. (Better than on a plane.)
Sometimes The Rude Have Cool Rides
This one, parked blocking both my garage and my neighbors', will soon be classing up the tow yard.
20 Days To Good Manners! Today: The Trash That Found Its Way Home
My science-based, funny manners advice book, "Good Manners For Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck," will be out on June 3.
There's a misconception -- one I really hate -- that being polite means shutting up when people are rude. Sometimes, it just isn't productive to fight it out with somebody. But here's a quote from my book:
You can't always stop people from kicking you when you're down, but you don't have to roll over for them so they can land better blows.
Also, the more rudeness we roll over for, the more we enable future rudeness. That's why, when I came home to bags and boxes of trash dumped on the grassy strip on my cute street, I went all Nancy Drew in rubber gloves.
Upon figuring out that it belonged to a top foreign surgeon and his wife, apparently vacationing in Los Angeles, I messaged them on Facebook, demanding they come pick up their garbage. No response.
Well, surely, their trash had to miss them. I boxed up a sampling of it, and, for a very well-spent $3.69, mailed it to them, care of their LA friend at the ritzy address where they'd had the wife's box of window treatments sent.
The box included a photo of the trash dumping and this note: "Our street is not your personal trash dump. What kind of upbringing did you have that you think this is okay?"
My neighbor ended up throwing away their trash, but I feel all warm inside every time I imagine their friend placing an international call to them to ask, "Hey, did you maybe leave some of your garbage in Venice?"
Also, the experience underscored something I'd learned while tracking down my stolen pink 1960 Rambler (which I eventually recovered, no thanks to the police): Even if you never get your perp to return what they took or otherwise make amends, one of the best ways to stop feeling victimized is to refuse to roll over and take it like a good little victim.
About the book: I did put in a few funny (and essential) basics on table manners (for anyone raised in the wilderness by coyotes), but, otherwise, the book generally excludes prissy etiquette advice designed to help you fake your way into posh British society.
The book focuses, not just on explaining human behavior and how we can stop ourselves from being rude, but on how we can stop other people from taking advantage of us and everybody else -- sometimes, with proactive measures. And I base much of my advice in science, rather than giving arbitrary advice on what you should do, like the traditional etiquette aunties advise.
Please consider pre-ordering. The book is discounted from the $14.99 retail price to only $9.48 at Amazon and $9.67 at Barnes & Noble.
Pre-orders help give the book "heat." (Also, every time you pre-order a copy, a kitten lives and my electricity stays on for another 20 minutes!)
The Cops Are The Thugs In Philly -- And Prosecutors Let Them Skate
Walter Olson writes at Cato about disgusting, blatant examples of police misconduct -- basically, narcotics officers there acting like a gang in blue to bodega owners there:
The Philadelphia officers' excuse for their raid on Jose Duran's bodega was the same as their excuse for other bodega raids: he was selling grocery zip-lock bags, and Pennsylvania law makes it unlawful to sell containers that a seller reasonably knew or should have known will be used to store drugs. The cops methodically snipped the wires to seven or eight security cameras around the store, and Duran said nearly $10,000 in cash, cigarettes, batteries and other goods then mysteriously vanished from the store.
Olson wrote in an email to me:
One of the more upsetting stories I've written up lately. From the Philadelphia Daily News:"Anh Ngo, like the Nams, said that she was never interviewed by investigators about what unfolded in her family grocery store in the Lower Northeast during a 2008 raid. Ngo, 30, said the officers smashed the cameras with a sledgehammer and stole about $12,000, taking her mom's diamond ring and emptying their wallets."They even took her mom's ring! If we told these immigrant store owners that the American legal system works, would they believe us?
Olson continued in his post about the sort of justice these officers were met with -- which is none:
Like others, I suspect, I assumed that with evidence like this on hand and numerous bodega owners willing to talk with the press, it was safe to stop following the story, since the justice system surely could be trusted to run its course. The last thing I imagined was that every single officer would walk. How wrong I was:
Last week, news broke that federal prosecutors had decided not to file criminal charges against the officers. And the five-year statute of limitations has run out, not just in Collado's case but for nearly two dozen other merchants with similar allegations."They played the clock game. They let time run out," said Danilo Burgos, the former head of the 300-member Dominican Grocers Association who is running for a state House seat in North Philadelphia. "Now no charges will be filed and people have no confidence whatsoever in the process." ...
...The Daily News could not find a single merchant who said they had been called to testify before a grand jury, which mystified several former federal prosecutors.
He asks a few questions below his post -- both about what conclusion immigrant shopkeepers should draw...in America!...about their supposed equal protection under the law, as well as this:
* Does it still seem like minor harmless nannyism to pass laws banning things like mini-zip-lock bags as potential drug paraphernalia, laws that are widely ignored and may even be unknown to the regulated parties, given that it allows police like this a perfect basis to go to a judge and obtain formally valid search warrants?
We are turning into some terrible, "other" kind of country. And nobody is waking up or bothering to do anything.
Criminal Philanthropy
Brian Doherty writes at reason about a Florida couple feeding the hungry:
In Daytona Beach, Florida, a couple--Debbie and Chico Jimenez--out of the kindness of their hearts have for the past year on Wednesdays offered full cooked meals to the city's homeless in Manatee Island park. Over 100 hungry are typically fed.Naturally, they've been fined by the city for it, along with some of their helpers--including a wheelchair-bound man who himself just escaped homelessness. (Maybe this fine can push him back in it! See this previous article from me about how even the pettiest of state fines can ruin lives.)
The crew of criminal philanthropists owe a total of $2,238 in fines.
Why? Some people don't like what homeless people do in the park, including human acts of excretion and drunkenness. (As if the people feeding them invented the homeless, or provided or police the park.
The Daytona Police Chief warned this awful, hungry-people-feeding couple that they could be jailed for their crimes against humanity.
Nippy
Links with cooling power, because somebody turned the heat up here in So Cal yesterday and left it on full blast. (I was a little late to drinks with a friend because I am not a warm-weather dresser!)
Foot Fabulousness
New markdowns on shoes for men, women, and children, and handbags, too, at Amazon
21 Days To Good Manners
My science-based, funny manners advice book, "Good Manners For Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck," will be out on June 3.
Here's an excerpt from the first chapter, "I Don't Care Where You Put the Fork (as long as you don't stab anybody in the eye with it)," that tells a little bit about it:
The good news is, we can dial back the rudeness and change the way we all relate to one another, and we really need to, before rudeness becomes any more of a norm. That's why I've written this book, a manners book for regular people. The term "nice people who sometimes say f*ck" describes people (like me and maybe you) who are well-meaning but imperfect, who sometimes lose their cool but try to be better the next time around, who sometimes swear (and maybe even enjoy it) but take care not to do it around anybody's great-aunt or four-year-old.
The book focuses not just on explaining human behavior and how we can stop ourselves from being rude but on how we can stop other people from taking advantage of us and everybody else -- sometimes, with proactive measures.
The book chapters include a chapter on the science behind stopping the rude; and Communicating; The Neighborhood; The Telephone; The Internet; Dating; Going Places (cars, sidewalks, public transportation, and airplanes); Eating, Drinking, Socializing; Friends with Serious Illnesses (What to do when a friend is really, really sick and could maybe even die); The Apology; and, finally, Trickle-Down Humanity -- a non-sappy chapter on how to make the world a better place.
Over the next 21 days, I'll post some quotes from the book.
Please consider pre-ordering. The book is discounted from the $14.99 retail price to only $9.48 at Amazon and $9.67 at Barnes & Noble.
Pre-orders help give the book "heat." (Also, every time you pre-order a copy, a kitten lives and my electricity stays on for another 20 minutes!)
Mea Save My Ass-a: Donald Sterling's Chat With Anderson Cooper
An excerpt from his "apology" from ProBasketballTalk at NBC:
"I'm not a racist. I made a terrible, terrible mistake and I'm here with you today to apologize and to ask for forgiveness for all the people that I've hurt. And I've hurt so many people, so many innocent people. And I've hurt myself. I spoke to a girl I was fond of and I don't know why, when I listened to that tape, I don't even know how I could say words like that. I'm not a racist. I love people. I always have. But those words came out of my mouth, I guess, and I'm so sorry, and I'm so apologetic.""I'm sorry that people are hurt. My little grandchild goes to a Catholic nursery school, and they were passing around candy to everybody, and when they got to her they said, 'we don't give candy to racists.' Seven and nine. So it hurt me. I hurt my ex-wife (Shelly, his estranged wife, they are still married although she has said she may file for divorce). She is a beautiful person...
The nursery school thing is just not believable.
Do you know any nursery school teacher who would take this out on a child who probably has no idea what went on and wouldn't understand it if she did?
(Of course, I don't think nursery school has seven- and nine-year-olds attending.)
This just comes off to me like some invented "poor me."
The guy said he doesn't normally talk like this.
It isn't right that he was recorded, if it happened surreptitiously, but sorry, you could club me or other people over the head and we wouldn't talk like he did. You have to think it to speak it -- even if you're goaded, as he claims he was.
Obamacare: More And More Like Those Stories I Read About Russia A Few Decades Back
There wasn't a full grocery store. There were maybe some loaves of bread on the shelf. Maybe I'm remembering a bit of an exaggeration, but what I do recall is a lack of choice. You would just consider yourself lucky that you had something to eat.
In The New York Times, in a Reed Abelson piece, a quote about Obamacare's narrowing of choices -- a narrowing which those of us who have been responsibly paying for our care for a few decades -- did not ask for.
"We have to break people away from the choice habit that everyone has," said Marcus Merz, the chief executive of PreferredOne, an insurer in Golden Valley, Minn., that is owned by two health systems and a physician group. "We're all trying to break away from this fixation on open access and broad networks."
