The Idiotic Things People Say To People With Cancer
From "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck," from the chapter, "Friends With Serious Illnesses -- What to do when a friend is really, really sick and could maybe even die:
More from that part of the chapter:
Others root around for something comforting in the spiritual-sayings bin: "You know, they say everything happens for a reason." Great. Their cancer-stricken friend can't help but think, "What, God looked at me and thought, 'You suck, so I'm going to rub you out'?"Of course, some people are just assholes no matter what the situation. Cancer survivor Rosanne Kalick blogged about a colon cancer patient who had a casual acquaintance ask him about his colostomy bags, "Paper or plastic?"
So, what should you say when a friend tells you they have cancer or some other horrible disease?
"I know you can do this," meaning, "I know you, and I know that whatever comes, you will deal with it." Don't say "you'll be fine," since you don't know that they will be.
--Cancer patient Jeanne Sather, assertivecancerpatient.com"I'm so sorry this is happening. It could happen to any of us. Life is so unfair sometimes." This helps remove the blame or shame that people with cancer sometimes feel.
--Cancer survivor Lori Hope, author of Help Me Live: 20 Things People with Cancer Want You to Know"You're very strong. I can't believe cancer would be dumb enough to try to go after you."
--What I wish I'd said to my late friend Cathy Seipp.
Verne Troyer Assaulted By TSA
Is there any reason in the entire world to think that Verne Troyer is planning to blow up an airplane?
Disgusting violation of his dignity, body, and Fourth Amendment rights by the TSA thuggos, chronicled at TSA News Blog by Lisa Simeone. Here's the photo, taken by his manager: 
Simeone writes:
Troyer tweeted a photograph that his manager, Ray Hughes, had taken at the airport. I'm surprised the TSA didn't surround Hughes and scream at him that he wasn't allowed to take pictures, which is a lie TSA clerks often spew.
Other celebrities violated by the TSA include William Shatner. This is security? Or a way for thuggish peons to have it over on somebody they'd otherwise only see on TV?
More From Judge Kozinski On Firing Squads For Death Row Prisoners
In the LA Times, Patt Morrison interviews Judge Alex Kozinski on his recent words that firing squads should be used to execute death row prisoners:
Are we trying to have it both ways with capital punishment?Who doesn't? I think the government officials who are running it are dragging their feet. I don't know what the reaction would be in California if, let's say, we started shooting people. Some people would be horrified, some would back away and others would say it's fine. There's some thought that it might actually increase the deterrent value. I don't think that being put to death by going to sleep is such a great deterrent.
...Are objections to lethal injection just a stalking horse for getting rid of the death penalty altogether?
I think the people who are fighting it are out to end it. My purpose is to say: "This is expensive, it causes delay, uncertainty, probably a lot of grief, so we ought to come up with something better." And we ought to come face to face with what we're doing. If we're not comfortable with what we're doing, we should not be doing it. But if we are comfortable with what we're doing, we should do it better.
I think a narrow death penalty would be far more effective: The torturer/child killers, the rapist killers -- there are cases that make the hairs on the back of your neck stand. Imagining yourself being the victim, or being the family of the victim when you learned what happened -- it's unthinkable. Some people get convicted and properly sentenced; they deserve it.
My previous blog item on this: "If We're Going To Have Executions, They Should Be Bloody"
Advice Goddess Free Swim
It's Wednesday night, and I'm sleepy. You pick the topics. I'll post more on Thursday morning.
P.S. One link per comment or my spam filter will eat your post.
Overgifting: Here Comes The Bribe; There Goes The Friendship
That is, if you even had a friendship.
Giving can end up feeling yicky if you go overboard -- that is, uncomfortable for the person you're over-giving to, and it can even mess up your relationship with them. From Lifehacker, Karyn Polewaczyk writes:
Elizabeth Gilbert, the author of the international best-seller Eat Pray Love, has written about her own tendency to be not just generous but overly generous. She calls the phenomenon being an "over-giver." In other words, she's inclined to give everything she's capable of giving, regardless of what the recipients feel comfortable receiving. In fact, after her book rendered her very wealthy, Gilbert writes: "I was a dream facilitator, an obstacle-banisher, a life-transformer."Psychotherapist and executive coach Jonathan Alpert says that over-givers and people pleasers go hand in hand. "Over-givers use gifts as a way to gain and keep friends, because they think they need to be overly generous to be liked," he says. It becomes problematic, he continues, when the giver is constantly putting others ahead of his or herself, like the woman profiled in his book who skipped a family funeral to work, for fear of letting down her boss. "People pleasers are afraid of disappointing others, to the point where they neglect their own needs."
Overgifters get spotted by narcissists and psychopaths and other users and get played until -- usually much later -- they finally figure it out.
There's some good advice at Lifehacker:
It comes down to examining your motives: Why are you giving so much? What do you hope to gain? Or, Alpert puts it another way: Are you giving to preserve your friendships? If so, you might want to re-evaluate. Odds are, the people in your life will love you just as much without the lavish gifts.Then again, maybe you have a dynamic with a certain friend who tends to goad you into picking up the check: "If someone's taking too much, stop," says Ryan Morgan, a loan officer with Mortgage Corp East. "It's not their fault--it's yours for giving."
As I write in "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck," you need to figure out what your boundaries are -- or should be -- and start applying them. And no, being afraid to do that isn't reason enough to avoid it. You'll find that you feel better and people respect you more (and you're thus more likely to have real friends instead of users in friend suits) when you aren't playing the part of no-payback loan officer or choreslave.
And yes, this tweet made me feel super-good: 
This is a feature of both "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck" and "I See Rude People" -- and something I had to work on myself, in my early 20s.
The Sad, Sad Story Of California's Underpaid Public Employees
Joseph Perkins at CalWatchdog lays out the tragic tale of school custodians making only $108,000.00 a year, thanks to a California tax measure voters approved to fund education.
Well, it's been an education for me: Wanna earn a good living? Get a mop and get connected to somebody who will get you one of those janitorial jobs so you, too, can suck off the public trough.
Eduardo Benard, a custodian at San Francisco's Leonard R. Flynn Elementary School, received $107,912.31 in pay and benefits in 2013.He was one of 31 custodians employed by California public schools that boasted more than $100,000 in compensation last year, according to just-release figures revealed on Transparent California, a database maintained by the nonpartisan California Policy Center.
The handsome compensation packages enjoyed by Benard and the other six-figure custodians almost certainly aren't what California voters had in mind when they approved Proposition 30 two years ago.The measure, championed by Gov. Jerry Brown and the Democratic-controlled Legislature, and bankrolled by such special interests as the California Teachers Association and SEIU/California State Council of Service Employees, imposed $7 billion in new taxes for seven years, 89 percent of which was supposed to reach the state's K-12 classrooms.
But Prop. 30 has proven a bait-and-switch. Indeed, 80 percent of the Prop. 30 money the state has collected has gone to salaries and benefits of public school employees, according to the state Controller's Office.
That includes Jose Fernandez, who left his post this month as superintendent of the Centinela Valley School District after revelations by the Daily Breeze in Torrance that he received more than $763,000 in total compensation last year.
Anyone around here still think government exists to protect us?
But, wait -- there's some debate in the comments section below the piece:
What kind of "journalist" divulges two pieces of information: name and total compensation, without any context or investigation? And why? Did Mr. Perkins call Eduardo and ask about his pay? Or inform him that his pay would be published?For those who are contemplating applying for a " six-figure custodians" job, try to rein in your envy. The top pay scale for a custodian in the San Francisco Unified School District is $3,800 a month. Off the top, subtract 8% for CalPERS. Not a lot of take home pay for San Francisco cost of living.
Mr. Bernard apparently worked a LOT of overtime, and it appears that a large part of his compensation *may* have been from cashing in vacation upon retirement.
"A lot of overtime"? Did he not eat or sleep for an entire year?
Look for yourself at what school custodians are making, here at transparentcalifornia. And yes, benefits are counted -- and should be as part of salary.
In case you were wondering, no, those public school teachers that the union whines are grossly underpaid don't make what janitors do. Per Perkins, here's the deal:
The reality is that the average full-time teacher received nearly $85,000 in pay and benefits in 2013, according to Transparent California. And nearly 35,000 teachers received more than $100,000 in compensation.
And remember that they aren't working a full year for that.
via @reasonpolicy
Obamacare: Cozy Govt-Insurance Company Alliance, Expectation Of Govt Bailout
Jeffrey L. Anderson writes at The Weekly Standard:
Publicly, President Obama loves to demonize insurance companies. But behind the scenes, Big Government and Big Insurance maintain a cozy alliance that the Obama administration actively nourishes, often at taxpayer expense. Indeed, as emails recently obtained by the House Oversight Committee show, Big Government and Big Insurance have worked together to promote Obamacare. They've also worked together to make sure taxpayers will help bail out insurance companies who lose money selling insurance under Obamacare -- that is, unless Republicans stop this from happening....What's more, the bailout will be big. The Oversight Committee found that, while insurers expected that only one-sixth of their exchange enrollment would come from people over 55 years of age, fully one-quarter of their actual enrollees fit that category. Relatedly, the report finds that insurers and insurance co-ops now expect a third more money from the risk-corridor bailout than they did on October 1, 2013. That bailout, Oversight reports, is now likely to be in the ballpark of $1 billion. To put that into perspective, the year before Obama took office, the ten largest health insurers' total profits were only $8 billion -- combined.
The Oversight report adds, "It is impossible to know how much of the increase in the industries' expectation for the size of the bailouts is the result of a less healthy exchange population than originally anticipated and how much of the increase is from the Administration's rule changes to make the bailouts more generous; however, both factors are likely significant." Moreover, both relate to Obama's lawless suspension of the portion of the legislation that was causing him the most political fallout.
So, what do Americans think of bailing out insurance companies on their own dime? Recent polling by McLaughlin & Associates, commissioned by the 2017 Project, asked, "If private insurance companies lose money selling health insurance under Obamacare, should taxpayers help cover their losses?" By a tally of 81 to 10 percent, respondents rejected that notion.
Representatives Leonard Lance and Bill Cassidy have introduced a bill to repeal Obamacare's insurer bailout. Passing it would be a win for those opposed to Obamacare, cronyism, and corporate welfare. It would also be a win for those supportive of Main Street Americans, the rule of law, and repeal.
If the House does indeed pass such legislation, one thing seems certain -- senior White House officials will convene with their insurance allies to decide their next move.
via @instapundit
Lippy
The links that talk back.
Guess What, Vegetarians: You're Killing Bunnies For Your Lunch, Too
A farmer, Jenna, formerly a vegetarian, posted "An Open Letter To Angry Vegetarians," at her blog coldantlerfarm. An excerpt:
I was a vegetarian and animal activist before I was a farmer, but that was all about passion for me and did not include much science. The only things I read about meat and the environment were based on giant corporate farms. I did not understand anything about ecology, biology, wilderness, and the personal responsibility of eating local. But what I really didn't understand was agriculture. I mean I was totally ignorant. I did not think about anything but ingredients on the package, never questioning the methods or politics behind them or the larger picture. As long as my dinner did not include animal flesh or animal products I was content in my righteousness. I was a pro-choice vegan. To be blunt, I didn't think things through.The truth is there is no meal we can eat without killing. None. A trip to your local grocery store for tofu and spinach may not include a single animal product but the harvesting of such food costs endless animal lives. Growing fields of soy beans for commercial clients means removing habitat from thousands of wild animals, killing them through deforestation and loss of their home. Songbirds and insects are killed by pesticides at legion. Fertilizers are made from petroleum now, and those fields of tofu seeds are literally being sprayed with oil we are fighting wars over. Deer died for that tofu. Songbirds died. Men and women in battle died. And then when the giant tofu factory harvested the beans they ran over those chemical oil fields of faux-food with combines that rip open groundhogs, mice, and rabbits. Tear apart frogs and fledgling birds. It is a messy and bloody business making tofu or any of that other non-murderous food.
What about organic tofu and vegetables? That doesn't include chemical fertilizers and the companies are mindful? Right? Well, that is correct. But if you are not using oil to fertilize your crops then you are using organic material: manure, blood, bone, fish, etc. You may be a vegetarian but your vegetables are the most voracious of all carnivores. That small farm at your local green market needed to lay down a lot of swine blood, cow bone, and horse poop freeze-dried in bags marked "ORGANIC" to grow those carrots so big and sweet. Animals are an integral part of growing food for us, as food themselves or creating the materials that feed the earth. And the earth must be fed.
And let us not forget the miles on the road these vegetarian options must travel. That oil-free organic tofu sure needs a lot of diesel to get here to New York...
You can not ignore this. You can't call a small farmer a murderer and turn a blind eye to the groundhog ripped in two, the owl without a nest, or the blood spilled for oil halfway across the globe through military force. I mean, you can ignore it, of course you can. You can also search the internet for people killing pigs and call them names, but that doesn't make you right. There is nothing you or I eat that wasn't once alive save for some minerals. Plants and mushrooms are living things, just as alive as animals. And we take their lives wholesale and without regret. In the words of Joel Salatin,
" ...By what stretch of arrogance do you think a life form that looks like you is more important than a life form that doesn't?"Though I know you may not appreciate that quote. After all, Joel is a murderer, too.
via @DrEades
Let's Keep In Mind The Hamas Charter
You can't have peace with people whose goal (expressed in writing) is exterminating you.
Ezra Levant writes in the Sun:
Serious question: If Hamas terrorists in Gaza were to build Auschwitz-style ovens to burn Jews like the Nazis did, would the world still demand that Israel stop attacking them?Of course.
The official goals of Hamas are the same as the Nazis: to kill every Jew. The Hamas Charter says so 12 times.
And yet the world demands Israel's army stand down.
This month Hamas confirmed yet again that every Jew in Israel - man or woman, adult or child - is a target for their terrorism. The Hamas chant "from the river to the sea" is shorthand for eliminating every single Jew from all of Israel - as in from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Not just from the disputed West Bank, but from everywhere in Israel. Just as Hamas does not distinguish between civilians and soldiers, it does not distinguish between different proposed peace maps. They want all the Jews dead.
And yet the world demands Israel cease fire.
And let's get clear on those tunnels:
There is no Iron Dome system that can defeat underground tunnels. Hamas has spent millions of dollars - and diverted countless resources donated to Gaza to build homes, schools and hospitals - to a network of underground attack paths to Israel.These are not tunnels dug with a shovel. They are massive underground engineering projects, some 70 feet deep, made with steel-reinforced concrete, going hundreds of feet past the Gaza-Israel border, towards Israeli towns. Their purpose is obvious: provide secret entrances through which terrorists can emerge, slaughter Jews and kidnap more - stealing them away in those same tunnels, to be kept as hostages.
Only through its ground invasion of Gaza did Israel discover these tunnels. And terrifying paraphernalia in them, including counterfeit Israeli military uniforms, handcuffs and tranquilizers. Captured Hamas terrorists confirm the purpose: sneak attacks on Israeli towns, timed for this fall.
These tunnels were revealed before Barack Obama demanded Israel cease fire against Hamas.
So the question again: If Hamas were to be caught building an Auschwitz, would the world still tell Israel to go quietly to the slaughter? And the answer, again: Of course.
via @blazingcatfur
Childhood With All The Fun Removed
Free Range Kids' Lenore Skenazy posted a copy of playground rules sent in by a reader:
*ADULT SUPERVISION IS REQUIRED AT ALL TIMES.
*No bicycles, roller skates and skateboards in play area.*Inspect play area before starting to lay and remove litter.