Again, a big part of the problem is that Obamacare -- this ridiculous behemoth -- in days when few stay in a job very long, left healthcare tied to the workplace.
Remember: As Nancy Pelosi noted, in not so many words, we had to pass it to find out how truly problematic it was.
Gay Parenting And Birth Certificates: If You're A Good Parent, Why Do We Care What You Call Yourself?
The Wash Times' Cheryl K. Chumley writes about California's move to let gay men cite themselves as "mother" on birth certificates and let lesbians cite themselves as "father" -- if they so desire. This is a problem why?
Currently, birth certificate documents in the state have a space for "mother" and another space for "father." AB 1951 sponsor Jimmy Gomez, a Democrat who represents Los Angeles, says the form is discriminatory and demands revision."The definition of a family needs to be more flexible, and same-sex parents should not be discriminated against when filling out a birth certificate," he said, in a press release. "Under AB 1951, same-sex parents will be able to accurately identify each parent as mother, father or parent."
California recently changed its birth certificate to read "Mother/Parent" and "Father/Parent," which makes it easier to list same-sex parents.
One of the dissenters:
The destruction and ripping to shreds the fabric of our nation marches on. In my lifetime I never thought there would be a need to qualify the description of husband or wife. It´s so sad and disturbing.
Sad and disturbing? Spoken like someone who has never seen or met gay parents.
via @mpetrie98
Lippy
Linkie with lip.
For The Hairy Hairless
My Chinese Crested, Aida, is the variety known as a "hairy hairless," meaning she has enough hair overall that she gets the cute little after-ski boot feet.
She also gets a coating of hair all over her body, which needs to be shaved. Bald.
Well, I've found the perfect razor. It is the Wahl Professional 8110 5-star Series Balding Clipper
It has an 00000 blade -- the closest (surgical) shave you can get, but comes with two guides that will do 1/16 and 3/16 of an inch. Highly recommended. 
If you get this, be sure you oil it before and after use. Here's the one I use: Wahl Blade Oil
Here's The TSA Guy Who Was Supervising Your Child's Groping
From New York's ABC station, a TSA supervisor, Vernon Lythcott, was arrested at JFK, accused of having sex with two 15-year-olds in the Dominican Republic in January:
According to the criminal complaint, Lythcott used the help of a Dominican man to lure the teens from the beach into a van, promising them money and gifts.He's accused of having sex with both girls several times.
At one point in a hotel, Lythcott and two other men forced one of the girls in a room where they all sexually assaulted her.
The victims say Lythcott paid them $80.
Friday morning at JFK, federal agents arrested Lythcott who works as a TSA supervisor.
He was on the jetway trying to board a flight back to the Dominican Republic.
Law enforcement sources tell Eyewitness News Lythcott's arrest is part of a larger crackdown on child exploitation.
The TSA released the following statement:
"The agency is currently in the process of terminating his employment. At this time, he is on indefinite suspension. "TSA holds its employees to the highest ethical standards and expects all TSA employees to conduct themselves with integrity and professionalism. These alleged crimes are egregious and intolerable."
The reality: The TSA is too busy feeling up your vagina to care about who they're hiring.
Also, they know you're a criminal. Why else would you be flying to see your grandma on Mother's Day?
Holder: Public Schools Must Enroll Children Of Illegal Immigrants
From the Wash Times:
Attorney General Eric Holder said Thursday that all schools must enroll illegal immigrants as students, citing "troubling reports" that some districts are discriminating against the children of undocumented parents."Public school districts have an obligation to enroll students regardless of immigration status and without discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin," Mr. Holder said in a statement released Thursday by the Justice Department. He said the department will do "everything it can" to make sure schools meet this obligation.
...The guidance is based on a 1982 Supreme Court decision that says children of illegal immigrants have a right to a public education. In Plyler v. Doe, the court struck down a Texas statute that denied funding for education to the children of illegal immigrants and a school district's attempt to charge undocumented persons an annual $1,000 tuition fee for each illegal immigrant student.
Some states and school boards have challenged the ruling, most notably California in 1994, when voters approved a referendum to deny all state-funded benefits -- including education -- to illegals. The courts later struck down the referendum.
In 1996, Congress tried to pass immigration legislation that would have allowed states to deny public education benefits to certain illegal aliens or to charge them tuition. But it was withdrawn after President Bill Clinton threatened to veto it.
via @WendyMcElroy1
Beat Poet Allen Ginsberg: "Communism Just Doesn't Work"
From the WSJ, a quote pulled out of the Times Literary Supplement:
[A] postcard from Allen Ginsberg to Diane di Prima, postmarked New York, but showing a Swiss Alpine scene on the front, was auctioned by Nate D. Sanders this week, with a minimum bid of $250. The date is January 16, 1981, and Ginsberg has just returned from a "couple months" in Europe: "Hungary-Austria-Switzerland-Germany." His readings brought "little money" and he appears surprised to find "Red Lands not good." As the auctioneer says, "Ginsberg often talked about his intimate connections with communism and his admiration for communist political figures including Fidel Castro. " By 1981 he was disillusioned: "I guess communism just doesn't work."
Trying To Stay Anonymous On The Web May Put The NSA On Your Tail
John Naughton writes at The Observer, linked at RawStory, of a professor, Janet Vertesi, who ran a little experiment about whether she could keep her pregnancy a secret from online marketers. She told everyone verbally, over the phone, and asked them to avoid saying anything about it on social media. When one relative did, she immediately deleted his Facebook post about it and then unfriended him. (He pouted.) There's more:
Vertesi was nothing if not thorough. Instead of using a web-browser in the normal way - ie leaving a trail of cookies and other digital tracks, she used the online service Tor to visit babycenter.com anonymously. She shopped offline whenever she could and paid in cash. On the occasions when she had to use Amazon, she set up a new Amazon account linked to an email address on a personal server, had all packages delivered to a local locker and made sure only to pay with Amazon gift cards that had been purchased with cash.The really significant moment came when she came to buy a big-ticket item - an expensive stroller (aka pushchair) that was the urbanite's equivalent of an SUV. Her husband tried to buy $500 of Amazon gift vouchers with cash, only to discover that this triggered a warning: retailers have to report people buying large numbers of gift vouchers with cash because, well, you know, they're obviously money launderers.
At this point, some sobering thoughts begin to surface. The first is Melvin Kranzberg's observation that "technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral". Our technologies have values built into them, which is why Vertesi in her talk cites someone's observation that "the iPod is a tool to make us moral" (because it encourages people to buy music rather than download it illicitly) and philosophers argue about whether surveillance encourages moral - ie socially approved - behaviour (think speed cameras).
Even more sobering, though, are the implications of Professor Vertesi's decision to use Tor as a way of ensuring the anonymity of her web-browsing activities. She had a perfectly reasonable reason for doing this - to ensure that, as a mother-to-be, she was not tracked and targeted by online marketers.
But we know from the Snowden disclosures and other sources that Tor users are automatically regarded with suspicion by the NSA et al on the grounds that people who do not wish to leave a digital trail are obviously up to no good. The same goes for people who encrypt their emails.
This is why the industry response to protests about tracking is so inadequate. The market will fix the problem, the companies say, because if people don't like being tracked then they can opt not to be. But the Vertesi experiment shows that if you take measures to avoid being tracked, then you increase the probability that you will be. Which is truly Kafkaesque.
via @instapundit
Hinky
Links with hinks.
Advice Goddess Radio, LIVE Tonite, 7-8pm PT, 10-11pm ET: Nina Teicholz On Why Butter, Meat, And Cheese Are The Foundation Of A Healthy Diet
Amy Alkon's Advice Goddess Radio: "Nerd Your Way To A Better Life!" with the best brains in therapy and research.
Saturated fat is your friend. Really.
It turns out everything we've been told about eating fat is wrong. On tonight's show, meticulous journalist Nina Teichholz will lay out the scientific errors, ego, and dangerous misrepresentations that have underpinned the dietary dogma of the past 60 years.
She'll also lay out the findings of solid science -- why eating more dietary fat will lead us to better health and fitness.
Join us as she discusses all of this and more from her brand new book, "The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat & Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet."
Listen at this link from 7-8 pm Pacific, 10-11 pm Eastern, or download the podcast afterward:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/amyalkon/2014/05/12/nina-teicholz-on-why-butter-meat-cheese-are-the-foundation-of-a-healthy-diet
Don't miss last week's show, Science Writer Peg Streep On "Overcoming The Legacy Of A Mean Mother."
I've written that family are people who treat you like family. Sometimes, sadly, one's mother -- the closest familial relation a person can have -- isn't included in that group.
Mother's Day is a tough holiday for some people -- for those whose mothers have died and for those whose mothers were far from the loving, nurturing protectors that others' mothers seem to be.
Science writer Peg Streep, herself the daughter of mean mother, was my guest last Sunday, talking about her book, Mean Mothers: Overcoming the Legacy of Hurt.
She explains why it's been taboo to even let on that you have a cold, unloving mother as well as how such a mother shapes children, and especially daughters, in negative ways.
However, she also shows us the ways out: How she and other daughters of mean mothers have managed to find, believe it or not, the positives in their experience; and how they can go forward, both as more psychologically healthy human beings and as good mothers to their own children.
Listen at this link or download the podcast:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/amyalkon/2014/05/05/science-writer-peg-streep-on-overcoming-the-legacy-of-a-mean-mother
Join me and my fascinating guests every Sunday, 7-8 p.m. Pacific Time, 10-11 p.m. Eastern Time, at blogtalkradio.com/amyalkon or subscribe on iTunes or Stitcher.
My show's sponsor is now Audible.com. Get a free audiobook download and support this show financially at no cost to you by signing up for a free 30-day trial at audibletrial.com/amya (It's $14.95 after 30 days, but you can cancel before then and have it cost you nothing.)
Assistant Events Planner Wanted For The Second Coming
Hilarious Craigslist ad. Naturally, the position is "pro bono" until "sources of funding have been allocated."
Job description includes:
•Organize meetings with key leaders of the world
"Mr. Putin, please."
Right.
via KateC
There Isn't One "Minority Mind" That's Different From One Giant "White Person Mind"
Heather Mac Donald, at City Journal, writes about the Supreme Court decision in late April that voters could require colorblind admissions to their state's public universities without running afoul of the Constitution. She takes apart the Supremes' previous justification for admissions preferences under the "diversity" rationale, and there's a big oops within them:
The Supreme Court's previous justification for admissions preferences under the "diversity" rationale is that they benefit mostly the white majority, whose members would otherwise allegedly be clueless about how to talk to a black person. In fact, if preferences were designed primarily to benefit minorities, they would be unconstitutional under Supreme Court jurisprudence, as Justice Scalia pointed out in his concurring opinion in Schuette. Proposal 2 banned gender preferences as well, thus undercutting the conceit that it constituted an attack by the majority on the political participation rights of minorities--since females are the majority.Most of the justices ignored these complications. But Justice Kennedy, writing the controlling plurality opinion (joined by Justices Roberts and Alito), noticed something in the political-process doctrine that is even more lethal to the Court's preference jurisprudence. By requiring courts to determine whether a policy is a "racial issue," the doctrine makes courts stereotype minorities, Kennedy wrote. The "racial issue" test presumes that all minorities share the same interests and same points of view, he said. But "it cannot be entertained as a serious proposition that all individuals of the same race think alike."
Uh-oh. There goes the diversity rationale down the drain.
She continues:
According to the Supreme Court, the only reason why schools should be allowed to discriminate against more academically qualified applicants in favor of less qualified black and Hispanic applicants is that those "underrepresented" minorities will bring otherwise missing perspectives to the classroom and cafeteria. But if each individual is in fact sui generis, then there is no reason to believe that selection by skin color will lead to a non-random introduction of additional viewpoints. The next case to challenge racial preferences should quote Kennedy's words back to him as the death knell for the "diversity" conceit.
And of course, some minorities are not included in this "diversity" preferencing:
Sotomayor's Manichean worldview (and the political-process doctrine itself) collapses at the mention of one word, found nowhere (as Ilya Somin also observes) in any of Schuette's five opinions: Asians. The application of the political-process doctrine to Proposal 2 assumes that racial preferences benefit "minorities" and are therefore opposed by "the majority." But admissions preferences do the most damage not to the white majority, but to Asians, who are disproportionately excluded when merit-based admissions are compromised. A recent effort by California's Latino Caucus to reinstate racial preferences at the University of California was foiled only by last-minute Asian organizing. Is one minority now oppressing other minorities? Sotomayor would be hard-pressed to explain this complication in her template of minority-majority polarization.Asians are the most significant absence in Sotomayor's dissent, but the concept of effort is a close runner-up. Sotomayor implies that blacks and Hispanics can do nothing to qualify themselves for the University of Michigan; racial preferences are their only hope for admission in the face of "the majority's" intransigence. After Proposal 2, she writes, a "black Michigander . . . cannot lobby the board [of regents] in favor of a policy that might give his children a chance that he never had and that they might never have absent that policy." Actually, a black Michigander can best enhance his children's chance of admissions by drilling into them the value of learning and the importance of doing homework and paying attention in class--lessons that Asian parents inculcate in their children without surcease.
Droopie
Falling links.
Discount Code: "BAGME"
Some spam is pretty funny. Like this piece I got Saturday morning that started, "Dear Funeral Director": 
Mel Brooks On Political Correctness
He told Yahoo Movies that he was lucky he made (my favorite movie) "Blazing Saddles" before the PC police became so powerful. From Rotten To The Core:
Politically correct is absolutely wrong. Because it inhibits the freedom of thought. I'm so lucky that they weren't so strong then and that the people that let things happen on the screen weren't so powerful then. I was very lucky.
I had black friends in New York who sometimes called me "Pasty." I found this hilarious, and we would joke about race sometimes, including joking about the boring, all-white place I came from. There was no hate behind it, so it was fun -- like all our other jokes.
When you declare one group -- or certain groups -- off-limits for jokes...when that group becomes a protected class, rather like human spotted owls, that's when that group is suddenly not just made up of people, but people who need special treatment...a coddled class.
That sets them apart from the rest of us in a way that joking about them -- in the same way we joke about, say, geeks or Italians -- does not.
via @adamkissel
Another Example Of Why Police And Courts, Not Universities, Should Be Investigating, Prosecuting Rape Accusations
From MLive.com, John Counts writes of a University of Michigan student, living in a dorm just down from the one I lived in there, unfairly kicked out of school after an allegation of non-consensual sex...which took place while the student's roommate was in the bunk above him.
There were no cries for help. But the woman claims she was too intoxicated to consent to sex with Drew Sterrett:
Sterrett was never criminally charged and the woman didn't report any misconduct until August 2012. The lawsuit alleges the sex was consensual and the woman only reported it as misconduct after her mother found a diary chronicling the times she had sex....The lawsuit gives the following account of what happened March 16, 2012:
There was a gathering at Sterrett's dorm room. The woman didn't want to go back to sleep at her own dorm room because her roommate had company. She decided to stay in Sterrett's room. They had kissed prior to that night, the suit says.
Sterrett and his roommate, whose name does not appear in the suit, have bunk beds. His roommate climbed into the top bunk to go to sleep. Sterrett and the woman got into the bottom bunk.
Also uncontested by the woman is that they kissed and had sexual intercourse.
The woman did contest that the sexual encounter was "completely consensual at all times," according to the suit.
Sterrett's roommate was in the top bunk throughout the encounter. The woman is not contesting that she never attempted to ask him for help.
While the two were having sex, the roommate wrote Sterrett the following Facebook message at 3:19 a.m."
"Dude, you and [the woman] are being abnoxtiously(sic) loud and inconsiderate, so expect to pay back in full tomorrow. I only don't say anything now so I don't embarrass you all ... Yours Truly"
The woman spent the rest of the night in Sterrett's room, according to the suit.
...The woman went to the university's Office of Institutional Equity five months later, on Aug. 2, 2012, to make a verbal, sexual misconduct complaint.
Sterrett was back home in New York when he got a call from Heather Cowan, program manager and investigator with the Office Student Conflict Resolution, a few days after that. He was told a student had filed a complaint against him, but Cowan didn't specify what it was. He agreed to Skype with her about it later that day.
Gordon said Sterrett has still never met face-to-face with any of the university officials who were involved with his suspension.
Sterrett admitted to the sexual encounter and said it was consensual. What followed was an investigation into the matter that the suit says violated Sterrett's 14th Amendment right to due process.
Gordon said he was never given the names of the witnesses Cowan was interviewing and there was never a hearing.
Students have these for other offenses, Gordon said, but not for sexual misconduct. She called the investigation "a Kafkaesque nightmare."
Due process has been removed from being maie at America's universities.
via @WendyMcElroy1
Linkie
Postie.
Men Panting
Not as much fun as it sounds, but still a good thing. Haggar men's pants on sale at Amazon
How ADA Applied To The Web Could Shut Down Websites Like Mine
Walter Olson blogs at Cato about what he considers perhaps the most significant developing story the press has yet to catch onto -- the Obama admin's apparent intent to publish new interpretations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), requiring that website operators make their sites accessible to the blind, deaf, intellectually disabled, etc.:
While disabled advocates have been pursuing such interpretations of the ADA for more than a decade, several adverse federal court decisions greatly slowed down their momentum; now, those precedents notwithstanding, the administration seems to have decided to throw its weight behind the proposition that websites, like brick-and-mortar restaurants or movie theaters, are "public accommodations" under an obligation to provide the online equivalent of ramps, rails, sign-language translators, captioning, and much, much, more....When the regs come out, the associated public advocacy campaign will no doubt focus on very large web vendors (Wal-Mart, airlines, Amazon, Netflix, and so forth), who (it will be argued) can well afford to bring their e-commerce operations into line with accessibility prescriptions. But as the law is written, the same principles will be applied to smaller businesses' websites and indeed to many small private sites whose primary purpose is writing, persuasion, or communication, at least where there is a commercial nexus such as ad revenue or an affiliate bookstore.
Hans Bader writes about this at CEI:
Generally, the First Amendment gives you the right to choose who to talk to and how, without government interference. There is no obligation to make your message accessible to the whole world, and the government can't force you to make your speech accessible to everyone, much less appealing to them. The government couldn't require you to give speeches in English rather than Spanish to reach a larger number of listeners. And the Supreme Court once noted that the poem Jabberwocky is protected by the First Amendment, even though it makes no sense to most people.
Will your child's lemonade stand be in violation because the "Lemonade, $1" sign isn't written in Braille?
Walter Olson testified to Congress on this in 2000:
What would happen if every technically literate American woke up tomorrow determined to publish on the Web in compliance with expert accessibility guidelines, or not at all?* Hundreds of millions of existing pages would be torn down. Some of these would eventually be put back up after being made compliant. Countless others never would.
* The posting of new pages, by the tens of millions, would screech to a near-halt. A relatively few, mostly larger organizations that have made it up the accessibility learning curve would continue to publish, but everyone else (except for entities exempt from the ADA) would put publishing plans on hold while they trooped off to remedial tutorials, or at least sent their techies there.
* Amateur publishing, as by the owner of a small business or a community group that relied on volunteers, would become more of a legal hazard. The tendency would be for more entities to turn their web publishing function over to paid professionals.
* Within the ranks of paid professionals, there would be a tendency to winnow out the inexpensive freelancers who can currently post rough-and-ready pages at low charge in favor of those who can certify that they have taken the requisite training to "unlearn" the common (and now to be disfavored) page-construction techniques that have been standard form for years.