CAUTION!
*Pushing and running may cause injury.*Throwing sand or other objects may cause injury.
*Metal pieces may be hot if exposed to the sun.
SWINGS
*Hold on with both hands.*No standing on swings.
*Stop swinging before getting off.
*Never swing or twist an empty swing.
*Stand clear of moving swing to avoid injury.
*One person per swing.
SLIDES
*Slide feet first only.*No running or walking up slide.
*Exit promptly to avoid collisions.
I'm relieved to say I broke pretty much every one of these. Well, except this one:
*Inspect play area before starting to lay and remove litter.
Well, I did remove a cigarette from the sand in sixth grade and try to smoke it. Yick.
However, because I am not a hen, I did not "start to lay."
And there was no "adult supervision" after you were, oh, 7, I'm guessing -- if I remember correctly.
Perhaps the worrywarts should spend more worrying about their grammar, which would allow them less time to remain in a high panic about how dangerous childhood is.
The reality: Most of us make it through.
Linkie-os
A very unwholesome breakfast.
Got Sole?
New markdowns on men's shoes at Amazon
To buy miscellaneous things from Amazon and support this blog (at no cost to you): Amy's Amazon Links
And please consider buying my science-based and funny modern manners book, "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck" (only $9.48), and an entertaining way to bring up your order into "free shipping" territory.
Where Would We Be If Not For Police In SWAT Gear Raiding Poker Games?
A comment from First Amendment lawyer Marc J. Randazza on the raid by police in riot gear of the "Nutz Poker League" in Florida -- a game which happened to have a $0 buy-in (via Brian Pempus at cardplayer.com):
Most people don't realize just how much the police in America do for us. Were it not for the well-funded and militarized police in Florida, for example, these old people might still be playing cards and drinking cocktails. I feel much safer now.
Floridian's tax dollars -- hard at work catching consenting adults playing cards.
The Israel-Arab Conflict -- Simply Stated
Dennis Prager really does make it simple in this video:
The problem: One side wants the other dead. Yes, it's that simple.
Sam Harris on Israel:
The Israelis are surrounded by people who have explicitly genocidal intentions towards them. The charter of Hamas is explicitly genocidal. It looks forward to a time, based on Koranic prophesy, when the earth itself will cry out for Jewish blood, where the trees and the stones will say "O Muslim, there's a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him." This is a political document....The discourse in the Muslim world about Jews is utterly shocking. Not only is there Holocaust denial--there's Holocaust denial that then asserts that we will do it for real if given the chance. The only thing more obnoxious than denying the Holocaust is to say that it should have happened; it didn't happen, but if we get the chance, we will accomplish it. There are children's shows that teach five-year-olds about the glories of martyrdom and about the necessity of killing Jews.
And this gets to the heart of the moral difference between Israel and her enemies. And this is something I discussed in The End of Faith. To see this moral difference, you have to ask what each side would do if they had the power to do it.
What would the Jews do to the Palestinians if they could do anything they wanted? Well, we know the answer to that question, because they can do more or less anything they want. The Israeli army could kill everyone in Gaza tomorrow. So what does that mean? Well, it means that, when they drop a bomb on a beach and kill four Palestinian children, as happened last week, this is almost certainly an accident. They're not targeting children. They could target as many children as they want. Every time a Palestinian child dies, Israel edges ever closer to becoming an international pariah. So the Israelis take great pains not to kill children and other noncombatants. [Note: The word "so" in the previous sentence was regrettable and misleading. I didn't mean to suggest that safeguarding its reputation abroad would be the only (or even primary) reason for Israel to avoid killing children. However, the point stands: Even if you want to attribute the basest motives to Israel, it is clearly in her self-interest not to kill Palestinian children.]
...The discourse in the Muslim world about Jews is utterly shocking. Not only is there Holocaust denial--there's Holocaust denial that then asserts that we will do it for real if given the chance. The only thing more obnoxious than denying the Holocaust is to say that it should have happened; it didn't happen, but if we get the chance, we will accomplish it. There are children's shows that teach five-year-olds about the glories of martyrdom and about the necessity of killing Jews.
And this gets to the heart of the moral difference between Israel and her enemies. And this is something I discussed in The End of Faith. To see this moral difference, you have to ask what each side would do if they had the power to do it.
What would the Jews do to the Palestinians if they could do anything they wanted? Well, we know the answer to that question, because they can do more or less anything they want. The Israeli army could kill everyone in Gaza tomorrow. So what does that mean? Well, it means that, when they drop a bomb on a beach and kill four Palestinian children, as happened last week, this is almost certainly an accident. They're not targeting children. They could target as many children as they want. Every time a Palestinian child dies, Israel edges ever closer to becoming an international pariah. So the Israelis take great pains not to kill children and other noncombatants. [Note: The word "so" in the previous sentence was regrettable and misleading. I didn't mean to suggest that safeguarding its reputation abroad would be the only (or even primary) reason for Israel to avoid killing children. However, the point stands: Even if you want to attribute the basest motives to Israel, it is clearly in her self-interest not to kill Palestinian children.]
...Now imagine reversing the roles here. Imagine how fatuous--indeed comical it would be--for the Israelis to attempt to use human shields to deter the Palestinians. Some claim that they have already done this. There are reports that Israeli soldiers have occasionally put Palestinian civilians in front of them as they've advanced into dangerous areas. That's not the use of human shields we're talking about. It's egregious behavior. No doubt it constitutes a war crime. But Imagine the Israelis holding up their own women and children as human shields. Of course, that would be ridiculous. The Palestinians are trying to kill everyone. Killing women and children is part of the plan. Reversing the roles here produces a grotesque Monty Python skit.
...What do groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda and even Hamas want? They want to impose their religious views on the rest of humanity. They want stifle every freedom that decent, educated, secular people care about.
...The truth is, we are all living in Israel. It's just that some of us haven't realized it yet.
The George Will Take On Migrant Kids: For Or Against?
Will, via The Blaze, talking to Fox News' Chris Wallace:
"We ought to say to these children, 'Welcome to America, you're going to go to school and get a job and become Americans,'" Will said on the Sunday morning show. "We have 3,141 counties in this country. That would be 20 [children] per county. The idea that we can't assimilate these 8-year-old 'criminals' with their teddy bears is preposterous."Wallace stammered as he interjected that he predicted viewers would write in and criticize Will's position.
"We can handle this problem," Will said. "We've handled what Emma Lazarus famously called 'the wretched refuse of your teeming shores' a long time ago and [it was] a lot more people than this."
Milton Friedman said we can't have open immigration while we have The Welfare State.
Your take?
Let Patients -- And Consumers -- Decide How Much Risk They'll Take
Government reaches its grubby regulatory fingers into so many areas of our lives. Some people -- those who are under the impression that government officials are in their jobs out of a deep longing to protect and serve the rest of us -- feel protected and comforted by this.
Others of us -- those who've had the window shades lifted on their naivete -- prefer to make adult decisions for ourselves, and not have the government preventing us from using products or taking advantage of medical innovations we would but for bureaucrats being slow to give them the high sign.
Sure, there are people who can't assess for themselves whether, say, a medical course of action makes sense. If there's more of a free-market/adults decide way of going about making these choices, it seems likely information markets will arise to serve the need for information.
There's a piece by neurosurgeon Kevin Tracey in the WSJ, "Let Patients Decide How Much Risk They'll Take: Take a tip from Sergey Brin: The health-care regulatory burden stops entrepreneurs from getting into the game":
Consider the case of Goran Ostovich, a burly, 47-year-old truck driver from Mostar, Bosnia. Mr. Ostovich has suffered from long-standing rheumatoid arthritis and needed near-permanent bed rest. With his hands and wrists swollen and aching, he could no longer hold on to a wheel or even play with his small children. He tried a variety of medications. None worked.When I met Goran at his doctor's office in 2012, however, he didn't seem at all afflicted with the disease. That's because, one year earlier, he had been offered the opportunity to be the first participant in a clinical trial of a new therapy based on my invention. He received a bioelectronic implant and rapidly improved. His mobility restored, he was soon back at work and even sustained an exertion injury from playing tennis.
Since news of this clinical trial's success became public, people from all over the U.S. stricken with rheumatoid arthritis have emailed, called and sent letters pressing for their shot at potentially effective--but not yet FDA-approved--treatments. Most wrote that they would gladly travel to Europe if it meant they could get access to the device.
That's exactly the point: Some patients are very willing to take a calculated risk, but misaligned incentives in the industry are driving potential stakeholders with new solutions out of the business.
While the FDA does a commendable job, there is no reason it should have the sole responsibility for access to lifesaving treatment. Institutional review boards and human-subject research protocols provide extremely high levels of protection overseeing clinical trials in the U.S. and Europe. These bodies have weeded out the charlatans in the industry, and the ultimate determinant of success will be patient satisfaction.
Mr. Brin and his colleagues took Google public under atypical rules, and to much fanfare. It is time to apply this kind of boldness to realign bioelectronic medicine research with clinical needs. Our patients deserve no less.
This should also apply to consumer products. If you are terrified to eat cheese that has not been rubber-stamped by the USDA, well, then there is a cheese lane for you -- the one currently in the grocery store. There should also be a cheese lane for people like me: Those willing to eat unpasteurized, un-government-rubber-stamped cheese, typically because we know that businesses do not stay in business by poisoning people.
Linkertarian
Your right to link me in the nose...uh, er...or something like that.
Good Cellphone Manners In Traffic Cop Stops
My book, "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck," (only $9.48 with Amazon's discount) is anything but a traditional manners book. There's a whole section on where you draw the line between politeness and self-incrimination in traffic stops.
I'm very concerned about the erosion of civil liberties as of late in our country, and how too many people stand around blinking like livestock as our rights are yanked from us.
But there's a balance -- a sensible balance -- to be struck in a traffic stop. An excerpt from my book:
In civil liberties circles, there's a much-viewed You-Tube video by Regent University School of Law professor James Duane, titled "Why You Should Never Talk to the Police." Yes, Duane's position is "Never." He explains that by answering a police officer's questions--even if you are innocent, even if you got pulled over for something minor like an unsafe lane change--you can incriminate yourself, giving the police evidence to use against you in court that can maybe even be used to send you to the slammer.Duane's thinking seems legally sound, and I would follow it in many situations--for example, if cops wanted to question me in respect to some crime that had been committed, even if I had nothing to do with it. But in regard to traffic stops, I had my suspicions that his advice would play poorly outside a law school auditorium, in the auditorium of real life, so I reached out to a few cops and a civil liberties lawyer whose judgment I respect. One of these cops is a Washington state patrol officer with twenty-one years on the job who asked me not to use his name. He says he'd probably find it really odd, even suspicious, if a driver he'd stopped refused to say a word. "It's almost impossible for a human being in that situation to not get a little bit overly gabby. Their heart rate's up, they're nervous, those red and blue lights are heating up the back of their head, and we have a tendency to stammer in situations like that."
My First Amendment lawyer, Marc J. Randazza, who wrote a brilliant defense when a TSA worker tried to sue me for $500,000, plus a written apology and a blog takedown, was another I talked to for this section. Here, he's echoing both the thinking of the Washington State cop and retired cop Tracy Ambrico, who spent 11 of her 30 years in law enforcement as a patrol cop:
First Amendment lawyer Marc J. Randazza likewise finds the advice to just clam up seriously unrealistic. Randazza is both a civil liberties bulldog and a guy who appreciates fast cars--and not just from behind a velvet rope as a lingerie model dusts them at car shows. He drives his "to their tolerances, not the law's tolerances," when he's on the Southwest's desolate desert highways."I get pulled over going arrestably fast on a regular basis," Randazza told me. "In fact, I can't remember the last time I was pulled over for speeding and wasn't going fast enough that the cop should have taken me to jail." So, when a cop comes up to him and says "Do you know why I pulled you over?" he knows better than to say, "Nope, no idea." Recognizing that people hate being lied to and treated like they're stupid, Randazza will adopt a sheepish tone and concede to the officer, "Yeahhhh . . . I was speeding a little bit there, huh?"
Randazza explains, "That is legally inadvisable because you are making an admission and right there you got rid of your ability to plead not guilty." He acknowledges that "the textbook legal response is 'I have no idea why you pulled me over, and if you want to charge me with something, it is going to be your burden to prove it.' That's all well and good on a law school exam and nice if you want to write a legal guide. But, let's be practical. And let's be smart." Unless you look like a typical felon, the cop "probably didn't pull you over to see if he could make something up." The cop probably already knows you were speeding and probably has evidence of it, too--on radar or by estimating your speed--a technique Randazza says holds up surprisingly well in court.
More from Ambrico -- perhaps the most important part of this section:
Where people go wrong is in thinking they're powerless to fight back against an abusive cop. Ambrico says that if an officer does violate your rights or is rude or otherwise out of line, it's important to recognize that you have recourse--just probably not there, while the stop is taking place. She does say that you can ask for a supervisor to come out during the stop or go afterward to the counter at the police station and ask to file a complaint. Ambrico suggests keep- ing in mind that officers are being videotaped and audio-recorded during traffic stops. "Nobody does anything anonymously any- more." (Check your state or locality to be sure.) She says the cop's supervisors and the DA "are going to look at tape [and] listen to the audio recording" to see whether your rights were violated or the cop behaved inappropriately. "The DA will not [bring a court case against you] if the search is bogus."
Advice Goddess Radio, LIVE (*different time!), 4-5 pm PT: Dr. Jonah Berger On The Science Of What Makes Ideas And Products Go Viral
Tonight's show explores what drives word-of-mouth -- that sometimes free but always highly valuable person-to-person advertising and recommending of products, ideas, and behaviors.
My guest tonight, Wharton marketing professor Dr. Jonah Berger, will debunk the myths and lay out what the research says about how we can design products, ideas, and behaviors so people will talk about them. In other words, so they'll catch on.
Berger's book we'll be discussing is Contagious: Why Things Catch On.
Listen at this link at a different time, this week only -- 4-5 p.m. Pacific, 7-8 p.m. Eastern -- or download the podcast afterward:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/amyalkon/2014/07/27/dr-jonah-berger-on-the-science-of-what-makes-ideas-and-products-go-viral
Don't miss last week's show, ("Best Of" replay): Dr. Alan Kazdin on science-based ways to get kids to behave without stress or arguing.
Listen at this link or download the podcast:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/amyalkon/2014/07/22/dr-alan-kazdin-science-based-ways-to-get-kids-to-behave-sans-stress-arguing
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.)
Please consider ordering my new book, the science-based and funny "Good Manners For Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck," (only $9.48 at Amazon!). Orders of the book help support my writing and this radio show!
Meet Me In The Detroit Free Press!
Comprehensive Detroit Free Press profile of me by a terrific reporter, Patricia Montemurri. She told me it'll be on the front page of the Sunday features section. There are also other photos, I believe, but the one by Gregg of me in the yellow dress just off the Venice boardwalk is the one that ran with the online piece.
A photo that didn't make it into the piece -- shot by Gregg in Elmore Leonard's kitchen when we were all going to a wedding in Detroit. Beyond reading Elmore -- always a treat -- he was so much fun...asked the best mischievous questions.
Linkieshines
Eep, eep, eep...
The Downside of Airbnb: The Guest Who Won't Leave
To borrow from the Eagles: Welcome to Airbnb California; you can check your guest out any time you like, but he may never leave...not without you going through months or more of struggle and thousands of dollars in legal fees.