* Many widely used and highly useful features on websites would be compromised in functionality or simply dispensed with for reasons of cost, delay or cumbersomeness. To take but one example, a small town newspaper or civic organization might feel itself at legal risk if it put audio or video clips of the city council meeting online without providing text translation and description. Such text translation and description are expensive and time-consuming to provide. The alternative of not running the audio and video clips at all remains feasible, however, and that is the alternative some will adopt.
In the name of forcing people to be inclusive of the disabled, we will make speech less free, and in turn, erode our civil liberties further.
"My Son, The Sex Offender"
A mother in Missouri, Sharie Keil, is fighting against sex offender registries. From a piece by Tony Dokoupil at NBC, it started when the governor announced that sex offenders had to stay inside on Halloween and display a sign saying they had no candy or they could spend a year in jail:
The goal was "to protect our children," as Nixon put it, but Keil heard only a peal of political hysteria.She is not a sex offender nor, at 63, a new-age apologist for pedophiles or predators. She is a mother, however, and in 1998 her 17-year-old son had sex with a pre-teen girl at a party. He was convicted of aggravated sexual abuse, which got him six months in county jail and a lifetime of mandatory registration as a sex offender. Ten years later, after the Halloween law, Keil felt shocked into action.
"As my husband says, I decided to go on the war path," she remembers.
Today, she's at the forefront of a growing fight against sex offender registries, a shame-free alliance of offenders and their families, supported by researchers and some advocates who helped pass stringent anti-abuse laws in the first place.
It helps no one to have people like her son living under these restrictions. There's no sign he has the hots for children. He did what countless American boys have done -- have sex at a party.
Furthermore:
The Department of Justice says that as many as one in three girls, and one in five boys will be sexually abused by the time they reach 18. That's a tragedy, Keil is quick to admit, but unfortunately, she says, sex offender registries are not a solution.They're based on the idea that if you know who the dangerous people are, you'll know who to avoid. But 93 percent of sexually abused children are not violated by a lurking stranger, according to government data: They know their assailant. The bulk of the remaining seven percent of crimes are not committed by people on the registry. In fact, the recidivism rate for registered sex offenders is lower than any crime other than capital murder, and not because of the registries themselves, according to study after study.
"These policies don't work," says Elizabeth Letourneau, Ph.D, director of the Center for the Prevention of Child Abuse at Johns Hopkins University. She recently reviewed 20 studies of registry laws and found that 18 showed no reduction in repeat offenses. "When you have 20 studies that fail to support your policy, you have a failed policy," she continued.
Problem is, what politician is going to get behind changing this policy?
@CHSommers
"The Fellowship of the People of the Tradition for Preaching and Holy War"
"Boko Haram" is pretty catchy, but the translation -- above -- of that name is much more revealing about the group and its mission, writes Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the WSJ:
Far from being an aberration among Islamist terror groups, as some observers suggest, Boko Haram in its goals and methods is in fact all too representative.The kidnapping of the schoolgirls throws into bold relief a central part of what the jihadists are about: the oppression of women. Boko Haram sincerely believes that girls are better off enslaved than educated. The terrorists' mission is no different from that of the Taliban assassin who shot and nearly killed 15-year-old Pakistani Malala Yousafzai--as she rode a school bus home in 2012--because she advocated girls' education. As I know from experience, nothing is more anathema to the jihadists than equal and educated women.
How to explain this phenomenon to baffled Westerners, who these days seem more eager to smear the critics of jihadism as "Islamophobes" than to stand up for women's most basic rights? Where are the Muslim college-student organizations denouncing Boko Haram? Where is the outrage during Friday prayers? These girls' lives deserve more than a Twitter hashtag protest.
...I am often told that the average Muslim wholeheartedly rejects the use of violence and terror, does not share the radicals' belief that a degenerate and corrupt Western culture needs to be replaced with an Islamic one, and abhors the denigration of women's most basic rights. Well, it is time for those peace-loving Muslims to do more, much more, to resist those in their midst who engage in this type of proselytizing before they proceed to the phase of holy war.
It is also time for Western liberals to wake up. If they choose to regard Boko Haram as an aberration, they do so at their peril. The kidnapping of these schoolgirls is not an isolated tragedy; their fate reflects a new wave of jihadism that extends far beyond Nigeria and poses a mortal threat to the rights of women and girls. If my pointing this out offends some people more than the odious acts of Boko Haram, then so be it.
Elkie
Linkie with antlers.
"Curing" Discrimination With Discrimination
Jonathan Turley blogs about gaming government contracts:
In 1994, Congress mandated that at least 5% of contracts go to businesses majority-owned by women. Today, roughly 3% of contracts are set aside based on the gender of the owner. Similar set-asides and preferences are accorded by race and service-related injuries. At times, the world of government contracting preferences has become so bizarre that set-aside groups have fought about preferences within preferences. In one case, 25% of the set-aside for small businesses were further set aside for minority-owned or women-owned businesses, but minority businesses objected that woman end up getting too much of the contracting pie.
Here's an example of how people game the system:
Braulio Castillo seemed exactly what the government was looking for. He was CEO of a Virginia company who was listed as a service-disabled veteran. That status allowed Castillo to secure $500 million in government contracts under special rules. Castillo described his terrible disability as just one of the "crosses that I bear due to my service to our great country." Others now describe it as a shameless scam.Castillo, 43, was a U.S. Military Academy Preparatory School student when he hurt himself playing football. Decades later, he filed for service-disabled veteran status with the Department of Veterans Affairs. Bizarrely, the VA granted it, even though Castillo went on to play football for the University of San Diego and never served in a military unit. With this status, he was awarded a half-a-billion dollars in contracts despite little experience.
Best person for the company or the job? Nuh-uh. Think about how that affects the quality of what we're contracting for.
Turley continues:
Few are prepared to question the wisdom of such an approach out of fear of being called misogynistic, anti-veteran or anti-Samoan. Agencies are left dealing with a tangle of detailed rules while the public expects them to be quickly and efficiently carrying out government business. It is a recipe for inefficient government, a frustrated public and little accountability.As for Castillo, his contracting days are over. Not because of any reform, mind you. Last month, police charged him in the death of his wife in his Northern Virginia mansion. Despite his classification as 30% disabled, police say he was able to use the other 70% to beat his wife to death and then hoist her to the ceiling to fake a suicide.
You're Being Watched. We're All Being Watched. And We're All Criminals.
We have too many laws and now we have the government spying on all of us with ease -- and a great deal of impunity -- and this is a very dangerous combination.
Edward Snowden quote on the surveillance state, via WashingtonsBlog:
Because even if you're not doing anything wrong you're being watched and recorded. And the storage capability of these systems increases every year consistently by orders of magnitude ... to where it's getting to the point where you don't have to have done anything wrong. You simply have to eventually fall under suspicion from somebody - even by a wrong call. And then they can use this system to go back in time and scrutinize every decision you've ever made, every friend you've ever discussed something with. And attack you on that basis to sort to derive suspicion from an innocent life and paint anyone in the context of a wrongdoer.
At Wired, Moxie Marlinspike notes, "We Won't Always Know When We Have Something To Hide":
For instance, did you know that it is a federal crime to be in possession of a lobster under a certain size? It doesn't matter if you bought it at a grocery store, if someone else gave it to you, if it's dead or alive, if you found it after it died of natural causes, or even if you killed it while acting in self defense. You can go to jail because of a lobster.If the federal government had access to every email you've ever written and every phone call you've ever made, it's almost certain that they could find something you've done which violates a provision in the 27,000 pages of federal statues or 10,000 administrative regulations. You probably do have something to hide, you just don't know it yet.
This is the subject of the book by FIRE co-founder, Harvey Silverglate: Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent
All The Money In The World Can't Buy You A Science-Based Diet
Julianne Moore told SHAPE magazine:
"I still battle with my deeply boring diet of, essentially, yogurt and breakfast cereal and granola bars. I hate dieting. I hate having to do it to be the 'right' size. I'm hungry all the time. I think I'm a slender person, but the industry apparently doesn't. All actresses are hungry all the time, I think."
Poor woman. Eating exactly wrong to be healthy, thin, and enjoy life. And cramming herself with sugar in all of those things. Terrible stuff.
I actually have a macro about this (because I got sick of rewriting this from scratch), which I'll paste in here:
Per Gary Taubes' "Good Calories, Bad Calories" and "Why We Get Fat," it is carbohydrates -- sugar, flour, starchy vegetables like potatoes, apple juice -- that cause the insulin secretion that puts on fat.
I wake up to three strips of (greasy!) bacon, later have crispy kale I've cooked in bacon grease, and later have an omelette made in Kerrygold butter with a bit of paté and shredded cheese. It's fantastic. Oh, and I drink break-a-tooth black coffee with 1/3 cup foamed organic half 'n' half per cup. Yummm! And I'm super healthy and don't gain weight -- even if I don't exercise (which I do, because it's important beyond being slim).
This week -- Sunday, May 11, 7-8 pm Pacific -- I'll have Nina Teicholz on my radio show talking about her brand new book, The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet
Excellent book -- I'm finishing it now.
Tax Credits For Hot Air
Lamar Alexander writes in the WSJ that the U.S. Senate is poised to bring back Washington's "most conspicuous, wasteful taxpayer subsidy," the tax credit for "wind production."
(There's a joke about politicians there but it seems too cheap to make.)
Alexander reports that the proposed extension for the wind subsidy would cost taxpayers $10 billion over the next 10 years.
He adds:
...2. The wind subsidy undercuts reliable "baseload" electricity such as nuclear and coal. Let's say it's 3 a.m. in Chicago. The wind is blowing, which it usually does at night when consumers are asleep and don't need as much electricity. Because of the subsidy, wind producers can pay utilities to take their power and still make a profit.But the electricity generated from coal and nuclear plants--which are hard to turn on and off--becomes less economical. As a result, utilities have an incentive to close these "baseload" plants. Negative pricing tied to wind power, along with the low price of natural gas, is causing utilities to close nuclear plants. The Center for Strategic and International Studies says that as many as 25% of our country's 100 nuclear plants might close over the next 10 years.
On April 28, environmental groups, including the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions and Nuclear Matters, announced--they held an event in Washington at the National Press Club-- that they were concerned about losing clean nuclear power, which provides 60% of America's air-pollution-free electricity. And, in a country that consumes 20% of the world's electricity, relying on windmills when nuclear power is available is the energy equivalent of going to war in sailboats when nuclear ships are available.
...3. Wind-power subsidies destroy the environment in the name of saving the environment. The wind turbines that generate power in this country do not resemble the charming, picturesque windmills that dot the Dutch landscape. Instead, they are 20 stories high. Their blinking lights can be seen for miles. Their noise disturbs neighbors. Their transmission lines scar neighborhoods and open spaces.
More details on wind from Ron Bailey at reason:
According to the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration (EIA), if one includes all the capital, operating, and fuel costs, electricity from wind still costs about 50 percent more than conventional coal and 100 percent more than natural gas. Proponents point out that the costs of turbines are coming down, but the costs for the considerable infrastructure needed to manage wind are still daunting.
For the record, I think those stretches of wind turbines look kinda cool.
I Got A TV Out Of The Garbage In New York For About This Price
Well, close to it, anyway.
HDTVs for $200 or less
Blimpie
Fatty links.
Dumb As Three Boxes Of Rocks
From the piece, "Why I Filmed My Abortion," an interview in Cosmopolitan of Emily Letts (who videotaped her abortion), by Heather Wood Rudolph. Rudolph quotes Letts:
I hadn't been using any kind of birth control, which is crazy, I know.
Incredibly, Letts went on to reveal:
I'm a sex educator, and I love talking about birth control. Before this experience, hormonal birth control scared me because of complications I'd heard about from friends -- gaining weight, depression, etc. So I tracked my ovulation cycle, and I didn't have any long-term partners. I thought I was OK. But, you know, things happen. I wound up pregnant.
She later writes that she got an IUD. Not all women can get one, but I have had versions of the copper one, with zero hormones, for years. It took me about 10 minutes to find that on Google and ask for that one as opposed to a hormone-spewing one.
For the record, I find abortion creepy, had one when I was using a diaphragm, and have been open about that. I think abortion should be legal and the choice of the person who'd be carrying the fetus, but I also think it's rather horrible to have an abortion once the thing inside you is more than a big clump of matter with the potential to become a person.
Food Ordering Kiosks Don't Require Bathroom Breaks -- Or The Minimum Wage
If the minimum wage is raised, I suspect innovations to get rid of human workers will rise as well.
Vanessa Wong writes at Bloomberg Bizweek that Panera will soon have more kiosks and fewer cashiers:
As airports and convenience stores slowly train consumers to check in, or out, on their own, Panera's rolling out a new store design where customers order on their phones or at kiosks. Rather than customers stand around and wait for their order in front of the counter, a server brings their order to them, sans gratuity."The dirty little secret in the food industry is one in seven orders is wrong," Panera Chief Executive Ron Shaich said in an interview. "We're one in ten, a little better than average. Half of those inaccuracies happen during order input."
Customers will soon be able to punch in orders themselves, though if they're traditional, cashiers will still be available. This shifts the pressure to the kitchen to get their orders right, especially as this sort of ordering encourages more customization (with the push of a button customers can get extra cheese on their sandwich, or hold the avocado on their salad).
...The average restaurant will have about eight kiosks and one to two fewer registers, though Shaich insisted the company is not cutting the number of workers. The stores will still need them to bring orders to tables and as extra help in the kitchen.
But I foresee other businesses cutting back on staff for more of these. Perhaps chi-chi versions of them (iPads?) in nicer restaurants?
via @walterolson and FutureOfCapitalism
If I Pass Out At Target, I Sure Don't Want The Lady Who Restocks The Shoes Shocking My Heart
Via KFI/Los Angeles:
The California Supreme Court appeared reluctant Tuesday to require large retailers to keep a defibrillator in stores in case customers suffer cardiac arrest.During arguments involving a lawsuit against Target in the death of a customer, Justice Marvin Baxter asked how a store clerk would know a customer was suffering cardiac arrest and whether the device could be inappropriately used and cause more harm to a shopper suffering another ailment.
"It may very well be that the good intentions could backfire and do more harm than good," Baxter said.
Slinky
A wiggle dress of linkage.
The Ridiculous Contention That The Internet And Smartphones Alienate Us
Watch the annoyingly earnest, weepypants video below about technology alienating people.
Unless your brain's all "Intel Inside," technology doesn't control you. I have been on the Internet since the early 90s, have met some of my favorite people online, and have gotten to know many great people through my blogging.
Online enriches the relationships I have in real life. If your relationships are shallow, that's on you, not on your phone.
Are you your phone's bot? Or do you use it as a tool to make your life better?
Backseater Madness!
Like an updated version of the marijuana hysteria film "Reefer Madness," Las Vegas cops put on an event telling teen girls that premarital sex kills.
Elizabeth Nolan Brown writes at reason.com about Las Vegas' purity police and their "Choose Purity" seminar.
The event was co-sponsored by Las Vegas Metro Police Department (LVMPD) and Victory Outreach Church, according to the Las Vegas Sun."Choose Purity" aimed to show young girls what can happen when they don't wait until marriage to have sex, according to Officer Regina Coward, president of the Nevada Black Police Association, who said she'd been asked by her church, Victory Outreach Church, to create a community event to go along with its abstinence message.So what does Coward say happens? Typically four things: sexual assault, gangs, drugs and prostitution.
Avoid sex and avoid those perils, Coward said.
Wow. It takes a pretty rare combination of relentless negativity and reality denial to think rape, gang membership, drug addiction, or prostitution are the only four possible outcomes of premarital sex. Meanwhile, actual risks like pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STI) are conspicuously absent from Coward's list of sex perils.
...Performers from a group called "Toe Tag Monologues" also appeared at the event, demonstrating how diet pill abuse and the inevitable path from premarital sex to prostitution to an STI would land girls in body bags. Pictures from the event show cops helping with this demonstration, wheeling the body bags away on gurneys.
I think probably every single person I know has had premarital sex. Probably 99.9999 (and then some) percent have managed to, you know, keep alive and carry on.
Sitting Airplane-Style
Hilarious art piece -- "Kick Ass Chair" -- by Andrew Riiska in Chinatown's "The Good Luck Gallery," in downtown Los Angeles. (I also liked some of the paintings by Jeff Cairns, like the birds and the monkeys.
Here's my slightly blurry photo of the chair from the outside of the gallery from a few nights ago:
Sri Lankan Buddhist Explains The Quran
He points out that political leaders just don't get it, and explains the reality of what the Quran commands:
Taqiyya, that he mentions several times, is religiously-permitted lying for the good of Islam.
via @blazingcatfur
Lurkie
Slink around and leave some links.
Last Chance Mother's Day Savings
Spend $80, get 20 percent off. Enter promo code MOMSHO14 at checkout -- at checkout on select items at Amazon
Free one-day shipping on eligible jewelry and watches.
Today's Deals for mom and everybody.
Search Amazon
The Headline Says It All: "Rape on Campus Belongs in the Courts"
That's the headline on a right-on Megan McArdle Bloomberg View piece. An excerpt:
Colleges pursue disciplinary action against rapists because they're required to by Title IX, the 1972 federal law banning sex discrimination in educational programs. Unfortunately, rape is a very hard crime to prosecute, because there are typically only two witnesses, one of whom is likely to claim that the sex was consensual. Since false rape accusations unfortunately do happen, it can be hard to get to "beyond a reasonable doubt" -- especially, as I mentioned, when both parties were drinking.Rape is also a hard crime to prosecute because the trials are often horrible for the victim. Of course, no one enjoys testifying about an assault -- but you are rarely asked to prove that you didn't consent to being pummeled. The shame and horror of it keep many victims from coming forward or pressing charges.
It's understandable, then, that many people want to loosen the standards for prosecuting rapes. This can't be done in a criminal trial, but it can in a college judiciary hearing -- and that's just what the government, and not a few people on campus, has been pressing colleges to do.
Yet as understandable this instinct is, it's wrong. No one accused of a serious crime should have his fate in the hands of a single investigator with a mandate to err on the side of believing the people who are testifying against him. In fact, colleges shouldn't be handling this sort of thing at all. If a college wouldn't conduct a murder trial, it shouldn't be conducting rape trials, either.
You Might Get Murdered, But You'll Die With Nice Teeth
Apparently, Americans are flocking to Juarez, Mexico, for deeply discounted dental work, more worried about going bankrupt than possibly being hit by a stray bullet. (Ciudad Juarez is a place where more than 10,000 people were murdered in five years.) Olga Khazan writes at The Atlantic:
Every workday, Dr. Jessica Nitardy leaves her home near El Paso, Texas and drives for more than an hour to the Mexican border. She crosses immigration and heads to her dental practice in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, which until recently was considered one of the most dangerous cities in the world.But the patients she sees aren't Mexican--almost all are American.
"I can count my Mexican patients on my fingers," she told me in a phone interview. "No, they all come from Austin, Houston, even Florida, Colorado, Alaska ... "
The reason they flock to her office, congenially named "Rio Grande Dental," is laid out in a neatly organized table on Nitardy's website.
...A dental implant that runs $1,500 in the U.S. costs just $549 in her office. Crowns and bridges, two of the most expensive dental procedures, are also a third of the price.