This creep in Palm Springs is, not exactly surprisingly, taking advantage of rules designed to protect renters so he can hang on to a condo owned by a San Francisco woman.
Debra Cassens Weiss posts at ABAJournal:
A San Francisco woman found out about the downside of a 44-day Airbnb rental after the renter refused to leave her Palm Springs vacation condo.The guest who overstayed his welcome has renters' protections under California law because he was in the unit for more than 30 days, report the San Francisco Chronicle and Business Insider.
Cory Tschogl says she knew something was amiss when the guest who goes by the name "Maksym" complained that the tap water was cloudy and he didn't like the gated entry to the complex. Tschogl had a bad feeling so she agreed to his request for a full refund for the 30 days he had paid in advance. But then the guest changed his mind and decided to stay, Tschogl tells the Chronicle.
The man refused to pay the remaining balance due, however, and he refused to leave. Tschogl decided to let him stay for the full 44 days. But the renter still wouldn't leave, so Tschogl threatened to turn off the power.
His response: He was legally entitled to stay in the condo, and the loss of electricity would threaten his at-home work, which pays up to $7,000 a day, the Chronicle says. He also said his brother visited and became ill from the tap water.
The woman said Airbnb was slow to respond to her requests for help from them, but Airbnb now said they've paid her in full for the reservation and are providing legal help.
More from the Chron, from a piece by Carolyn Said:
Tschogl said she begged Airbnb for help through numerous e-mails and phone calls without getting much assistance.Now she's hired a lawyer, who will cost several thousand dollars and take three to six months to evict the tenant, who now has renters' protections under California law because he has occupied the unit over 30 days.
Similar issues can arise with any tenants, of course, whether they book through Airbnb or find a place through the classifieds.
"Our initial response to this inquiry didn't meet the standards we set for ourselves and we've apologized to this host," said Airbnb spokesman Nick Papas in a statement. "In the last week, officials from our team have been in incredibly close contact with this host and she has been paid the full cost of the reservation and we're working with her to provide additional support as we move forward."
Tschogl, who works as a rehabilitation therapist for blind and low-vision people, was priced out of the San Francisco housing market, so she bought a one-bedroom condo in a gated Palm Springs community 18 months ago. She visits it often and her father lives nearby.
Income has helped
She's rented it occasionally through Airbnb and Flipkey for about a year. The income from guests who paid around $450 a week helped meet her expenses for the mortgage, taxes and insurance.
More here about the squatting creep, Maksym Pashanin. Samantha Cortese at KESQ says "this might not be the squatter's first scam":
It appears Maksym Pashanin is a gamer of a different kind too. A contributor to the crowdfunding website 'Kickstarter' alerted our stations to 'Confederate Express', a computer game created by Pashanin.People have donated $40,000 to fund the game and many are crying scam. They said it's been eight months without anything more than this demo.
Pashanin recently told the gaming site CLIQIST.com that he made some bad business decisions and reassured his fans the game would be released.
Photo of Maksym Pashanin via Kickstarter:
Convicted LA City Councilcrook Gets To Keep His $116,000-A-Year Pension
Dakota Smith writes in the Los Angeles Daily News:
Despite being convicted of four felonies this week by a Los Angeles Superior Court jury, former City Councilman Richard Alarcón will continue to receive his $116,000 annual pension, an official said Thursday.Unlike some other California jurisdictions, Los Angeles doesn't prohibit city employees convicted of felonies from receiving pensions, a representative of the city's civilian retirement division said.
Alarcón was convicted Wednesday of four counts of perjury and voter fraud for living outside Council District 7 and lying about his address on official documents. His wife Flora, 49, was convicted of three counts.
His attorney Richard Lasting said Thursday he will file court documents in the coming weeks to have the case tossed out.
Alarcón's conviction comes three months after City Councilman Mitchell Englander introduced a motion that would require city workers convicted of a felony involving the use of their city position to forfeit their pension. The proposed law was spurred by revelations over the $72,000 annual pension collected by a recently convicted city building inspector, Englander's motion states.
Note that politicians have real problems passing laws to curtail themselves, but no problem passing loads of laws to curtail the rest of us -- which, in my experience, the police department will ignore if the people breaking them are wealthy and connected enough.
Linkin Park
Rock me with your links.
We Now Have The Cameras That Easily Capture Photos Of Childhood
But, to go with, we unfortunately have raging parental paranoia that keeps people from taking photos on all sorts of occasions.
Frank Furedi writes in the Independent/UK:
Although the taking of a picture of a child is not illegal, it is frequently treated as a crime. Numerous institutions have drawn the conclusion that such photographs are inconsistent with the exigencies of safeguarding children. Consequently, many petty officials have decided to take the law into their own hands. In 2001, newspapers did not mask the faces of children, and parents were not banned from photographing their children performing in a school play.As a father, I deeply resented the climate of hysteria that makes it difficult for parents to take photos of their children during school plays and concerts and sporting activities. I still remember the moment when the manager of my son's under-9s football team informed us that no one could take a picture of the children during the game unless every parent agreed. Since it was impossible to get everyone's agreement in the middle of the game, I never succeeded in capturing an action shot of my son running with the ball. For me, the empty spaces in the family photo album symbolise the absurdity of the current ethos of child protection.
And someone taking a picture of kids on the soccer field endangers children how?
via @freerangekids
Postpartum Depression: A Disease Of Modern Civilization?
UCLA evolutionary psychologist Martie Haselton, a researcher whose work and thinking I respect, working with Chapman University psychologist Jennifer Hahn-Holbrook, has been exploring the evidence that links postpartum depression to early weaning, deficient diet, inactivity, not enough sunshine, and lack of family support.
Wray Herbert has a piece up about this at the Association for Psychological Science. An excerpt:
Postpartum depression is not rare. Indeed, fully 13 percent of women worldwide get clinically depressed during the three months following childbirth. Yet evolutionary biologists have long been puzzled about why this disorder exists at all. Hahn-Holbrook and Haselton believe that the body's inflammatory processes may be to blame, and further, that this inflammation is tied to discontinuities between hunter-gatherer adaptations and modern life.Start with food. The Paleo adepts have it right, basically. Studies of human remains indicate that the pre-agricultural human diet consisted of equal parts wild meat, starchy tubers and fresh fruits and veggies--a diet rich in essential micronutrients, fiber and fatty acids. But the agricultural revolution, about 10,000 years ago, allowed our ancestors to replace much of this diet with grains, which were easier to store. The consequence is that the modern western diet is lacking in organ meats, which our forebears loved, and therefore low in omega-3 fatty acids, the "good fats" that fight inflammation. The meat that we do eat tends to be muscle meat, from grain-fed livestock, which lacks this good fat--creating a "good fat gap" that is exacerbated by pregnancy and lactation.
The link to postpartum depression? Diet supplements supplying omega-3 fatty acids has been shown effective in treating depression. Plus postpartum depression is negatively linked to the consumption of seafood, high in these fatty acids. Other dietary discontinuities might be linked to postpartum depression as well--notably, carb and sugar-rich diets and overeating, all linked to chronic inflammation and depression.
...The scientists report similar evidence for the anti-depression benefits of both exercise and exposure to the sun--both of which our ancestors got a lot more of than mothers do today. Exercise influences chronic inflammation, insulin resistance, and neurotransmitter levels, all of which change during pregnancy and lactation. What's more, prescribed exercise has been shown to reduce rates of post-partum depression. Sunlight provides vitamin D, which acts on the immune system and diminishes inflammation. Yet modern humans are largely sheltered from the sun and from this important nutrient.
Finally, Hahn-Holbrook and Haselton believe that evolved family structure is contributing to modern rates of postpartum depression. Hunter-gatherer families lived in kin groups, with aunts, grandparents and older siblings to assist mothers with the youngest children. But today's families are spread out and, in addition, modern families have few children spaced closer together--all of which adds up to a greater childcare burden for modern mothers. Weak social support is one of the most consistent predictors of postpartum depression, the scientists say.
Wray cautions:
This compelling body of evidence, pulled together in a forthcoming issue of the journal Current Directions in Psychological Science, does not yet show that these modern changes actually cause postpartum depression.
via @sentientist
Honesty Will Get You Jail Time
A Pennsylvania woman, Shaneen Allen, was stopped by a cop for an allegedly unsafe lane change in Atlantic County, New Jersey. At the time, she voluntarily informed the officer that she had a concealed carry permit in her home state. This led to her arrest.
Radley Balko writes in the WaPo:
Allen is a black single mother. She has two kids. She has no prior criminal record. Before her arrest, she worked as a phlebologist. After she was robbed two times in the span of about a year, she purchased the gun to protect herself and her family. There is zero evidence that Allen intended to use the gun for any other purpose. Yet Allen was arrested. She spent 40 days in jail before she was released on bail. She's now facing a felony charge that, if convicted, would bring a three-year mandatory minimum prison term....When a person victimizes another person with a gun, the offending person has already committed a crime. And in nearly every state and under federal law, it is already an additional crime to use or possess a gun while doing something that is already a crime. So when gun control advocates say we need to crack down on gun offenders, or when they propose that we create new gun crimes, they aren't suggesting we crack down on people who use guns to rob banks or to commit murders. We already go after those people. What they're proposing is that we target people who possess, sell or transport guns not because they want to hurt people with them, but for reasons ranging from what most reasonable people would believe to be justifiable (like Shaneen Allen) to what gun control proponents would likely consider objectionable (the gun shop owners and gun manufacturers who make money selling weapons).
If you're an advocate for gun control, you could certainly argue that the tradeoff here is worth it. There's an argument to be made that we still need to target irresponsible gun owners and gun merchants, even if they aren't using guns to victimize people, because their guns could end up in the hands of people who do. But if you're going to make that argument, you also need to understand that prosecuting people under these circumstances means that we'll be putting more people in prison. And who those people are will reflect all of the biases, prejudices and predispositions present in the laws we already have.
...As for Shaneen Allen, Nappen says he is still hoping that McClain has a change of heart and allows her to enter the diversion program. If not, they will go to trial. Nappen says Allen is also protected by an amnesty period passed into law that allowed gun owners to surrender their weapons from August 2013 to February 2014 without fear of punishment. Whether Allen technically "surrendered" her weapon is a legal question. But if she is denied that defense, she will almost certainly go to trial, and under New Jersey's gun law, she will have no real defense. Unless her jury engages in a defiant act of nullification, she will be convicted, and her trial judge will have no choice but to sentence her to the three-year minimum. At that point, her only hope will be to appeal to the New Jersey governor for clemency or a pardon. Current New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie commuted the sentence for Brian Aitken, whom Nappen also represented. Aitken's case inspired a lot of outrage, but it didn't result in any change in the law. So we're back to discretion.
Do you want to leave whether you spend three years in a cage to some trial judge or politician's discretion?
Slinky
Slithery links.
If We're Going To Have Executions, They Should Be Bloody
I am against the death penalty, but agree with Kozinski -- Judge Alex Kozinski, in his dissent, quoted by columnist E. Montini in the Arizona Star:
"Whatever the hopes and reasons for the switch to drugs (for executions), they proved to be misguided. Subverting medicines meant to heal the human body to the opposite purpose was an enterprise doomed to failure. Today's case is only the latest in an unending effort to undermine and discredit this method of carrying out lawful executions..."Whatever happens to Wood, the attacks will not stop and for a simple reason: The enterprise is flawed. Using drugs meant for individuals with medical needs to carry out executions is a misguided effort to mask the brutality of executions by making them look serene and peaceful--like something any one of us might experience in our final moments...
"But executions are, in fact, nothing like that. They are brutal, savage events, and nothing the state tries to do can mask that reality. Nor should it. If we as a society want to carry out executions, we should be willing to face the fact that the state is committing a horrendous brutality on our behalf...
"If some states and the federal government wish to continue carrying out the death penalty, they must turn away from this misguided path and return to more primitive--and foolproof--methods of execution. The guillotine is probably best but seems inconsistent with our national ethos. And the electric chair, hanging and the gas chamber are each subject to occasional mishaps.
"The firing squad strikes me as the most promising. Eight or ten large-caliber rifle bullets fired at close range can inflict massive damage, causing instant death every time. There are plenty of people employed by the state who can pull the trigger and have the training to aim true.
"The weapons and ammunition are bought by the state in massive quantities for law enforcement purposes, so it would be impossible to interdict the supply. And nobody can argue that the weapons are put to a purpose for which they were not intended: firearms have no purpose other than destroying their targets. Sure, firing squads can be messy, but if we are willing to carry out executions, we should not shield ourselves from the reality that we are shedding human blood. If we, as a society, cannot stomach the splatter from an execution carried out by firing squad, then we shouldn't be carrying out executions at all."
He's right on. I happen to know Kozinski through civil liberties/pundit circles I'm a part of. This makes me want to go find him and hug him right now.
Who'll Stop The Reign?
Sometimes, when you're waiting a while for a table you reserved, it's because of all of the "might shows" backing things up. 
More of my Pinquotes from "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck."
"We're From The Government. We're Here To Steal Your Car."
I actually borrowed that tweetline from @Popehat, because it perfectly states what's going on.
The New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission wrongly accused hundreds of people of being illlegal cabbies in the past year and seized their cars. I read about this a while ago -- a black man driving his white wife to her job. The TLC seized the couple's Lincoln Continental for eight days and gave them summonses -- though they tried to explain they were a married couple.
James Fanelli, Rosa Goldensohn and Gustavo Solis write at dnainfo:
NEW YORK CITY -- Kareeal Akins still gets chills thinking about the long, frigid walk home that he and his then-pregnant wife were forced to make this past winter after the city seized his car.At about 9 p.m. on Jan. 24, he drove his white 2002 Honda Accord from his Sheepshead Bay apartment to the corner of Church Avenue and Ocean Parkway in Kensington to pick up his wife, Natalie, from her friend's home.
He remembers pulling up to the intersection, his wife getting into his car and then a vehicle behind them flashing its sirens.
It wasn't police officers stopping them. It was two Taxi and Limousine Commission inspectors, enforcement agents tasked with policing livery cars and yellow taxis to protect New Yorkers from dangerous and uninsured illegal cabbies.
What many New Yorkers don't know is TLC inspectors also have the power to seize a vehicle they suspect of operating as an illegal cab.
The inspectors separated Kareeal and Natalie. They accused him of being an unlicensed hack. They asked Natalie whether she was a paying passenger and, if not, to prove how she knew him.
"She told them my name, address, Social Security number," Kareeal, a Barclays Center security guard, recalled. "They didn't want to hear it. They still took the vehicle."
Jonathan Turley has written of the growth of the "administrative branch" of government -- a branch unchecked by the Constitution. Petty bureaucrats can now seize your possessions and it may be your word against theirs in front of a judge.
Anybody worried yet? Anybody awake?
More on bureaucratically disappearing cars -- impounded on petty charges and then sold by the cops for scrap.
via @walterolson
How Pathetic Is American Innumeracy?
Elizabeth Green writes in The New York Times:
One of the most vivid arithmetic failings displayed by Americans occurred in the early 1980s, when the A&W restaurant chain released a new hamburger to rival the McDonald's Quarter Pounder. With a third-pound of beef, the A&W burger had more meat than the Quarter Pounder; in taste tests, customers preferred A&W's burger. And it was less expensive. A lavish A&W television and radio marketing campaign cited these benefits. Yet instead of leaping at the great value, customers snubbed it.Only when the company held customer focus groups did it become clear why. The Third Pounder presented the American public with a test in fractions. And we failed. Misunderstanding the value of one-third, customers believed they were being overcharged. Why, they asked the researchers, should they pay the same amount for a third of a pound of meat as they did for a quarter-pound of meat at McDonald's. The "4" in "¼," larger than the "3" in "⅓," led them astray.
A very good book on how to learn, and specifically, how to learn math and science -- the upcoming (July 31) A Mind For Numbers: How to Excel at Math and Science (Even If You Flunked Algebra)
Linka
Federico García Linka. Link poetically.
Possibly the real deal.
My Ancestral Home
From my Pinterest page of quotes from my book, "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck": 
The Wildly, Outrageously Bad Science The American Diet Has Been Based On
That terribly bad science -- the work of researcher Ancel Keys -- is what the American diet has been based on for decades, and what has been making Americans fat, diabetic, and dead.
Tom D. Naughton writes at Fat Head about the supposedly 13,000 people Keys supposedly surveyed. But it turns out there weren't 13,000, but far, far, far less:
Keys followed the health of more than 300 men from Crete. But he only surveyed 31 of them, with one of those surveys taken during the meat-abstinence month of Lent. Oh, and the original seven-day food-recall records weren't available later, so he swapped in data from an earlier paper. Then to determine fruit and vegetable intake, he used data sheets about food availability in Greece during a four-year period.And from this mess, he concluded that high-fat diets cause heart attacks and low-fat diets prevent them.
Keep in mind, this is one of the most-cited studies in all of medical science. It's one of the pillars of the Diet-Heart hypothesis. It helped to convince the USDA, the AHA, doctors, nutritionists, media health writers, your parents, etc., that saturated fat clogs our arteries and kills us, so we all need to be on low-fat diets - even kids.
Per Gary Taubes' "Good Calories, Bad Calories" it is carbohydrates -- sugar, flour, starchy vegetables like potatoes, apple juice -- that cause the insulin secretion that puts on fat.
Nina Teicholz on my radio show on why butter, meat, & cheese are the foundation of a healthy diet. Her excellent book on the subject: The Big Fat Surprise.
All You Need To Get Obamacare Is A Flimsy Fake Identity
A "secret shopper" undercover operation by the GAO -- the Government Accountability Office -- found fraud easy to commit in the Obamacare exchanges, writes Paula Bolyard at PJM:
Using fake information during an undercover "secret shopper" investigation, the GAO created 18 fictitious identities through the federal exchange by telephone, online, and in-person. In 17 of 18 attempts the GAO was able to obtain premium subsidies and health insurance with fake information through telephone and online applications. According to the report, 11 out of 12 fake applications for the federal exchanges were approved, with credits totaling $2500 per month ($30,000 per year).During the investigation, fake shoppers provided fake documents, such as Social Security numbers and proof of income and citizenship. They found that "Federal contractors made no effort to authenticate documents applicants provided" and the fake ID and income information proved to be no impediment to enrollment. According to the report, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is not required to authenticate documentation. "The contractor told us it does not seek to detect fraud and accepts documents as authentic unless there are obvious alterations," the GAO said.
As of July 2014 the fake enrollees continue to receive subsidized coverage for the 11 applications, including 3 applications where GAO did not provide any requested supporting documents.
When the GAO made attempts to sign up for federal subsidies in person, they were unable to obtain assistance in five of six attempts. "One navigator said assistance was not available because HealthCare.gov was down and another [declined] to provide assistance," the preliminary report said, noting that navigaors have received tens of millions of dollars in federal grants to provide assistance to those in need of healthcare.
The Government Likes To Regulate The Hell Out Of Everybody But Itself
The NYT headline: "Pathogen Mishaps Rise as Regulators Stay Clear."
Denise Grady writes in The New York Times:
The recently documented mistakes at federal laboratories involving anthrax, flu and smallpox have incited public outrage at the government's handling of dangerous pathogens. But the episodes were just a tiny fraction of the hundreds that have occurred in recent years across a sprawling web of academic, commercial and government labs that operate without clear national standards or oversight, federal reports show.Spurred by the anthrax attacks in the United States in 2001, an increase in "high-level containment" labs set up to work with risky microbes has raised the number to about 1,500 from a little more than 400 in 2004, according to the Government Accountability Office.
Yet there has never been a national plan for how many of them are needed, or how they should be built and operated. The more of these labs there are, the G.A.O. warned Congress last week, the greater the chances of dangerous blunders or sabotage, especially in a field where oversight is "fragmented and largely self-policing."
...In June, dozens of C.D.C. employees may have been exposed to live anthrax. In another case disclosed this month, a C.D.C. lab accidentally contaminated a relatively benign flu sample with a dangerous H5N1 bird flu strain that has killed 386 people since 2003 -- and then shipped it to a lab at the Department of Agriculture. In yet another episode this month, vials of smallpox and other infectious agents were discovered in a government laboratory on the campus of the National Institutes of Health after being stored and apparently forgotten about 50 years ago.
Six or seven government agencies were involved in the growth spurt of labs across the country focusing on dangerous pathogens, with no overall strategic plan, according to Nancy Kingsbury, the managing director of applied research and methods at the G.A.O., who testified last week before a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee.
Linker
Is quinker.
Kitchen Appliances At Deep Discount
Open box and pre-owned kitchen items at Amazon
Friends With Cancer Or Other Serious Illnesses
A brief excerpt from "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck," from the chapter, Friends With Serious Illnesses: What to do when a friend is really, really sick and could maybe even die.
("Cathy" is my late friend Cathy Seipp.)
Mystifyingly, when Cathy was fighting lung cancer, people who knew her well and should have known better would ask me to forward her their suggestions that she eat Tibetan mushrooms or stand on her head and snort dried deer antlers. They meant well, but they weren't thinking too hard. Cathy was highly rational and a vocal believer in evidence-based Western medicine--the kind dispensed by her Cedars-Sinai cancer specialists, as opposed to the kind dispensed in an Internet forward from somebody who believes that the government faked the moon landing.
Another bit from the same chapter:
For some, another person's cancer is the ultimate form of cooties, making them feel suddenly and uncomfortably mortal. Don't be ashamed if you feel this way. But, admit it to yourself, talk to friends about it, do whatever it takes to resist the urge to make like Jimmy Hoffa and disappear. If you just buck up and go visit the person, you'll probably find that they want to talk not about cancer but about whatever dumb crap you always talked about before. Ultimately, what you say is a lot less important than what you do. As the old saying about success goes, a lot of being successful in comforting somebody seriously ill is just showing the hell up.
About That Sex-Starved Husband Spread Sheet
You have to get to a whole lot of angry and resentful to be making the spreadsheet a husband did and his wife posted on Reddit (via Deadspin).
The spreadsheet laid out all the times the wife denied the husband sex over the period of a little over a month.
The wife explained in her Reddit post of the spreadsheet:
Yesterday morning, while in a taxi on the way to the airport, Husband sends a message to my work email which is connected to my phone. He's never done this, we always communicate in person or by text. I open it up, and it's a sarcastic diatribe basically saying he won't miss me for the 10 days I'm gone. Attached is a SPREADSHEET of all the times he has tried to initiate sex since June 1st, with a column for my "excuses", using verbatim quotes of why I didn't feel like having sex at that very moment. According to his 'document', we've only had sex 3 times in the last 7 weeks, out of 27 "attempts" on his part.
I wrote about this issue in a past column:
Relationships are filled with little tasks that don't exactly bring a person to screaming orgasm. A man, for example, doesn't wake up in the middle of the night with some primal longing to bring his girlfriend flowers, rehang her back door, or clean the trap in her sink. Like sex, these things can be expressions of love, but if a guy's going to lock himself in the bathroom, it's not going to be with "Bob Vila's Complete Guide to Remodeling Your Home."So, couldn't putting out when you aren't in the mood be seen as just another expression of love? Joan Sewell, author of I'd Rather Eat Chocolate: Learning to Love My Low Libido, told The Atlantic Monthly, "If you have sex when you don't desire it, physically desire it, you are going to feel used." Well, okay, perhaps. But, if a guy rotates a woman's tires when he doesn't desire it, physically desire it, does he feel used?
Actually, we all do plenty of things with our bodies that we don't really feel like; for instance, taking our bodies to work when we have a hangover instead of putting our bodies in front of some greasy hash browns, and then to bed. For women, however, sexual things are supposed to be out of the question. I think the subtext here is not doing things we really don't feel like if it GIVES A MAN PLEASURE. And no, I'm not advocating rape or anything remotely close to it. And, of course, if you find sex with your husband or boyfriend a horrible chore, you're in the wrong place. Otherwise, if you're with a man, and he's nice to you, and works hard to please you, would it kill you to throw him a quickie?
The real problem for many couples is the notion that "the mood" is something they're supposed to wait around for like Halley's Comet -- probably due to the assumption that desire works the same in men and women. The truth is, just because a woman isn't in the mood doesn't mean she can't get in the mood. According to breakthrough work by sexual medicine specialist Rosemary Basson, women in long-term relationships tend not to have the same "spontaneous sexual neediness" men do, but they can be arousable, or "triggerable." In other words, forget trying to have sex. Tell your girlfriend about Basson's findings, and ask her to try an experiment: making out three times a week (without sex being the presumed outcome) and seeing if "the mood" happens to strike her. You just might find the member getting admitted to the club a little more often.
Sexperts will tell you "a sexual mismatch needn't mean the end of a relationship" -- which sounds good but tends to play out like being hungry for three meals a day and being expected to make do with a handful of pretzels. Expressway to Resentsville, anyone?
"Isolationist"? Not Exactly.
From Cato Institute -- and exactly the way I see it:
The term "isolationist" entered the American lexicon in the late 19th century when the ardent militarist Alfred Thayer Mahan used it to smear opponents of American imperialism. The potency of the slur increased dramatically after World War II, as people blamed the policies of the interwar period for failing to halt the rise of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Modern-day interventionists have used the term to discredit opponents of the Iraq War, the NATO campaign in Libya, arming the Syria rebels or indiscriminate drone strikes in multiple countries. In other words, interventionists brand their opponents as isolationists to delegitimize them and to stifle debate.Some interventionists have characterized Cato's views as "isolationist," but that is inaccurate. In fact, Cato scholars argue that the United States should be an example of the principles of liberty, democracy, and human rights, not their armed vindicator abroad. Americans should remain engaged in the world through trade, tourism and other cultural exchanges, and welcome those from around the world who want to work, study or invest here. The foreign policy of restraint is particularly appropriate in the modern era as threats to the United States have waned, and as the high costs and dubious benefits of a hyperactive, interventionist foreign policy are glaringly apparent.
There are a number of articles on this at the link.
Uber May Be Reducing Drunk Driving
Paul Best writes at reason:
Just a few weeks ago, Pittsburgh resident Nate Good published a quick study that offered the first hard evidence that DUI rates may be decreasing in cities where Uber is popular. An analysis of Philadelphia's data showed an 11.1 percent decrease in the rate of DUIs since ridesharing services were made available, and an even more astonishing 18.5 percent decrease for people under 30.As everyone knows, however, correlation does not equal causation. Good's quick number-crunching was too simplistic to draw any overarching conclusions, but it did open the door for future studies. A recent, deeper analysis from Uber makes the case even stronger that ridesharing services may be responsible for a decline in DUIs.
From that Uber analysis:
Requests for rides come from Uber users at bars at a much higher rate than you might expect based on the number of bars there are in the city. The fraction of requests from users at bars are between three and five times greater than the total share of bars.
Who's stopping Uber? Oh, the cops, for one.
"My Uber got pulled over by the Denver police -- and then things got really weird"
Lucky
Linky for gamblers.
Grieving "Right"
About grief myths, the worst is when those who believe the myths tell others they aren't "grieving right" and warn that it'll come back to bite them.
The best popular book on grief is by George A Bonanno, The Other Side of Sadness: What the New Science of Bereavement Tells Us About Life After Loss
I write about grieving and dating again after the death of a partner in "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck." And here's my column on the subject.
Government Employees And Criminals Damn Hard To Tell Apart
As Freedom To Travel's Wendy Thomson put it about a drunk man impersonating a security screener who convinced two women to go into a private screening area for a grope:
Sad thing is that the women did not even realize the difference between his criminal behavior and the government-sanctioned "legal" molestation.
An actual TSA employee, however, let this fly to a security theatre skeptic:
"You don't have shit for rights."
The Rage Against Israel Doesn't Seem To Extend To Anyone Else
Brendan O'Neill writes at Spiked, "There's something very ugly in this rage against Israel. The line between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism gets thinner every day":
The double standards were perfectly summed up last week in the response to an Israeli writer who said in the UK Independent that Israel's attack on Gaza and its 'genocidal rhetoric' made her want to burn her Israeli passport. She got a virtual pat on the back from virtually every British activist and commentator who thinks of him or herself as decent. She was hailed as brave. Her article was shared online thousands of times. This was 'common sense from one Jew', people tweeted. No one stopped to wonder if maybe they should have burned their British passports after Yugoslavia in 1999, or Afghanistan in 2001, or Iraq in 2003, where often more civilians were killed in one day than have been killed by Israel over the past week. Why should Israel's bombing of Gaza induce such shame in Israeli citizens (or Jews, as some prefer) that burning their passports is seen as a perfectly sensible and even laudable course of action whereas it's perfectly okay to continue bounding about the world on a British passport despite the mayhem unleashed by our military forces over the past decade? Because Israel is different; it's worse; it's more criminal.Of course, Western double standards on Israel have been around for a while now. They can be seen not only in the fact that Israeli militarism makes people get out of bed and get angry in a way that no other form of militarism does, but also in the ugly boycotting of everything Israeli, whether it's academics or apples, in a way that the people or products of other militaristic or authoritarian regimes are never treated. But during this latest Israeli assault on Gaza, we haven't only seen these double standards come back into play - we have also witnessed anti-Israel sentiment becoming more visceral, more emotional, more unhinged and even more prejudiced than it has ever been, to such an extent that, sadly, it is now becoming very difficult to tell where anti-Zionism ends and anti-Semitism begins.
...Not only is the line between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism becoming harder to see - so is the line between fact and fiction. As the BBC has reported, the wildly popular hashtag #GazaUnderAttack, which has been used nearly 500,000 times over the past eight days to share shocking photographs of the impact of Israel's assault on Gaza, is extremely unreliable. Some of the photos being tweeted (and then retweeted by thousands of other people) are actually from Gaza in 2009. Others show dead bodies from conflicts in Iraq and Syria. Yet all are posted with comments such as, 'Look at Israel's inhumanity'. It seems the aim here is not to get to the truth of what is happening in Gaza but simply to rage, to yell, to scream, to weep about what Israel is doing (or not doing, as the case may be), and the more publicly you weep, the better, for it allows people to see how sensitive you are to Israeli barbarism. It's about unleashing some visceral emotion, which means such petty things as accuracy and facts count for little: the expression of the emotion is all that matters, and any old photo of a dead child from somewhere in the Middle East - Iraq, Syria, Lebanon - will suffice as a prop for one's public emotionalism.