...Nitardy's costs are low because rent in Mexico is cheap, and so is labor. She pays her assistant $100 a week, a generous salary by local standards. She said she's not required to carry malpractice insurance, which is another huge cost for American providers. The practice spends more on advertising than anything else.
Nitardy was born and raised in Mexico, attended dental school in Juarez, and opened her clinic there in 2000. She moved to El Paso to be with her husband, an eye doctor who practices on the U.S. side of the border.
She's considered moving her practice to El Paso, but she doesn't see much of a point--her Juarez office is profitable, and relocating to the U.S. would require going back to an American dental school.
"It's Tragic The ... Freedom Of Travel Has Been So Infringed"
Texas State Representative David Simpson is -- like me, but like too few Americans -- an outspoken critic of the TSA. From KTRH Houston, a quote from Simpson:
"I think people are becoming accustomed to it and that makes it even worse."Representative Simpson agrees with critics who say the TSA is nothing more than security theater and its real purpose was to create more union jobs.
"It's just tragic that the dignity and freedom of travel has been so infringed."
Simpson tried to outlaw TSA groping at Texas airports but the Texas Senate blocked it after the feds threatened to declare Texas a no-fly zone.
RELATED: 81 pounds of pot is a threat to an airline how?
(I'd be interested in knowing how a person can be this stupid -- packing that in suitcases that are going to be screened -- and still manage to survive beyond the eighth grade without constant supervision.)
Anti-Procrastination-Think: You'll Be Dead Soon
One of the best things to gin up my work ethic on a daily basis? Remembering that we have a remarkably short time on the planet and death will be closing in in the rear-view mirror in probably a handful of decades.
I interviewed Austin Kleon at LA Times Festival of Books and saw this Steve Jobs quote in his book, Show Your Work!: 10 Ways to Share Your Creativity and Get Discovered
Remembering that I'll be dead soon is the most important tool I've ever encountered to help me make the big choices in life. Because almost everything--all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure--these things just fall away in the face of death, leaving only what is truly important. Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose. You are already naked. --Steve Jobs
"Dead"?
That answer was my first thought when I saw the WSJ crossword puzzle question below -- #84 -- "Christian in Cairo." (The answer fits into a four-letter space.) 
I believe the answer they were looking for is "Copt." And if you are a Copt living in Egypt, unfortunately, "dead" is quite likely. (It's a little hard to "Coexist!" and all when a number of Muslims around you are intent on murdering you for not being Muslim -- as the Quran commands them to.)
Elfie
Mini-links. Much like tiny and delicious breakfast sausages, except without the grease.
Raised By Wolves
Aida's got a new toy. Present from Gregg. 2 for $5 at Petco. 
Advice Goddess Radio, LIVE Tonite, 7-8pm PT, 10-11pm ET: Science Writer Peg Streep On Overcoming The Legacy Of A Mean Mother
Amy Alkon's Advice Goddess Radio: "Nerd Your Way To A Better Life!" with the best brains in therapy and research.
I've written that family are people who treat you like family. Sometimes, sadly, one's mother -- the closest familial relation a person can have -- isn't included in that group.
Mother's Day is a tough holiday for some people -- for those whose mothers have died and for those whose mothers were far from the loving, nurturing protectors that others' mothers seem to be.
Science writer Peg Streep, herself the daughter of mean mother, is my guest tonight, talking about her book, Mean Mothers: Overcoming the Legacy of Hurt.
She'll explain why it's been taboo to even let on that you have a cold, unloving mother as well as how such a mother shapes children, and especially daughters, in negative ways.
However, she'll also show us the ways out: How she and other daughters of mean mothers have managed to find, believe it or not, the positives in their experience; and how they can go forward, both as more psychologically healthy human beings and as good mothers to their own children.
Listen at this link from 7-8 pm Pacific, 10-11 pm Eastern, or download the podcast afterward:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/amyalkon/2014/05/05/science-writer-peg-streep-on-overcoming-the-legacy-of-a-mean-mother
Don't miss last week's show, Denise Minger On "Death By Food Pyramid" And How To Eat A Science-Based Diet.
How did so many of us get so fat and unhealthy?
Well, it started when our government advised us to eat a high-carb, low-fat diet -- a diet that actually makes us fat and unhealthy. News reports distorting scientific findings and reporters unable to tell solid science from the shoddy kind are another problem -- leaving most of us pretty confused about what we should be eating.
On this show, Denise Minger (of "The China Study" debunking fame) changes that. She lays out the disturbing history of the ruining of America's health. She explains simple ways the ordinary person can identify scientific distortions in the media. And she details the nuances of science-based healthy eating (whether you're a vegetarian or a carnivore or something in between).
Minger's meticulous (and very readable) book we'll be discussing is Death By Food Pyramid: How Shoddy Science, Sketchy Politics and Shady Special Interests Have Ruined Our Health.
Listen at this link or download the podcast:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/amyalkon/2014/04/28/denise-minger-death-by-food-pyramid-how-to-eat-a-science-based-diet
Join me and my fascinating guests every Sunday, 7-8 p.m. Pacific Time, 10-11 p.m. Eastern Time, at blogtalkradio.com/amyalkon or subscribe on iTunes or Stitcher.
My show's sponsor is now Audible.com. Get a free audiobook download and support this show financially at no cost to you by signing up for a free 30-day trial at audibletrial.com/amya (It's $14.95 after 30 days, but you can cancel before then and have it cost you nothing.)
Privacy Rights: The Government Has No Business Criminalizing Your Drug High
Or consenting adults buying or selling drugs. A quote from a reason magazine piece by S.M. Oliva on how the Drug War threatens privacy rights around the globe:
You cannot, on the one hand, say governments must respect the personal privacy of their citizens, while on the other hand mobilizing a global police force to prevent individuals from using and purchasing the narcotics of their choice.
via @BernardKingIII
A Six-Year-Old Gets Stitches, Doesn't Feel A Thing, Goes Skipping Out Of The Hospital
Rachel Zimmerman writes at WBUR about her six-year-old daughter's head laceration and a visit to the ER and the incredible doctor, Baruch Krauss, who cared for her daughter. Initially, her daughter cried, saying she didn't want stitches:
Dark, lean and intense, Dr. Krauss shook my hand and then went straight to Julia, complimenting her pink, sparkly shoes. She lit up and was eager to chat. They talked about exactly how old she was (nearly six-and-three-quarters) and what she likes to do (climb trees). Then he gently rubbed a bit of Novocaine gel on her cut and said he'd be back.I hovered nervously around Julia, checking and rechecking the cut and generally exuding anxiety, while my husband sat quietly, telling me to calm down. Sure, that'll work.
Five times over the next 40 minutes or so, Krauss came in and re-applied the anesthetic, gently squeezing the site with his thumb and forefinger. Why, I wasn't sure. Was it a dosing thing? Was he just numbing the wound even more before the scary stitching began? With each visit, he engaged Julia to learn something new about her. For instance, she loves to draw.
And, she loves snacks. On my way back from the cafe with treats, Krauss stopped me in the hall and said something like, "I'm going to stitch her up; it really won't be bad." I rolled my eyes. But, he added, "I need you to work with me. I'm going to give you a task." Fine, I said, though the whole thing sounded a little gimmicky.
Krauss returned with an oversized 101 Dalmations coloring book and a handful of Magic Markers. He opened to a page overflowing with dog outlines. "Julia," he said. "I want you to color each dog's ear a different color, OK? Which color do you want to start with?"
"Purple," she said, grabbing the marker. Focused, driven and completely oblivious to the large needle now going into her head, Julia colored in dog ears for the next 30 minutes. (This is a kid who, when awaiting her first flu shot, sprinted down a hallway until cornered by three nurses.) Every once in a while, Julia checked with Krauss to see if he approved of the colors. Great, he said. "Now, their paws. Each a different color."
My job was to hold the coloring book up straight.
...As Julia drew, Krauss stitched, about five or six tiny loops in her head. He continued to chat with Julia about the picture and her color scheme; then he'd return to stitching. Soon, it was over. Julia finished her picture and signed it: "To Baruch, Love Julia."
As we left the hospital, hand in hand into the night, my daughter looked up at me and grinned. "Well, Mama, at least I didn't have to get stitches." I looked back at Julia, with her bandaged head and big eyes: "But honey, you did get stitches." "Really?" she twirled. "Well it was fun." And she jumped into the car.
She continues:
It turns out Krauss has been focusing for more than 20 years on how to minimize acute pain and anxiety in children undergoing medical procedures. "I first became interested in it when I was working at Cambridge Hospital in the late 1980s," he said in an interview. "At that time there really was no emphasis on managing pain in children. And I witnessed children going through procedures, and they were really suffering, not only from pain, but also, more so, from anxiety and stress. And at that point I became really committed to doing something about that."
At the link are some of Krauss's thoughts on how to keep the suffering out of the experience. Here's a biggie:
Seems So Simple, How Does It Work?It's almost as if the consciousness has two components. You can imagine it as the central component and the peripheral component. The peripheral is like your hard drive. So in your peripheral at the moment is perhaps the sound of the fan in the room, or the sensation of your pen against your fingers, the ambient room temperatures. In the central would be the sound of my voice, certain body sensations that you have. Now, my job is to move all the sensations of that laceration from the central compartment to the periphery. So for Julia, what I'm doing there may be no different from the sensation she has in her left great toe. She has it, but she's not paying much attention to it. It has no emotional valence for her.
Once I'm able to successfully move or shift her awareness, then what's in the central compartment is an empty file, which I can fill, in this case, with coloring and the developmental tasks she's trying to do, etc. So that her experience at the end is that she doesn't remember what happened here because for her it was no different than the sensation in her left great toe. What she does remember is what she was focused on."