A commenter under O'Neill's piece:
Leo King
Killing one race? Assad has killed 170,000 in Syria, out of which 2,000 were Palestinians. That is more Palestinians killed than in all of Israel's defensive wars in Gaza. These deaths were deliberate slaughters, not collateral fatalities in a military operation to remove missiles, launchers and command centres that have been pounding Israel since before the start of Operation Protective Edge.And it is not, as you falsely declare below, the Zionists who are claiming that Hamas is responsible for the indiscriminate firing of missiles at Israeli civilians AND the callous use of their own citizens as human shields. The Egyptian Foreign Minister and the Palestinian envoy to the UN Human Rights Commission have publicly gone on record to state that Hamas is guilty of war crimes violating international law on both of those counts. In the words of the Palestinian representative, Ibrahim Kraishi (who, incidentally, is not a Zionist) on July 9th on the Palestinian Authority TV channel: "The missiles that are now being launched against Israel, each and every missile constitutes a crime against humanity, whether it hits or misses, because it is directed at civilian targets..., Many of our people in Gaza appeared on TV and said that the Israelis warned them to evacuate their homes before the bombardment. In such a case, if someone is killed, the law considers it a mistake rather than an intentional killing because [the Israelis] followed the legal procedures....As for the missiles launched from our side, we never warn anyone about where these missiles are about to fall or about the operations we carry out."
The PA is pissed as hell at Hamas because it has undermined their campaign to haul Israel to the International Criminal Court. Of course, none of this will affect your spouting off more ignorance, arrogance and seething hatred, because you, and others like you, are a case in point in for exactly what the writer has described in this article: wolves in sheep's clothing, vicious Jew-haters masquerading as human-rights activists. Hypocrites who, with their dismissal of and silence on the actual, far-more significant human rights abuses across the planet, couldn't give a rat's ass about human rights at all. So just go on brandishing your lies, worn-out slogans and vitriol to your petty heart's desire; fortunately, all that ugliness does very little to alter the truth.
What do Jews do when they aren't ducking death?
No Radio, Soap
My usual Sunday radio show will air tomorrow night instead.
No, Your Index Finger Destroyed Your Marriage
Lawyer Chris Sevier files suit against Apple because its devices lack a filter that keeps them from playing porn. David Ferguson writes at Raw Story:
The attorney is suing the company in an effort to have all of its devices equipped with a filter that blocks sexually-themed content....Sevier said that when a typing error led him to "Fuckbook.com" rather than Facebook, he was overtaken with the eroticism of the images and films he found there and that he became addicted to Internet pornography, causing difficulty in his marriage.
The images of naked young women on the web amounted to "unfair competition" for Sevier's wife, he said in the complaint, writing, "The Plaintiff began desiring younger more beautiful girls featured in porn videos than his wife, who was no longer 21."
Moreover, "(h)is failed marriage caused the Plaintiff to experience emotional distress to the point of hospitalization. The Plaintiff could no longer tell the difference between Internet pornography and tangible intercourse due to the content he accessed through the Apple products, which failed to provide him with warnings of the dangers of online pornography whatsoever."
Sevier compared pornography to handguns and cigarettes, products that are subject to regulation. He posited that Apple has an obligation to protect its users, and at a minimum to give them written warnings about Internet porn.
As I've written and as addiction treatment specialist Stanton Peele discussed on my show last night, substances themselves are not "addictive"; it's people's use of the substances as an escape from life.
From one of my columns -- from an upset wife about her husband who'd turned into a pothead and was secretly videotaping women's butts:
Your husband -- let's call him "the old bong and chain" -- is an addict. You may not think of him that way, because he probably doesn't have a physical dependence on weed or running around town making butt-umentaries (say, in the way I have a physical dependence on break-a-tooth-black coffee). Probably what he has is a psychological addiction to checking out (instead of engaging emotionally), and he's using these habits as transportation to get there.To explain that further, an addiction treatment specialist I respect, Dr. Stanton Peele, in "7 Tools to Beat Addiction," writes, "When people turn to an experience, any experience, for solace to the exclusion of meaningful involvements in the rest of their lives, they are engaged in an addiction." Another addiction therapist I respect, Dr. Frederick Woolverton, in "Unhooked," explains that what all addictions have in common is a longing to avoid "legitimate suffering" -- difficult emotions that are a normal part of being alive.
So, no, your husband's saying no to butt cheeks and "only sometimes" to pot probably isn't enough. These are just his preferred forms of checking out. To avoid simply replacing them with new forms, he needs to recognize that he's been using them to duck feeling his feelings -- maybe just in your marriage but maybe in other parts of his life, too. He also needs to commit to changing this, but not because you're hassling him and it would be an even bigger hassle to get dumped by you. (Change is especially tough for the emotion-averse.) He needs to come to the conclusion that it's worth it to tough it out and feel so he can connect with you on more than the pothead's deep philosophical questions, "What does paisley sound like?" and "Are we out of Funyuns?"
Science writer Maia Szalavitz calls addiction a "learning disorder":
What this means is that addiction isn't simply a response to a drug or an experience--it is a learned pattern of behavior that involves the use of soothing or pleasant activities for a purpose like coping with stress. This is why simple exposure to a drug cannot cause addiction: The exposure must occur in a context where the person finds the experience pleasant and/or useful and must be deliberately repeated until the brain shifts its processing of the experience from deliberate and intentional to automatic and habitual.This is also why pain patients cannot be "made addicted" by their doctors. In order to develop an addiction, you have to repeatedly take the drug for emotional relief to the point where it feels as though you can't live without it. That doesn't happen when you take a drug as prescribed in a regular pattern--it can only happen when you start taking doses early or take extra when you feel a need to deal with issues other than pain. Until your brain learns that the drug is critical to your emotional stability, addiction cannot be established and this learning starts with voluntary choices. To put it bluntly, if I kidnap you, tie you down and shoot you up with heroin for two months, I can create physical dependence and withdrawal symptoms--but only if you go out and cop after I free you will you actually become an addict.
Again, this doesn't mean that people who voluntarily make those choices don't have biological, genetic or environmental reasons that make them more vulnerable and perhaps less culpable--but it does mean that addiction can't happen without your own will becoming involved. It also means that babies can't be "born addicted." Even if they suffer withdrawal after being exposed in utero, they haven't engaged in the crucial learning pattern that shows them that the drug equals relief and they can hardly go out and seek more despite negative consequences.
Addiction--whether to sex, drugs or rock & roll--is a disorder of learning. It's not a disorder of hedonism or selfishness and it's not a sign of "character defects." This learning, of course, involves the brain--but because learning is involved, cultural, social and environmental factors are critical in shaping it.
If we want to get beyond "Is Sex Addictive?" and "Crack vs. Junk Food: Which Is Worse?" we've got to recognize that we've been asking the wrong questions. The real issue is what purpose does addictive behavior serve and how can it be replaced with more productive and healthy pursuits--not how can we stop the demon drug or activity of the month. We've been doing the equivalent of trying to treat obsessive-compulsive disorder by banning hand sanitizer when what we really need to understand is why and how obsessions and compulsions develop in particular people.
My show with Stanton from last weekend:
Dr. Stanton Peele on overcoming an addiction with values and self-determination.
Apple link via "Honest Courtesan" Maggie MacNeill, who recently published a book of her short stories, Ladies of the Night: Short Stories By Maggie McNeill
"Mission Accomplished!"
That was the message behind George Bush on May 1, 2003, a few months after the Iraq invasion began.
Remember "no nation-building"? Well, in a way, he's kept that promise, as the place has gone all to shit. No, no picnic in Iraq under Saddam, but at least he kept the lid on the religious nutters -- the cause of the increased instability in the area.
Now, Al Arabiya News reports:
Iraq was home to an estimated 1 million Christians before the 2003 U.S.-led invasion that ousted former President Saddam Hussein. Since then, militants have frequently targeted Christians across the country, bombing their churches and killing clergymen. Under such pressures, many Christians have left the country. Church officials now put the community at around 450,000.
The latest, from the Al Arabiya piece: ISIS has just burned down an 1,800-year-old church in Mosul.
church news via @adamkissel
Lurky
Sneaky links.
Fed Ex Is A Delivery Service, Not A Package Contents Assessment Service
Fed Ex -- admirably and correctly -- refused to pay the government off like UPS did (to the tune of $40 million) for delivering packages of drugs from Internet pharmacies. The government has now indicted Fed Ex for refusing to capitulate.
Per Mike Masnick at Techdirt, the government is trying to spin stories into evidence that Fed Ex "knew" what was in those packages.
Scott Greenfield writes at SimpleJustice:
Maybe it did. Maybe it didn't. So what? FedEx is in the business of delivering packages. There is no crime in that. It is not in the business of accessing the lawfulness of the contents of the packages it delivers. And this is what pissed the government off.FedEx is fighting these claims pretty aggressively, insisting that it's crazy to make it responsible for what's in the packages:"We are a transportation company -- we are not law enforcement."
An additional note from Masnick:
The company notes that it has long asked the DOJ to provide it with a list of online pharmacies that it shouldn't do business with, so that it didn't have to just guess. The government did not provide the list, and seems to think that FedEx must be psychic (and should know what's in all packages and whether or not they're illegal.
This is so important that Fed Ex is standing up to the government on this. As I've said about people who stand up for their own civil liberties, they end up standing up for the civil liberties of all of us. And this also goes -- and especially goes -- for lawyers like Marc Randazza and Ken White (@Popehat), who take cases of those of us who stand up against the near-constant erosion of our civil liberties these days.
More from Scott's post:
The secondary market offers a terrible way to fight crime, where government pressure forces companies engaged in lawful commerce to risk their fortunes on the legality of their customers, and become liable for not investigating and condemning anything with a whiff of impropriety at their own criminal risk.There are a list of businesses the government squeezes to shut down those it can't get legitimately. Credit card companies are pressured to refuse payments to companies the government hates. Banks are pressured to refuse their deposits. Now delivery companies are pressured to refuse to deliver their goods.
Note that the primary means of attack, indict and prosecute the party who is alleged to be engaging in criminal conduct is no longer necessary, if they can be shut down via more compliant sources. This saves the government from having to prove they committed a crime, and instead allows the government to strangle any business it pleases through secondary means.
So do you want FedEx deciding whether the contents of your parcel are worthy of their risk to deliver it? Do you want the government shutting down businesses, perhaps industries, they decide are evil, or maybe just don't like very much, by putting the squeeze on secondary providers to terminate their relationships and services?
Charlotte Allen: "An Etiquette Guide for the Imperfect Among Us"
Charlotte Allen, who's a friend and a truly smart and insightful writer I have a lot of respect for, posted a wonderful review of my book in The Weekly Standard. Here's the beginning:
Amy Alkon, Los Angeles-based syndicated advice columnist ("Advice Goddess") and author of Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck (St. Martin's Griffin), is a friend of mine, so this is a plug, not a review. But even if this were a review because I didn't know Amy, it would read like a plug anyway. Her previous manners book, I See Rude People (2009), got rave blurbs from Elmore Leonard and Harold Bloom. I'm not in the same league as either of those, but I can say without reservation that Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck is hilarious, consistently entertaining, and, above all, wise. It's Emily Post as a beach read.Unlike Post, though, Amy doesn't pretend to know, much less dispense advice about, the finer points of formal etiquette. In her opening chapter, titled "I Don't Care Where You Put the Fork (as long as you don't stab anybody in the eye with it)," she confesses: "I do have a grasp on certain table manner basics, like that you shouldn't lick your plate clean unless there's a power outage or you're dining with the blind, but I'm basically as domestic as a golden retriever." But as she points out: "What really matters isn't how you set the table or serve the turkey but whether you're nice to people while you're doing it." Her book, she writes, is "for people like me, who are well-meaning but imperfect...who sometimes swear (and maybe even enjoy it) but take care not to do it around anybody's great-aunt or four-year-old"...
If you haven't bought my book already, please consider buying it (only $9.48 at Amazon!). Orders of the book (new copies, that is) help support my writing. I'm now working on my next book and continuing the solid sales of this book will help me sell the next one.
A quote from it -- from my Pinterest page of mostly funny quotes from the book, which I'm continuing to post: 
Six Years Of Decriminalized "Indoor" Prostitution
That's what went on in Rhode Island, through a loophole in the law. And what happened during that time? The incidence of forcible rape and gonorrhea steeply declined, writes Adrianna McIntyre on Vox:
"Indoor" prostitution refers to sex work that takes place through massage parlors, escort agencies, and most of the online market, compared to outdoor street-based prostitution.The authors found evidence that, after decriminaliztion, the size of the indoor sex market increased -- as expected -- and prices commensurately fell.
More surprising was the finding that forcible rape offenses fell by 31 percent in Rhode Island from 2004 to 2009, as decriminalized indoor sex work scaled up in the state. This translates to 824 fewer reported rapes. The majority of the reduction in rapes came from Providence, where the state's sex work is concentrated.
No other crimes -- robbery, murder, assault, burglary, or motor vehicle theft -- experienced a sharp decline after 2003 like rape did. This suggests that the decline was not associated with an increase in policing, because had that been the case, we would expect rates to fall for other types of criminal activity.
Using CDC data, the authors were able to determine that cases of female gonorrhea fell by 39 percent over the same time period. The sexually transmitted disease disproportionately affects prostitutes -- 23% of women who engage in sex work report ever contracting gonorrhea, compared to 5% of the general female population.
The reduction in gonorrhea among men was less significant, which may be due in part to the science of STDs -- a woman who has sex with an infected man faces a 60 to 80 percent risk of contracting gonorrhea while the female-to-male transmission rate is only about 20 percent.
The authors aren't sure why this happened. They offer some hypotheses. For example:
Decriminalizing indoor prostitution could improve the bargaining position of female sex workers relative to clients, leading to lower rates of victimization. Research from the late 1990s found that indoor sex workers are victimized considerably less than outdoor street walkers. The legal quirk in Rhode Island only applied to indoor sex work, which could have resulted in some prostitutes abandoning outdoor business for its decriminalized -- and safer -- counterpart.
What I am sure of is that your body belongs to you, and the government has no business prosecuting consenting adults who choose to exchange money for services, unless they are putting a hit out on someone or otherwise hurting a non-consenting person.
Back To The Basement -- And Ages Past
I couldn't wait to leave my parents' home -- first for college and then to have my own place and my own life. Well, this is happening less and less, writes Walter Hamilton in the LA Times, thanks to a sluggish job market and other factors:
More Americans than ever live in multigenerational households, and the number of millennials who live with their parents is rising sharply, according to a study released Thursday.A record 57 million Americans, or 18.1% of the population, lived in multigenerational arrangements in 2012, according to the Pew Research Center. That's more than double the 28 million people who lived in such households in 1980, the center said.
...About 23.6% of people age 25 to 34 live with their parents, grandparents or both, according to Pew. That's up from 18.7% in 2007, just prior to the global financial crisis, and from 11% in 1980.
For the first time, a larger share of young people live in multigenerational arrangements than of Americans 85 and older.
Beyond the "sluggish job market," why else are people moving back in with mom and dad -- or never leaving?
What effect does it have on kids' independence, on their parents' lives?
Tales from the front, please.
Link Or Dare
Truth?
"Why Are We Arresting Parents For Things That Were Perfectly Normal 30 Years Ago?"
Megan McArdle asks that question at Bloomberg -- related to how parents are being arrested for leaving, no, not just infants, but 11-year-olds in cars while they shop. I was left in the car all the time while my mother shopped -- with my two younger sisters -- so my mother wouldn't have to drag three annoying kids into the store with her. I'm sure other shoppers were grateful, or would have been, had they known.
The stats say what's really dangerous to your child -- no, not letting him or her go to the park alone (as I was allowed) or walking to school alone:
You know what's really dangerous to your child? Getting in a car. It's the leading cause of death among kids ages 5 to 14, followed by cancer and drowning. Stranger abductions are way, way, way down on the list. Yet at the same time we've been tethering our children to our knees in an effort to make sure nothing bad ever happens, we've actually slightly increased the number of vehicle miles they travel. Why aren't the cops on that?You can argue that driving is necessary, but it seems to me that raising independent children is also necessary. Arresting parents who allow any child younger than a college freshman to spend time alone amounts to a legal mandate to keep kids timid and tethered. This should not be an object of public policy.
What is truly bizarre is that the cops cuffing these women were most likely raised with exactly the freedom they are now punishing. Do they think their parents should have been put in jail? Or have the intervening years rendered tweens unable to figure out how the car doors work?
I'm not saying that parents should take their toddlers into the wilderness and leave them there to hike their way out. What I can't understand is how our society has lost the ability to distinguish between that and letting your pre-teen hang out in the car for a half-hour or spend some time in a nearby park. As Jessica Grose says, if this had been illegal in 1972, every single mother in America would have been in jail. Yet millions upon millions of us lived to tell the tale.
Ocala, Florida: Major Fashion Emergency Dealt With By City Council
Along with natural disasters like hurricanes and home-invasion robberies, the terror of excessively low-slung pants has struck Ocala, Florida.
The fearless (and shameless) City Council has come to the rescue -- voting unanimously to ban anyone on city property from wearing pants two inches below their natural waist.
From wesh.com:
The sagging pants ordinance is enforceable on city-owned or leased property, including sidewalks, streets, parks, sports, recreation and public transportation facilities and parking lots.It is punishable by jail time and a $500 fine.
More here.
And saggy pants hurt people who aren't wearing them (and tripping and cracking their heads open or looking really dorkus) how?
Also, I'm obviously no lawyer, but this would seem to be a First Amendment violation. If you can wear (per Cohen v. California) a "fuck the draft" coat (and yay to the Supremes on that), why can't you express your desire to fit in with people who dress like total idiots by walking around with your pants partially down? If they aren't so far down that you're exposing zipperwurst to the ladies, well...again...why is that anyone's business but yours?
via @Heminator
When A Cop Is A Criminal With A Badge
This cop, Aaron "AJ" Huntsman, a 19-year veteran of the state police, stole a dying motorist's big gold crucifix. He pleaded guilty Wednesday to two felonies --third-degree larceny and tampering with evidence. Daniel Tepfer writes at CTNews:
Scalesse [first name not given in the piece], a former executive of the JAS Masonry in Milford, was killed Sept. 22, 2012 after his motorcycle crashed into a construction company truck on the northbound section of Exit 44 on the Merritt Parkway in Fairfield.Huntsman, who was the first trooper at the crash scene, walked over to where Scalesse lay, bent down and picked up Scalesse's gold chain from a pool of blood, according to the arrest warrant affidavit. He then took a roll of bills - $3,700 - that had been in Scalesse's pocket. Later, Huntsman told Scalesse's grieving father that he didn't see any money on the victim, the affidavit states.
The cash was later found held with a rubber band under the front seat of Huntsman's cruiser. State Police said Huntsman has maintained his innocence even after he was shown a video of him taking the money that was captured on the dash camera of his own police car.
If there's one thing I've learned in the past 15 years, it's to be disappointed by the police.
As I write in "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck," no, they won't solve your small crime -- your car theft, your bike theft, your identity theft; and they won't figure out who broke into your house. These crime reports get taken and shoved into folders, often never to be seen again.
There are exceptions out there, but in my neighborhood, most -- including high-ranking officers -- barely understand some of the laws (beyond those dealing with major violent crimes) and certainly can't be bothered enforcing them.
If you think some cop is going to solve your crime, consider believing in the tooth fairy instead. The tooth fairy came through for me a number of times, and I've heard that from other people, too.
via @radleybalko
Ilya
Kuryakin, of course. Linkus Russianikus.
Welcome To Los Angeles, The Town Where They Fix Streets That Aren't Broken
There have been public works guys on part of the street I live on all this week. I thought maybe they were working on the sewers or the power (which goes out when the sky, no, not storms but sneezes lightly). (I'm from the Detroit suburbs, where the lights stay on most of the time, even when there's actual weather.)
They're repaving a stretch of street. I didn't think about this until my neighbor said something to me, but although the street wasn't newly paved -- and was probably paved last a few decades ago -- it's not a street that gets a ton of traffic, especially because it's one-way. And most important, it didn't need repaving. Not one pothole on it, that I can recall (and I take it with some frequency to get home, because I live just on the other side of the "one way" sign).
My neighborhood has gotten gentrified fast in the past five years. I'm wondering if the increasing presence of wealthy people in multi-million-dollar homes led to the upgrade -- when there are places in LA where my tiny car (a 2004 Honda Insight) could disappear into a pothole and never be seen again. (Pico Boulevard, for example, in West LA, where I'm pretty sure my car was damaged to the tune of a few hundred dollars in wheel misalignment.)
I could be wrong in my speculation, but with how short on money Los Angeles is, it's odd that the city is running around fixing things that aren't actually broken.
The War On Kids
Local cops are rewarded for the sheer numbers of people they pick up in drug arrests. One of these people was an autistic, bipolar kid, Jesse Snodgrass. He was befriended by an undercover cop, who eventually persuaded him to buy a half joint from a homeless man and give it to him.
The video is 24 minutes long, but even the first three minutes are worth watching.
His dad said he thought Jesse just bought the pot because he thought he needed to or he'd lose his friend -- his only friend.
Deputy Daniel Zipperstein of the Riverside County Sheriff's Department, who busted Jesse, is a predator under cover of the law, acting out of careerist self-interest. Vile.
All in all, 22 kids were arrested as part of this drug sting. Nine of them were considered "special needs" kids.
The Thick Blue Line
The man who videotaped the CHP officer beating a woman on the highway says the CHP is trying to discredit him. That man, David Diaz, talked with host Dominique DiPrima on KJLH-FM's Front Page:
2. On why Diaz didn't give the video to the police right away."Giving it to authorities, we don't do that here. We don't do that in L.A., to give it to authorities. Those were the authorities."
"It's funny because people say why didn't you call the cops. That was the cops! And everyone's a tough guy, they go oh- you should have intervened. Like yeah, so the other guy-so the other cop that comes in at the later end, so he can shoot me? Like c'mon, people need to be realistic."
3. On the CHP trying to discredit him.
"The CHP has come to my house to take statements. So they have questioned me. They've tried to discredit me and they've tried to poke holes in my story. So that's happened. And they are one of the people that have questioned why I didn't help out and why I didn't call 911 and why I didn't stick around to assist her into the hospital if I felt so concerned. They tried to poke holes at me to discredit me for sure."
It's a detective's job to look for holes in a story -- but I would say the videotape of the beating is looking pretty hole-proof.
via @edpadgett
They Didn't So Much Ban The Death Penalty In CA As They DId Protest It Taking So Damn Long To Kill People
Scott Shackford writes for reason:
California's system of justice is slow. It truly is. I've seen it take ages for some basic court cases to get anywhere. For complicated cases, well, when I was a small newspaper editor, I can recall one murder case ultimately being covered by four different reporters at various points due to staff turnover over the years.So today's U.S. district court ruling declaring California's death penalty to be unconstitutional because it's too slow makes a certain sense, but it does read oddly at first, doesn't it? The case revolves around Ernest Dewayne Jones, who has been on death row since 1995, but obviously is not dead. The judge notes that Jones is not alone:
Since 1978, when the current death penalty system was adopted by California voters, over 900 people have been sentenced to death for their crimes. Of them, only 13 have been executed. For the rest, the dysfunctional administration of California's death penalty system has resulted, and will continue to result, in an inordinate and unpredictable period of delay preceding their actual execution. Indeed, for most, systemic delay has made their execution so unlikely that the death sentence carefully and deliberately imposed by the jury has been quietly transformed into one no rational jury or legislature could ever impose: life in prison, with the remote possibility of death. As for the random few for whom execution does become a reality, they will have languished for so long on Death Row that their execution will serve no retributive or deterrent purpose and will be arbitrary.As such, U.S. District Court Judge Cormac J. Carney has ruled that the sentence is a violation of Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and has ordered it vacated.
...And also, before anti-death-penalty advocates celebrate, this ruling is about the process, not the outcome. It is not a judgment against the use of the death penalty. It is a judgment against California's broken system and its inability to apply it fairly and consistently. Of course, given California's inability to fix anything about any of its broken systems of governance, it may end up ultimately killing the death penalty off anyway (such as it is--executions have been on hold for years over concerns about the state's lethal injection system).
Ursula?
Nyet, linkula.
Terminal Cancer Patient To Be Imprisoned For Pot He Grew To Alleviate Symptoms
It is an outrageous violation of human rights for the government to tell people what plants they can grow and ingest and to lock people up in cages when they violate the government's order on this. And this goes especially for a terminal cancer patient.
Yet, a terminal cancer patient will soon be packed off to prison, writes Matt Ferner at HuffPo, after being found guilty of drug charges for marijuana he said he grew to deal with his illness:
Benton Mackenzie, 48, was convicted in Iowa district court jury of marijuana manufacturing and conspiracy, along with his wife, Loretta, 43, the Quad-City Times' Brian Wellner first reported. Their son Cody, 22, was found guilty of misdemeanor possession of marijuana and paraphernalia.Benton Mackenzie, who had been barred by Judge Henry Latham from a defense that explains he grew cannabis to relieve his aggressive and rare cancer of the blood vessels, faces a minimum of three years in prison when he is sentenced later. His family said they intend to appeal the verdicts. Mackenzie said prison may kill him as his health worsens.
On Monday, Mackenzie was rushed out of Scott County District Court to a hospital after complaining of extreme pain and hallucinations. He suffers from severe angiosarcoma, a rare and aggressive form of cancer of the blood vessels that produces large skin lesions. His family said he was treated for anemia and other symptoms overnight, Quad City Times reported.
The trial, which began in May, resumed Tuesday. Mackenzie was in court on Tuesday wrapped in a blanket, still wearing his hospital identification bracelet.
But he was unable to tell jurors his reason for growing 71 marijuana plants local authorities seized in 2013 during a raid of his parents' home in Long Grove, Iowa. Mackenzie said he grew the plants to to make canabidiol, or CBD, a non-psychoactive compound in cannabis, to treat his tumors.
The judge ruled in May that Mackenzie couldn't use his medical condition as a defense. Mackenzie said he was threatened with jail if he talked about his health in court.
Mackenzie on Tuesday filed a motion arguing that a law that Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad (R) signed in May that legalizes the use of CBD oil to treat epilepsy should protect his use of the oil. The new law, however, focuses narrowly on treatment for "intractable epilepsy" and does not apply to Mackenzie, Latham ruled.
"The change in law benefits only a small group of Iowans with the most organized lobbying efforts," Des Moines Register editorial board wrote over the weekend. "Other sick Iowans should have legal access to marijuana extracts, too. These include people with painful and debilitating conditions like cancer, spinal cord injuries and severe arthritis, who may benefit from the drug. But if these people obtain cannabis oil, they will still be considered criminals in this state."
via @radleybalko @Mark_J_Perry
Woman Gets Man Arrested For Bad Attitude
From Fark, an AP story says a Connecticut man, 49, was arrested and arraigned on charges of threatening and disorderly conduct after a woman told police -- yes -- that he stabbed a watermelon with a knife in a passive-aggressive manner.
More here.
On the surface, this seems funny, but it should be scary to anyone who cares about civil liberties that we are now locking people up in cages over an interpretation of what their watermelon slicing supposedly really means.
We Don't Shove Boys Into Being Kindergarten Teachers
Mary Kenny writes in the Telegraph/UK that if a girl isn't interested in science, we shouldn't try to force her to be:
Yes, equality of opportunity and openness of choice should be available to all. Young girls certainly should be encouraged to study science and maths, which are rewarding as topics and useful to them in a world brimming with scientific applications. But Dr Stoet has a valid point in saying that we should let young people follow their own natural interests and talents. If they're interested in science, good. If they're not, don't force them.I also think he's probably right in suggesting that females, as a whole, are not hugely engaged by science. The problem with science is that, for all its wonders, it lacks narrative and story-line. Science (and maths) is about facts, and the laboratory testing of elements. It is not primarily about people. Women - broadly speaking - are drawn to the human factor: to story, biography, psychology and language.
This is a generalisation, but it is usually borne out by the market (evidence being a scientific form of measurement). Females are the majority consumers of novels and stories, of people-based magazines and of soap operas, from Coronation Street to Downton Abbey. Men are the main consumers of publications about gadgets, gizmos and computers.
I see plenty of narrative in science, but especially the biological sciences.
The line of science where women are most scarce is in the hard sciences. Frankly, anglo Americans seem to be growing scarcer in this area all the time. Should we push more anglo Americans to become engineers? Or should we just see that we teach science well -- according to the science on how we learn -- and let the chips fall where they may?
Linkety-Split
Faster than my doglet on a piece of dropped bacon.
Flower-Thieving Scumbag
Monday evening, I was just coming back from walking my dogmorsel when I was amazed by when I saw from down my street.
African-American woman -- thin, pretty, maybe about 30 -- toddler daughter strapped into car seat in the back of her car, stops on wrong side of the street (against traffic), runs across street, picks (in other words, STEALS) my flowers.
No lady, because the flowers are not padlocked down, it doesn't mean you get to take them.
And what a lovely example to set for the kid in the car, who heard me yelling, "Thief! You stole my flowers!" as the woman ran to her car, jumped in and drove off.
Note that the car -- a Volkswagon Sports Coupe, $32,495 and up -- looks brand new. 
A pity the woman didn't use birth control.
Oh, and the best was, the flowers she took really aren't flowers but bougainvillea, which lives all of 12 seconds after it's picked.
The Rain In 'Mansplain'...
Guy friend to nitwit:
"I'm not 'mansplaining' -- I'm just a condescending dick."
Don't Buy Into People's Attacks On You
It's a bit like reclaiming the word bitch when you're called a bitch
Love this girl's response to graffiti -- "Carleigh's Ass" -- about her:
As Marc Randazza posted on Facebook: "I don't see what's wrong with her ass in the first place." And after another commenter pointed out the push for girls to be skinny, he wrote -- love this -- "A little chunk in the trunk never hurt anyone."
It isn't what's wrong so much as it is an attempt to bring her down.
I write about this in "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck,", in a section, Fighting ugly with pity: An all-purpose comeback for cutting remarks. An excerpt:
Sure, when you're loose from a few beers, maybe your wit will sometimes come through for you, but it's safest to assume that it will instead scurry off and hide behind a large piece of furniture. In other words, you should dispense with the notion that a winning reply to a rude remark involves a response so witty that it incinerates the rudester right where they're standing. Rather, keep in mind that there's a reason somebody is being so ugly and cutting. Happy people tend to be kind or, at least, uninterested in tearing other people down. Miserable people often want to lash out at the world--and there you are, so conveniently located as a target for their hate.When one of these spitebags hurls a put-down at you, they expect that you'll either try to fight back or just stand there blinking and wishing you could disappear. Instead, you should do the last thing they'd expect: Look straight at them for a moment, and coolly call them on their rottenness with a remark like "Clearly, you must have had a pretty bad day to feel the need to say something so nasty to me. I hope you feel better." (Sincerity is not required here--just believability--so say it devoid of anger, and sound like you mean it.) By expressing sympathy for them, you've accomplished three things:
1. You've refused to accept their turning you into their victim.2. You've come off classy and bigger than they are.
3. You still managed to stick it to them, sending the message, "Sorry your life is such a suckhole that your lone path to happiness is trying to make other people feel like shit."