Sally Satel's Plan To Get People To Donate A Kidney To A Person In Need
Sally, whom I just met in person for the first time at LA Times Festival of Books (after having her on my radio show), has the kidney of an LA friend of mine.
She writes in The New York Times about the reality of the dwindling supply of kidneys and how that might change:
The problem lies in the requirement that all organs be given altruistically (as a friend did for me in donating her right kidney eight years ago). Federal law is widely interpreted as forbidding donors to receive anything of tangible value in return for their lifesaving deeds.We can't solve the issue merely by getting more people to sign organ donor cards -- though everyone should -- or even by moving to an opt-out system, under which we would harvest people's organs at death unless they had earlier indicated they didn't wish to donate them. These solutions can do only so much, because relatively few people die in ways that leave their organs suitable for transplantation.
To make a real impact on kidney shortage, we have to find ways to persuade more healthy young and middle-aged people to give a kidney to a stranger.
Here is a plan to do just that. Donors would not get a lump sum of cash; instead, a governmental entity, or a designated charity, would offer them in-kind rewards, like a contribution to the donor's retirement fund, an income tax credit or a tuition voucher.
Meanwhile, imposing a waiting period of at least six months would ensure that donors didn't act impulsively and that they were giving fully informed consent. Prospective compensated donors would be carefully screened for physical and emotional health, as is done for all donors now.
These arrangements would screen out financially desperate individuals who might otherwise rush to donate for a large sum of instant cash and later regret it.
The donors' kidneys would be distributed to people on the waiting list, according to the rules now in place. (People who wanted to donate a kidney to a specific person -- say, a father to a son -- would still be able to, outside this system.) Finally, all rewarded donors would be guaranteed follow-up medical care for any complications, which is not ensured now.
Linkie
Rest your hinkies here.
Make Up With Me -- Frugally
This is a post for girls and drag queens. Sorry, boys. Except, that is, for the British among you. (Invite a British man to a costume party, and odds are, he will come as a woman. Why is that?)
On to our topic...saving money while still looking fabulous.
My sweet friend Ruth bought me the fabulous, long-lasting MAC Fluidline Gel Eyeliner
But $40 altogether is a big chunka change for makeup.
Well, I've found (and tested) a great substitute: Maybelline New York Eye Studio Gel Eyeliner
And then, in the eyeshadow department, there's MAKE UP FOR EVER long-lasting cream eyeshadow
The substitute -- tested by me -- Maybelline Color Tattoo cream eyeshadow
A Tale Of Two Cities
Downtown LA has some pretty spectacular sights. Unfortunately, getting down there at a time that is not 3 a.m. can be hellish, thanks to LA traffic and a lack of train transportation running citywide (like in Manhattan).
Last night, two friends and I went downtown to an art opening/event called ArtSail at KGB gallery, near Chinatown, with some pretty affordable and interesting art. Across the street was what looked (from ab open door around the other side) like an artist's first floor loftspace. This was painted on the back. 
All Is Not Flossed
A question -- in relation to a question I'm working on for my column:
Say you have breath that, unbeknownst to you, is very gag-a-horse to the person you're dating.
Would you want this person to tell you, and, if so, how?
Sleeping Gregg
I had a night out with the girls -- a cool downtown art opening at KGB Gallery, then duck soup in Chinatown -- and called Gregg at 11 pm, per his request, to let him know I got home safely.
He was sleeping. In Gregg's case, this can make conversation amusing.
Friday night -- Gregg, awakened:
"I still don't know who built the pyramids.""I'm dreaming of file management."
Great Speech By Gabourey Sidibes
Read the whole thing. An excerpt:
The point is, I was a snob. I thought I was better than the kids in my class, and I let them know it. That's why they didn't like me. I think the reason I thought so highly of myself all the time was because no one else ever did. I figured out I was smart because my mother would yell at my older brother. She'd say, "Your little sister is going to pass you in school. You're going to get left behind and she's going to graduate before you." But she never said to me, "You are smart." What she did say was, "You are too fat." I got the message that I wasn't pretty, and I probably wasn't normal, but I was smart! Why wouldn't they just say that? "You're smart." It's actually not that hard. My dad would yell at my brother, "Gabourey does her homework by herself! Why can't you?" But he never said to me, "Good job." What he did say was, "You need to lose weight so I can be proud of you." I know. So I got made fun of at school, I got made fun of at home too, my older brother hated me, my dad just didn't understand me, and my mom, who had been a fat girl at my age herself, understood me perfectly ... but she berated me because she was so afraid of what she knew was to come for me. So I never felt safe when I was at home. And my response was always to eat more, because nothing says, "You hurt my feelings. Fuck you!" like eating a delicious cookie. Cookies never hurt me.
"Gabourey, how are you so confident?" It's not easy. It's hard to get dressed up for award shows and red carpets when I know I will be made fun of because of my weight. There's always a big chance if I wear purple, I will be compared to Barney. If I wear white, a frozen turkey. And if I wear red, that pitcher of Kool-Aid that says, "Oh, yeah!" Twitter will blow up with nasty comments about how the recent earthquake was caused by me running to a hot dog cart or something. And "Diet or Die?" [She gives the finger to that] This is what I deal with every time I put on a dress. This is what I deal with every time someone takes a picture of me. Sometimes when I'm being interviewed by a fashion reporter, I can see it in her eyes, "How is she getting away with this? Why is she so confident? How does she deal with that body? Oh my God, I'm going to catch fat!"
via KateC
Eep, Eep, Eep...
Link the monkey!
Barbaric: "Stone The Gays" Law To Phased In In Brunei Starting May 1
From PinkNews/Europe:
The Sultan of Brunei has confirmed that a law calling for homosexuals to be stoned to death will be phased in from tomorrow. [May 1]The law was announced earlier this month, and replaces the maximum ten-year prison sentence for homosexuality with death by stoning.
...Despite the delays, the Sultan today confirmed the law, which will apply to both Muslims and non-Muslims, will be phased in over a two-year period from tomorrow.
He said: "Today, I place my faith in and am grateful to Allah the almighty to announce that tomorrow, Thursday 1 May 2014, will see the enforcement of Sharia law phase one, to be followed by the other phases."
...Under the law, the death penalty can be applied for rape, adultery, sodomy, extramarital sexual relations for Muslims, insulting any verses of the Quran and Hadith, blasphemy, declaring oneself a prophet or non-Muslim, and murder.
P.S. It's a little hard to "Co-Exist!" if you're stoned to death.
Apparently, you won't be stoned to death for being gay if you stay at the Beverly Hills Hotel, Le Meurice, or other fine hotels owned by the Sultan -- so announced the management. (Isn't that big of them?!)
Read Islam's ugliness on homosexuality here.
How Obamacare Will Mean That I Have Worse Healthcare
The price of my (once-affordable) care used to include any tests a doctor said were necessary. As somebody with -- sorry to bring my boobs in here -- large, dense breasts, I've been getting breast MRIs for years, as ordered by a breast surgeon at my HMO as a preventive measure, and paying $50 as a copay for them.
Now, in addition to my monthly health care payment which is way too expensive, I have a deductible into the thousands, which means that one of those MRIs will cost me at least $700. Well, that isn't in the budget. I got into an HMO and have been paying in, individually, ever month since my early 20s to avoid this sort of cost. "Affordable" health care changed all that.
I suspect that many people will be going without needed tests because not only can they not afford their monthly health care costs, they can't afford the deductible.
Well Who Could Have Predicted This?
I mean, outside of everyone?
The Obama admin says that only 28 percent of ACA enrollees are ages 18 to 34, report Louise Radnofsky and Anna Wilde Mathews in the WSJ:
WASHINGTON--Just more than a quarter of the eight million people who signed up for health plans under the Affordable Care Act are in the prized demographic of 18 to 34 years old, falling short of the figure considered ideal to keep down policy prices....One big insurer, Florida Blue, had projected an average age for enrollees in the late 30s, but instead is seeing a figure in the low 40s. The difference is "significant," said Senior Vice President Jon Urbanek. It would "tend to drive a higher rate increase" for next year, he said. But the impact is likely to be blunted by provisions in the law designed to compensate insurers that end up with higher-than-anticipated medical claims.
The 28% proportion falls short of the 40% share that young adults represented in the potential target population for the exchange plans, according to an analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation. But for the insurance industry, the key is how the demographics of the sign-ups stack up against assumptions they made when they set their rates.
The health law bars insurers from charging riskier consumers more, and as a result, the health plans have said they need a large number of younger people and men to sign up to balance out the likely higher medical claims incurred by older people and women. Insurers view women as costlier to cover because of pregnancy and other female health needs.
An Army Of Stupidity
The military is banning various hair styles that black women wear -- effectively making black hair against the rules, write Ayan Byrd and Lori L. Tharps in The New York Times:
If a person doesn't have black hair, isn't married to someone with black hair or isn't raising a child with black hair, this issue may seem like a whole lot of something about nothing. But what these women are demanding is a policy that reflects a basic understanding of black hair. For most black people, hair naturally grows up and out -- think of the shape of an Afro -- not down. But the Army's regulations assume that all hair not only grows the same way but can be styled the same way. For example, one permitted hairstyle is a bun. Yet because of the thickness of a lot of black women's hair, a bun is not always possible unless the hair is put into twists first. But twists and dreadlocks, no matter how narrow and neat, are banned in the policy and labeled "faddish" and "exaggerated."Black people around the globe have worn dreadlocks for centuries. They can be easily and neatly worn under a helmet or in a bun. Two-strand twists, a popular option for black female soldiers that look similar to braids but are much easier to style, especially in the field, are versatile and require little maintenance. AR 670-1 does allow women to wear wigs and hair extensions, a suggestion that borders on the ridiculous when considering the time and cost required for upkeep in a salon -- let alone in a desert army barracks.