Carleigh vid via Marc Randazza
Protecting College Students From Real Life
Virginia Postrel writes at Bloomberg about the disturbing trend by colleges to restrict free speech to a "free speech zone":
Speech-zone rules require students to ask permission to do such things as hand out leaflets, collect petition signatures, or give speeches; demand that students apply days or weeks in advance; and corral their activities in tiny areas of the campus, often away from the main pathways and quads. The rules aren't about noise or crowds. They aren't about disrupting classes. They're about what you can do in public outdoor areas, and they apply even to just one or two people engaged in unobtrusive activities. They significantly infringe on students' constitutionally protected speech....Contrary to what many people seem to think, higher education doesn't exist to hand out job credentials to everyone who follows a clearly outlined set of rules. (Will this be on the exam? Do I have to come to class?) Education isn't a matter of sitting students down and dumping pre-digested information into their heads.
Higher education exists to advance and transmit knowledge, and learning requires disagreement and argument. Even the most vocational curriculum -- accounting, physical therapy, civil engineering, graphic design -- represents knowledge accumulated through trial and error, experimentation and criticism. That open-ended process isn't easy and it often isn't comfortable. The idea that students should be protected from disagreeable ideas is a profoundly anti-educational concept.
As for the claim that free expression is "distracting," that's true. Learning to deal with such distractions -- whether by engaging or ignoring them -- is a big part of learning how to function as a responsible adult in a free and media-rich society. The irony of the shopping mall model is that shoppers know perfectly well how to do this. Walking through a mall, we negotiate all sorts of advertising signs and sample peddlers without a problem. Surely college students can do the same with sales pitches for ideas.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, theFIRE.org, fights the free speech violations by colleges, hoping to make it too expensive for them to try to curtail students' civil liberties.
Linkle
Please don't forget to wipe the seat.
Bastille Day Dimwit
That would be me. Historically speaking.
It's Policy Except When It Suddenly Isn't
Voice of reason Walter Moore wrote on Facebook:
RETURN RUNAWAY CHILDREN TO THEIR PARENTS RIGHT AWAY. Isn't that what we do here in America? So why are we holding foreign runaway kids hostage here in America, rather than repatriating them with their parents immediately? They don't need more lawyers and hearing dates, they need a ride back to mom and dad.
Criminals Be Stupid
As Elmore Leonard used to say, "Criminals are dumb."
I just love the spelling in this. Don't miss "sinserely" with the period that wandered off shortly afterward.
I can't imagine many (or any) people fall for these anymore, but if any were going to, I think the spelling may help those who are merely naive and not illiterate. 
You Hear Somebody Busting Into Your Home In The Middle Of The Night...
Do you think, "Oh, it must just be the cops," and stay in bed and wait for them to come give you instructions?
Or, do you do the natural thing -- assume you're the victim of a home invasion and, if you have a gun, shoot at the person or persons entering?
Cop after cop has been killed in "no-knock" raids -- but the people who have shot them, defending their homes and not knowing it was a cop at the door due to the lack of any announcement of such, are in jail or dead.
Radley Balko writes about the tragic circumstances of some of these raids for both homeowners and police in a terrific February 10 piece in the WaPo:
Last December 19th, nine of the 10 members of the Burleson County Sheriff's Department staged a raid on the rural home of Henry Magee. An informant had told Deputy Adam Sowders that Magee was running a major marijuana grow. They'd find 12-14 plants, all over six fee tall, the informant said. Magee also had, according to the informant, a vicious dog and several guns, one of which had been stolen from the Burleson County Sheriff's Department.By the time the raid was over, Deputy Adam Sowder was dead. Magee shot him as Sowder and his fellow deputies attempted to force their way into Magee's home. Magee was arrested and charged with capital murder -- the knowing and intentional killing of a police officer.
A subsequent search of Magee's home by the Texas Rangers didn't turn up any six foot pot plants. According to Dick DeGuerin, the well-known criminal defense attorney who took Magee's case shortly after the raid, the police found two plants about six inches tall, less than an ounce of dried marijuana, and several seedlings. According to DeGuerin, Magee had four guns in his home, all of them legal, three of which were locked in a safe at the time of the raid. They also didn't find the gun the informant claimed Magee had stolen. DeGuerrin says Magee's allegedly vicious dog barked, but never attacked, even when the officers had Magee cuffed and on the ground.
Citizens on a grand jury just refused to indict Magee, writes law prof Jonathan Turley. He also explains the abusive use of these "no-knock" raids -- especially in drug cases:
Magistrate and judges appear to give little thought to approving such warrants despite a ruling earlier by the Supreme Court limiting their use. Police now routinely ask and receive warrants that waive the constitutional requirement to "knock and announcement." Not only is this requirement codified in the U.S. Code, but it is viewed as a factor in determining if a search or seizure is reasonable under the fourth amendment. In 1995, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Wilson v. Arkansas that the requirement was indeed part of the constitutional test and in Richards v. Wisconsin the Court later rejected categorical waivers for "knock and announcement" for cases like drug investigations. Police must show on a case-by-case basis that they have reasonable suspicion of exigent circumstances.In this case, the police were after alleged marijuana plants that an informant said he was growing. The warrant then added a claim of possible "illegal guns." The police found the marijuana but all of his guns were legal. A major complaint is that police routinely add language about the possibility of unlawful weapons to secure these "no knocks."
The prosecutors tried to secure an indictment for capital murder charges and had bail set at $1 million.
Once again, there has been little attention to the increasing no knock warrants that have grown in tandem with the militarization of our police forces. The result is not just a chilling effect for citizens but increasing mistaken shootings. In this case, an officer is dead and the prosecutors wanted to send away a father for life -- for a raid to secure a few marijuana plants.
Here's another from Balko's piece:
In December 2001, police in Prentiss, Mississippi broke into the home of Cory Maye at 12:30 am. Maye, his young daughter, and his girlfriend lived in one half of a duplex. The other side was occupied by Jamie Smith, a known drug dealer. When Maye's back door flew open, he fired three shots at the first figure to enter his apartment. One bullet struck and killed Officer Ron Jones. Maye had no prior criminal record. The police, in searching the house, found only a roach. Maye was tried and convicted of capital murder, and sentenced to death. His conviction was thrown out in 2010. In 2011, after he'd served 10 years in prison, prosecutors allowed him to plead guilty to the lesser charge of manslaughter, and released him from prison. The tip in Maye's case came from a racist, admitted drug addict named Randy Gentry, and by Maye's attorneys' account, implicated only Jamie Smith.
This could be you. Just hope nobody on a drug raid gets the address wrong -- which happens with some frequency.
Balko's book: Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces
Good Manners On Satellite Sisters Radio: WordWrite Festival
I met Lian Dolan at LA Times Festival of Books, when she was one of the authors on a panel I moderated, talking about her very funny and fabulously titled book, Helen of Pasadena
Lian is one of radio's "The Satellite Sisters," and she just interviewed me on their show, answering manners questions and discussing modern manners and my new book, "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck."
Here's the blog post from Satellite Sisters.
Here is a link to listen online. And here is the direct download link.
Cultural Appropriation Is Appreciation, Not Racism
We just saw a play, "Dates & Nuts," at the Bootleg Theatre, by talented "Justified" writer Gary Lennon. My favorite character in it was Patrick, a black drag queen who called himself "Mary Tyler Perry." I loved him because he was both so funny and so real -- reminding me of the drag queens I used to see on my way home to Tribeca on the far West Side of New York City, who would rate my outfit as I passed.
I also love the way some black women talk -- as well as the speech of some Southerners, Texans, Italians, the French, and people from Dakar, Senegal. For example, there was this Senegalese guy, Joseph, I talked to on the street for quite a while a few weeks back, who called me "Mama" in this soft, beautiful French-African accent. I keep repeating the musical way he said that in my head.
I once heard Gregg ordering something from Wendy's drive-through while he was in Detroit and talking to me on the phone, and the woman in the window -- a black woman -- called him "Baby" in that very sexy way only black women can.
I can see why people would want to appropriate that, same as people sometimes talk in a put-on French accent or a put-on Southern accent. (When I talked to Southern woman Elizabeth Coulter for "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck" I loved hearing her accent, and joked that if I could talk that way, I could probably charm rude people into behaving better.)
The same goes for behavioral elements of black -- or other -- culture.
Personally, I find black women (and I'm speaking generally, of course) to be strong, self-possessed, and not as prissy as women of other races. Also, they seem more likely to be comfortable in their own skin if they aren't exactly skinny.
Apparently, that's some terrible racist thinking -- even though I don't mimic black women (or really anyone), but probably just because I'm the world's suckiest mimic and actress.
About the supposed racism, J. Bryan Lowder writes on Slate of this recent accusation (by a college student -- black, female, writing for her college paper) that gay men are "stealing" black female culture:
There is nothing wrong with this argument, as far as it goes. Gay white men like myself are indeed not black women, and for us to "claim either blackness or womanhood" would be strange, if not outright offensive. On that limited point, I join with Mannie in bemoaning the type of white queen who struts around in a kind of performative blackface, claiming to hold a "strong black woman" captive inside himself and invoking other Tyler Perry-like caricatures with oblivious glee. This kind of behavior, I think it goes without saying, is racist.
Why would this indicate race hatred?
Count Linkula
Next to Count Chocula, which we were never allowed to have.
Advice Goddess Radio, LIVE Tonight, 7-8 pm PT: Dr. Stanton Peele On Overcoming An Addiction With Values And Self-Determination
Amy Alkon's Advice Goddess Radio: "Nerd Your Way To A Better Life!" with the best brains in science.
Stanton Peele points out that most people recover from addictions on their own -- without AA or rehab, and what makes the difference is values, not biology.
On tonight's show, he'll debunk many of the myths in addiction treatment -- especially the notion that addiction is a "disease" people are powerless to overcome. That defeatest message is especially counterproductive to overcoming addiction, and it's been supported with bad science and hearsay.
Join us tonight to hear what solid science says about how addiction or bad habits can be overcome -- to the point where people are not just going cold-turkey off some substance or behavior till their next relapse, but where they develop meaningful ways of coping that no longer have them turning to their old crutch.
Peele's book we'll be discussing is Recover! Stop Thinking Like an Addict and Reclaim Your Life with The PERFECT Program.
Listen at this link at 7-8 p.m. Pacific, 10-11 p.m. Eastern, or download the podcast afterward:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/amyalkon/2014/07/14/dr-stanton-peele-on-overcoming-an-addiction-with-values-and-self-determination
Don't miss last week's show, Dr. Andrea Brandt On How "Mindful Anger" Can Improve Every Area Of Your Life:
Listen at this link or download the podcast:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/amyalkon/2014/07/07/dr-andrea-brandt-on-how-mindful-anger-can-improve-every-area-of-your-life
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.)
Please consider ordering my new book, the science-based and funny "Good Manners For Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck," (only $9.48 at Amazon!). Orders of the book help support my writing and this radio show!
Imagine Ordering, Oh, $300 Worth Of Toys Over The Phone With Mommy's Credit Card
I would probably still be chained to a wall in my parents' basement, had I done something like that.
Well, parents are now all complainy and suing Amazon over their kids making unauthorized purchases on the Kindles that those parents gave their kids.
Here's a concept: Don't give your kid a device until they can handle the responsibility that comes with.
Also: Teach your kids that actions have consequences, as in, "Go ahead and order that $20 book. You'll now be in indentured servitude for the next three months."
The Crime Of Letting An 11-Year-Old Who Wanted To Wait In The Car Wait In The Car
I was babysitting for money at 12. Yes, being paid to watch over and protect other people's children while they were out. And I was very careful and responsible.
Children throughout the ages have worked and cared for their brothers and sisters and others' children. It works like this, at least according to my experience: Give a kid who's mature enough a responsibility and they rise to the occasion.
Well, now an 11-year-old might as well be a 2-year-old. A mom was charged with a crime for letting her daughter, 11, wait in the car. At reason, Lenore Skenazy writes at reason:
A mother in Bristol, Connecticut, was charged with leaving a child unsupervised in a car Wednesday. How old was the helpless tyke?Eleven.
Why was she in the car? She asked her mom if she could stay there.
Was she in danger of boiling to death? According to WFSB:
When officers opened the car doors, they said the child was responsive and not in distress, and that the car was not "excessively hot."In other words, the 11-year-old girl was indisputably fine. Not overheated, not abandoned, not upset--nothing.
So don't just ask why the mom was charged with a crime, ask why is this a crime? Why does the law get to decide how a mom should raise her kids? Why does the law treat a self-sufficient 11 year old as a helpless forsaken baby? Why does the law allow cops to harass tweens and moms just going about their day?
The answer: Our laws leap to the very worst case scenario first--a child could die!--and refuse to make any distinction between an infinitesimal risk and a huge one. Everything is dangerous when it comes to kids. Even a normal wait in a car.
Lily
Petal to the linkie metal.
Choo Sale
Not trains. Choos. For your ladyfeet. Up to 70 percent off. At Amazon
Imaginary Friends And Needles
A David Gorski tweet:
@gorskon Quoth @DrPaulOffit on religious exemptions to vaccination: Your religious beliefs don't give you the right to martyr your children. #TAM2014
"The Chivalry Hypothesis": Why Women Get Sympathy And Men Get Jail Time
Christie Blatchford writes at in the Canadian National Post:
It's called "the chivalry hypothesis," and as Dr. Rob Whitley says, what it suggests is that judges and journalists tend to portray men as villains and women as victims.He's one of the authors of a new McGill University study which looked at how Canadian newspapers describe mental illness and particularly if the chivalry hypothesis holds even when the women are "involved in violence or criminality."
In other words, are articles about mentally ill women different from those about mentally ill men and are the women treated more generously?
After examining 1,168 newspaper articles published over six months, the answer was pretty much a resounding yes, albeit with the usual academic qualifications.
Stories that depicted men with a definitive or alleged mental illness were more "stigmatizing" -- they focused upon crime, danger and violence -- while those about women were "significantly more likely to have recovery as a theme" and to focus upon background information such as mental health interventions.
Blatchford quotes Laura Rowe, "a former member of the Toronto police board and a tough, resilient, ferociously independent feminist" about the notion of women as victims:
Nonsense, said Ms. Rowe: Women are full human beings, and thus fully capable of all the good, and all the bad. Period.
via @judgybitch1
Gay Vet Wants To Be Buried With Her Wife
From an unbylined AP story:
BOISE, Idaho (AP) -- A U.S. Navy veteran filed a civil rights lawsuit Monday after the Idaho State Veterans Cemetery refused to allow her to be buried with the ashes of her late wife.Seventy-four-year-old Madelynn Taylor filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Boise after she tried to make advance arrangements last year to have her ashes interred with Jean Mixner, whom she met on a blind date in 1995 and married in California in 2008 when gay marriage was briefly legal.
Though federal veterans cemeteries allow the spouses of gay veterans to be interred with their loved ones, Taylor said she was surprised to find the Idaho cemetery -- which is owned and operated by the state -- does not.
Taylor's situation is "among the most extreme examples of the harm caused by state laws that deny respect to the marriages of same-sex couples," said Craig Stoll, a senior attorney with the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which is representing Taylor. "Denying these important protections to committed couples is not simply unjust, it is needlessly cruel."
...They chose the veterans cemetery because they knew it would be well maintained and decided on cremation and interment in a wall so their names and spot wouldn't get covered over with weeds or grass.