The argument isn't that the Army does not have the right to enforce a conservative code -- this is the Army, after all -- but that it must consider the diversity of hair textures. The current policy is the equivalent of a black majority military telling its thousands of white soldiers that they are required to have dreadlocks or Afros.
Black female friends of mine have had braids or twists, and I always admired them and wished my hair could fall so neatly as theirs. (For the record, I think white people with cornrows often or usually look idiotic. Something about that white scalp poking through looks harsh and scary.)
More on this here. It seems cornrows can be worn, but there's a size requirement. That doesn't seem unreasonable. It's the military, after all, not a hippie summer camp.
But again, anyone who's friends with black women or has black women in their family and circle, knows that black hair can be wildly hard to manage. If it's neat, why do they have to style it like white people do?
Limpy
Link with a broken toe.
Choos! Choos!
No, not trains -- shoes for men, the way my South American friend says it in her cute accented English. In the "Deal of the Day," there's 50 percent or more off Ecco dress styles, golf shoes, casual shoes, and more, for men and women, at Amazon
Other sale shoes and handbags.
P.S. Thanks to whomever bought all that nice Cubavera
"Hate The Rich" Lawmaking -- Or What I've Just Named "Specialty Lawmaking"
If the rest of us get to write off fines when we do our taxes, so should reprehensible wildly rich guys.
There's something disgusting going on in Congress as of Thursday (more than any usual Thursday in Congress), and it's a bill targeted at rich sports team owners.
It's basically what I've just deemed "specialty lawmaking" -- laws narrowly targeted at people or causes many dislike, probably mostly intended by the lawmakers who propose them to gin up their own popularity at voting time.
Richard Simon writes in the LA Times:
San Fernando Valley Congressman Tony Cardenas introduced legislation Thursday that would prevent sports team owners from writing off fines as a business expense on their federal income tax returns."The American people are happy to help small businesses grow, but paying fines for multimillionaires to subsidize bad behavior should not be the responsibility of American taxpayers," Cardenas, a freshman Democrat, said in a letter to House colleagues seeking their support.
The Stop Penalizing Taxpayers for Sports Owners' Fouls Act comes after Sterling, the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, was fined $2.5 million, the maximum allowed under NBA rules, and banned for life from association with the team after the league determined he made incendiary remarks about race.
"When it's a $2.5-million fine, that's a significant write-off," Cardenas said in an interview in the Capitol. "I don't think this is a business investment."
The measure would amend the Internal Revenue Code to "disallow a deduction for any fine paid by an owner of a professional sports franchise." It would apply to fines imposed after Dec. 31, 2013.
Letter To A Young You
A quote I ran into:
"If you could write a note to your younger self, what would you say in only two words."
What I did say:
"The mean kids will mostly be working at 7-Eleven. And don't assume you need to follow directions."
Nobody Cared About Donald Sterling's Racism Until He Got Up In The Face Of Basketball Players
There's a really good piece at TIME by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar noting how long it took anybody to take notice of Sterling's ugly racist beliefs -- and behaviors:
He was discriminating against black and Hispanic families for years, preventing them from getting housing. It was public record. We did nothing. Suddenly he says he doesn't want his girlfriend posing with Magic Johnson on Instagram and we bring out the torches and rope. Shouldn't we have all called for his resignation back then?Shouldn't we be equally angered by the fact that his private, intimate conversation was taped and then leaked to the media? Didn't we just call to task the NSA for intruding into American citizen's privacy in such an un-American way? Although the impact is similar to Mitt Romney's comments that were secretly taped, the difference is that Romney was giving a public speech. The making and release of this tape is so sleazy that just listening to it makes me feel like an accomplice to the crime. We didn't steal the cake but we're all gorging ourselves on it.
Make no mistake: Donald Sterling is the villain of this story. But he's just a handmaiden to the bigger evil. In our quest for social justice, we shouldn't lose sight that racism is the true enemy. He's just another jerk with more money than brains.
So, if we're all going to be outraged, let's be outraged that we weren't more outraged when his racism was first evident. Let's be outraged that private conversations between people in an intimate relationship are recorded and publicly played. Let's be outraged that whoever did the betraying will probably get a book deal, a sitcom, trade recipes with Hoda and Kathie Lee, and soon appear on Celebrity Apprentice and Dancing with the Stars.
Marc J. Randazza, the First Amendment Lawyer who saved my activist butt from the TSA woman who got a lawyer and tried to get $500K out of me, weighs in at CNN on the taping of Sterling -- correctly noting that it's "morally wrong" (as well as legally):
Most everyone would agree that Sterling's ideas fail in the marketplace of ideas. Nevertheless, I reluctantly stand on Sterling's side today. What happened to him may have been illegal and was morally wrong.Start with illegal. In California, you can't record a conversation without the knowledge or consent of both parties. The recording featuring Sterling and V. Stiviano may be the result of a crime. Once she gathered this information, someone leaked it (she denies it was her) -- and it went viral. This is where I think things went morally wrong.
We all say things in private that we might not say in public. Sometimes we have ideas that are not fully developed -- we try them out with our closest friends. Consider it our test-marketplace of ideas. As our ideas develop, we consider whether to make them public. Should we not all have the freedom to make that choice on our own?
The Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy made his own stupid and bigoted statements, and he's been nationally pilloried, too -- but he chose to make those statements to the world. He deserves every ounce of obloquy heaped upon him.
But does Sterling? Think about what his public character execution means. It means that we now live in a world where if you have any views that are unpopular, you now not only need to fear saying them in public, but you need to fear saying them at all -- even to your intimate friends. They might be recording you, and then that recording may be spread across the Internet for everyone to hear.
Isn't it bad enough that the National Security Agency can spy on all of us? How can we complain when we condone giving our closest friends the ability to do worse -- perhaps just to try and destroy us.
...In this story, there are two villains. Sterling represents the bad old days. But Stiviano's behavior represents the horrifying future. Shouldn't we condemn the complete breakdown of privacy and trust at least as loudly as we condemn some old man's racist blathering?
"Check Your Privilege"?
More and more lately, racism, anti-male-ism, and free speech-squashing are used to keep people down. To be white and male means being sneered at for having "white privilege" and expected to wallow in shame for having it easy because of who you are.
In a great piece for the Princeton Tory that's now gone viral, Princeton undergrad Tal Fortgang (class of '17) lays out how that "white privilege" business worked for his family. An excerpt:
There is a phrase that floats around college campuses, Princeton being no exception, that threatens to strike down opinions without regard for their merits, but rather solely on the basis of the person that voiced them. "Check your privilege," the saying goes, and I have been reprimanded by it several times this year. The phrase, handed down by my moral superiors, descends recklessly, like an Obama-sanctioned drone, and aims laser-like at my pinkish-peach complexion, my maleness, and the nerve I displayed in offering an opinion rooted in a personal Weltanschauung. "Check your privilege," they tell me in a command that teeters between an imposition to actually explore how I got where I am, and a reminder that I ought to feel personally apologetic because white males seem to pull most of the strings in the world.I do not accuse those who "check" me and my perspective of overt racism, although the phrase, which assumes that simply because I belong to a certain ethnic group I should be judged collectively with it, toes that line. But I do condemn them for diminishing everything I have personally accomplished, all the hard work I have done in my life, and for ascribing all the fruit I reap not to the seeds I sow but to some invisible patron saint of white maleness who places it out for me before I even arrive. Furthermore, I condemn them for casting the equal protection clause, indeed the very idea of a meritocracy, as a myth, and for declaring that we are all governed by invisible forces (some would call them "stigmas" or "societal norms"), that our nation runs on racist and sexist conspiracies. Forget "you didn't build that;" check your privilege and realize that nothing you have accomplished is real.
But they can't be telling me that everything I've done with my life can be credited to the racist patriarchy holding my hand throughout my years of education and eventually guiding me into Princeton. Even that is too extreme. So to find out what they are saying, I decided to take their advice. I actually went and checked the origins of my privileged existence, to empathize with those whose underdog stories I can't possibly comprehend. I have unearthed some examples of the privilege with which my family was blessed, and now I think I better understand those who assure me that skin color allowed my family and I to flourish today.
Perhaps it's the privilege my grandfather and his brother had to flee their home as teenagers when the Nazis invaded Poland, leaving their mother and five younger siblings behind, running and running until they reached a Displaced Persons camp in Siberia, where they would do years of hard labor in the bitter cold until World War II ended. Maybe it was the privilege my grandfather had of taking on the local Rabbi's work in that DP camp, telling him that the spiritual leader shouldn't do hard work, but should save his energy to pass Jewish tradition along to those who might survive. Perhaps it was the privilege my great-grandmother and those five great-aunts and uncles I never knew had of being shot into an open grave outside their hometown. Maybe that's my privilege.
Or maybe it's the privilege my grandmother had of spending weeks upon weeks on a death march through Polish forests in subzero temperatures, one of just a handful to survive, only to be put in Bergen-Belsen concentration camp where she would have died but for the Allied forces who liberated her and helped her regain her health when her weight dwindled to barely 80 pounds.
Perhaps my privilege is that those two resilient individuals came to America with no money and no English, obtained citizenship, learned the language and met each other; that my grandfather started a humble wicker basket business with nothing but long hours, an idea, and an iron will--to paraphrase the man I never met: "I escaped Hitler. Some business troubles are going to ruin me?"
My great grandfather came over to America as a Russian peasant and scavenged metal from the trash in downtown Detroit. He scavenged enough to send my grandfather to Wayne State Medical School, where he became a family doctor and sent my mother to University of Michigan. And for the record, that isn't a result of "white privilege," but American privilege, and plenty of people of various colors take advantage of that in this country. There should be more talk of how to do that and less of how to keep down the people whose parents and families have.
Llllllinky
By way of Wales.