They wanted to be in Idaho, where their family could come to pay respects.
Appalling that this is how we treat vets -- or anyone. Two people want to be together after they die. You'd think that this would be nobody's concern but theirs.
Via @Drudge
Advice Goddess Free Swim
It's Friday night, and I'm sleepy. You pick the topics. I'll post more on Saturday morning.
P.S. One link per comment or my spam filter will eat your post.
Why She's Giving Up Going To Live Shows
It's the rampant rudeness.
Barbara Fletcher, in a smart piece for Ozy, explains why her love of live entertainment has been dampened by all the rudeness she experiences from other attendees -- and also interviews me for my take:
I just can't stand the audience. The excessive talking. The I-don't-know-my-own-boundaries flailing. The countless cameras lifted into a constellation of screen glows. And it's not just younger audiences -- these discourtesies defy age. It's enough to make a conflict-averse person spring into action.Why does this behavior make people so angry? California-based advice columnist Amy Alkon calls the rudeness "a form of theft." In her new book, Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck, Alkon describes the increasing presence of "social thuggery " in society. Discourteous behavior is essentially "stealing your attention and the enjoyment you paid for," she wrote in an email.
The one place it's usually counterproductive to speak up to people is in a movie theater or other venue where they're stealing your attention with the light of the small screen, for example. In this venue...
People behaving badly "know they're being rude and they don't care," Alkon says. And in some cases the offender can become angry, or even violent.Her advice to me as a longtime concert-goer on the brink of giving it up? Turn to a professional, someone "whose job it is to stop the rude," she says. Let the venues do the policing. Frequent places that ask people to calm down, shut up and put their devices away. Let businesses know -- via phone calls or letters to management -- that they will lose your patronage if they allow bad behavior to continue.
Consider this: Attendance at live shows is better than ever, and is expected to grow . Gross ticket sales reached $4.8 billion worldwide in 2013 -- an increase of 30 percent from 2012 and 9 percent over the biggest Boxscore year to-date (2009). If more and more potential concert-goers decide to stay at home, the potential financial impact is real.
So will I become one of those statistics? Amy Alkon's advice gave me food for thought. Giving up live music -- something I love -- is not the answer. But neither is taking my life into my own hands by calling out social thugs.
Perhaps I should buy up multiple copies of Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck and
throw them athand them out to offenders. I think I'm going to need several.
The Double Standard Applied In Law Enforcement
Law professor Jonathan Turley writes:
The Manassas City Police have announced that they will not execute the abusive warrant discussed yesterday to force a 17-year-old boy to be photographed with an erect penis -- including the authority to force an erection with the administration of drugs if the boy did not "cooperate." However, Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Claiborne Richardson is still pursing the teen for two major felonies for sending his 15-year-old girlfriend an explicit video. There is still no word from Paul B. Ebert, the Commonwealth's Attorney for Prince William County (right).
The teen was charged by Richardson with distributing child pornography. Yet, get this:
The case began with the girlfriend, not the defendant, sending photos of herself to the boy. Yet, she has not be charged
Nobody seems to have noticed this or given any explanation as to why -- not that either of them should be charged, basically for being a teenager and doing what teenagers do.
This is far different -- and we all know it -- from the evil of creating child pornography.
I Love The Notion That A Piece Of Paper From The Government Will Protect You
If Uber is unsafe, so are taxicabs, writes Steven Greenhut at UT San Diego, about LA City Councilman Paul Koretz's desire to regulate ride-sharing services:
SACRAMENTO -- A search of "taxi" and "car crashes" will reveal a long list of troubling news stories. In San Francisco last year, an Ohio couple died after a cab with bad brakes slammed into a concrete pillar. A year earlier there, a taxi driver who caused a deadly crash was identified as a man convicted in a notorious murder case, yet he passed the background checks.Normally, I would say this, sadly, is part of life. Driving is an inherently dangerous activity and despite a litany of state and local taxicab, driving, insurance and other regulations, there's no way to make the world perfectly safe. But now my conclusion is different: The only solution to the taxi-safety problem is to ban all taxicabs from the roadways.
Where did I come to such an outrageous (and admittedly tongue-in-cheek) idea? From the taxicab industry itself. Based on a tragic accident in San Francisco involving a driver with the ride-sharing service, Uber, the taxi industry says such firms are too dangerous and should be shut down or at least faced with the same type of regulations faced by cab companies.
...That Uber-involved accident in San Francisco highlighted a gray area. The accident took place after the driver had the app on but before he had passengers. Is the driver (and that driver's insurance policy) or the TNC liable for any crash in that situation? That's a fair question, although the insurance carriers could answer it by spelling out their coverage more clearly in policies they offer.
We Are All Terrorists
Scott Shackford writes at reason about the utterly ridiculous activities the government has used to put people on terrorist watch lists:
One man attempted to take a photo of a storage tank painted in rainbow colors. One man attempted to purchase several computers at once. One man had a flight simulator game operating on his home computer. And one man was standing around, waiting for his mother outside the bathrooms of a train station.All of this behavior drew the attention of the police and landed the men in databases for engaging in what authorities decided was suspicious behavior that could potentially indicate terrorist leanings. They are men who have had what are called suspicious activity reports (SARs) made up about them and stored in antiterrorism databases. And now they're suing, with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union and the Asian Americans Advancing Justice -- Asian Law Caucus.
There's a huge industry of "law enforcement" now and related industries selling to it, and this is generating numerous violations of civil liberties.
Selfies Have Given Way To Professional Photo Shoots For Personal Branding
Alex Williams writes for The New York Times:
Wearing black leather pants and a cape top, she reclined on a velvet armchair under the frescoed ceiling of a 19th-century Florentine villa, flanked by a hair and makeup artist, as a photographer clicked away.The model was not a $5,000-a-day runway pro from Elite Model Management, but Gina DeVee, a 41-year-old success coach from Montecito, Calif. Ms. DeVee paid a photographer $3,500 to create magazine-worthy images for her Facebook and Twitter profiles, as well as her professional website. The goal, she said, is to create "personal brand buzz."
"This stuff isn't only for J. Lo," Ms. DeVee said. "I love being a rock star in my own life."
There are times, it seems, when an iPhone and an outstretched arm just won't do.
In an era when social media has given everyone a public persona to burnish, some image-conscious digital natives are taking online-image management a step further, sparing no expense to treat themselves to iconic portrait sessions that produce profile shots for Facebook and Twitter that could double as covers of Vogue -- effectively, glamour selfies.
...There was, of course, a time when such portraits were the stuff of statesmen and aristocrats, and were rendered in canvas and oil. The rest of us generally had to make do with high school yearbook photos or passport shots. No more. Anyone with some extra cash can outsource the task to the pros, and present a more polished image to the world.
You don't have to pay a $3,500/day photographer for this. Gregg shot the cover of I See Rude People and the photo of me on the back of "Good Manners For Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck".
I did my own makeup, both by applying what I'd learned from people making me up for TV and from a YouTube video by a former Miss America that I can no longer find. I did find this one and there are others.
Actually, wait -- the ones I used, which are great -- are here. The series of expertvillage ones at this link.
You can use the web similarly for your photograph. I recommend taking a shot in natural light if you're a non-pro. Gregg used a little fill light (you can rent one) and white paper that he hung from my porch. I drank wine to loosen up and wore my usual evening-wear as daywear.
More here and here from my author friend Sonya Sones, who takes fantastic photos of authors and illustrators.
via @instapundit
Linkguana
Link lizards in the sun.
Modern Feminism Tends To Be About Clamoring For Special Rights Under The Guise Of Equal Rights
That's been my contention.
A tweet:
@The_AL_360
"Most of what passes for feminism nowadays is just latter day puritanical embarrassment and Victorian hypocrisy"
Discuss.
Who's Exploiting Whom?
Would the exploiter be some 17-year-old kid who sent dick videos to his girlfriend -- or the cops and prosecutors who are bringing a "child pornography" case against him? Yes, for taking and sending videos of his own naked body to his girlfriend.
Was that what you were thinking of when you thought of the evil of child porn that had to be stopped?
Tom Jackman writes in the WaPo:
Foster said the case began when the teen's 15-year-old girlfriend sent photos of herself to the 17-year-old, who in turn sent her the video in question. The girl has not been charged, and her mother filed a complaint about the boy's video, Foster said. The male teen was served with petitions from juvenile court in early February, and not arrested, but when the case went to trial in juvenile court in June, Foster said prosecutors forgot to certify that the teen was a juvenile. The case was dismissed, but police immediately obtained new charges and also a search warrant for his home. Police also arrested the teen and took him to juvenile jail, where Foster said they took photos of the teen's genitals against his will.The case was set for trial on July 1, where Foster said Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Claiborne Richardson told her that her client must either plead guilty or police would obtain another search warrant "for pictures of his erect penis," for comparison to the evidence from the teen's cell phone. Foster asked how that would be accomplished and was told that "we just take him down to the hospital, give him a shot and then take the pictures that we need."
...Carlos Flores Laboy, appointed the teen's guardian ad litem in the case, said he thought it was just as illegal for the Manassas City police to create their own child pornography as to investigate the teen for it. "They're using a statute that was designed to protect children from being exploited in a sexual manner," Flores Laboy said, "to take a picture of this young man in a sexually explicit manner. The irony is incredible." The guardian added, "As a parent myself, I was floored. It's child abuse. We're wasting thousands of dollars and resources and man hours on a sexting case. That's what we're doing."
Foster said Detective Abbott told her that after obtaining photos of the teen's erect penis he would "use special software to compare pictures of this penis to this penis. Who does this? It's just crazy."
The police department defends their disgusting actions.
This the America thought you were living in?
via Lisa Simeone
Freedom Of The Press? Not Worth Much In The Obama Administration
Reporters are mainly free to be shut down when they try to talk to sources.
Excerpt from a letter to the President from the Society of Professional Journalists:
Mr. President,You recently expressed concern that frustration in the country is breeding cynicism about democratic government. You need look no further than your own administration for a major source of that frustration - politically driven suppression of news and information about federal agencies. We call on you to take a stand to stop the spin and let the sunshine in.
Over the past two decades, public agencies have increasingly prohibited staff from communicating with journalists unless they go through public affairs offices or through political appointees. This trend has been especially pronounced in the federal government. We consider these restrictions a form of censorship -- an attempt to control what the public is allowed to see and hear.
The stifling of free expression is happening despite your pledge on your first day in office to bring "a new era of openness" to federal government - and the subsequent executive orders and directives which were supposed to bring such openness about.
Recent research has indicated the problem is getting worse throughout the nation, particularly at the federal level. Journalists are reporting that most federal agencies prohibit their employees from communicating with the press unless the bosses have public relations staffers sitting in on the conversations. Contact is often blocked completely. When public affairs officers speak, even about routine public matters, they often do so confidentially in spite of having the title "spokesperson." Reporters seeking interviews are expected to seek permission, often providing questions in advance. Delays can stretch for days, longer than most deadlines allow. Public affairs officers might send their own written responses of slick non-answers. Agencies hold on-background press conferences with unnamed officials, on a not-for-attribution basis.
In many cases, this is clearly being done to control what information journalists - and the audience they serve - have access to. A survey found 40 percent of public affairs officers admitted they blocked certain reporters because they did not like what they wrote.
Some argue that controlling media access is needed to ensure information going out is correct. But when journalists cannot interview agency staff, or can only do so under surveillance, it undermines public understanding of, and trust in, government. This is not a "press vs. government" issue. This is about fostering a strong democracy where people have the information they need to self-govern and trust in its governmental institutions.
It has not always been this way. In prior years, reporters walked the halls of agencies and called staff people at will. Only in the past two administrations have media access controls been tightened at most agencies. Under this administration, even non-defense agencies have asserted in writing their power to prohibit contact with journalists without surveillance. Meanwhile, agency personnel are free speak to others -- lobbyists, special-interest representatives, people with money -- without these controls and without public oversight.
Loving that "transparency." The letter asks for change. I'm betting there's none.
And a question that needs to be asked: Is it just the Obama Administration or is everyone getting more "careful"?
Loopy
The link ran away with the spoon.
The Censorship Of "You Are Triggering Me"
There's a new neo-liberal tradition of shutting people up under the guise of protecting others. Jack Halberstam writes at Bully Bloggers:
Let me be clear - saying that you feel harmed by another queer person's use of a reclaimed word like tranny and organizing against the use of that word is NOT social activism. It is censorship.In a post-affirmative action society, where even recent histories of political violence like slavery and lynching are cast as a distant and irrelevant past, all claims to hardship have been cast as equal; and some students, accustomed to trotting out stories of painful events in their childhoods (dead pets/parrots, a bad injury in sports) in college applications and other such venues, have come to think of themselves as communities of naked, shivering, quaking little selves - too vulnerable to take a joke, too damaged to make one.
We now are living in weenie culture, where everybody must be silenced in case somebody's feelings might be hurt -- and feelings are all set on a hair trigger, so everybody's hurt about everything.
RELATED: Here's a piece that says riding a bike in a city is like being a woman. There are paragraphs and paragraphs of "poor me"-ism -- that run entirely contrary to my experience as a cyclist in New York City:
If one of those cars does hit you, you're probably going to get blamed. The police will assume that you were riding unsafely, and what you could have done to better protect yourself. The driver most likely won't be punished at all. If anything, it'll be a slap on the wrist.When you get hurt, it's your fault now. You should have been more careful. You should have watched where you were going. If you had just stayed in your proper place, this wouldn't have happened. You can try to argue, but you'll probably get brushed off. Maybe you should get a helmet cam and record every second that you're on your bike, so that you have unrefutable [sic] proof if something happens.
And yes, she manages to get "microagressions" in there:
These are just a few of the thousand little environmental microaggressions that you don't have to deal with when you're sitting behind the wheel of a car.
I've been female my whole life. And I rode my bike all over New York City for years. Before cellphones hit the masses, I will say. I even worked as a bike messenger once, when things got fiscally terrible.
If you can't handle New York traffic, well, take the subway. Or a cab. Or call a car service. Or never go anywhere that isn't in walking difference.
The notion that being a woman and being on a bicycle and getting victimized by drivers have any similarity -- in America, in 2014, when we have the easiest, most comfortable lives in human history -- well, it takes somebody with very, very thick, victim-colored glasses to see it that way.
Government Wants To Be All Up In Our Lives, Controlling Every Minute Of Them
This country was founded on a desire by the founders for freedom from tyranny, but now we have the tyranny of the petty bureaucrat foisted upon us at every turn. Harris v. Quinn got shoved out of the picture by the Hobby Lobby case, but it's worth looking at. Shikha Dalmia writes about that Supreme Court case at reason:
That case involved the right of family members of disabled loved ones to offer care without having their state aid garnished by public unions. Harris, a mom who was providing home care to her 25-year-old disabled son, had sued the state of Illinois for forcing her to pay dues to a government union.But what in the name of Jimmy Hoffa does looking after her son have to do with the union?
Apparently, because she receives state subsidies for caring for her son, Illinois, along with a dozen other states, considers her a "home health care worker." This means she must submit to the exclusive representation of a government union in collective bargaining negotiations--even though she supports neither the union nor its goals.
Although the justices acknowledged that forcing Harris to pay dues was a violation of her First Amendment rights to not associate with the union, those are not the grounds on which they ruled in her favor. They allowed the 1977 Abood vs. Detroit Board of Education ruling to stand for now, refusing to overrule its conclusion that the government was "constitutionally justified" in forcing public workers to pay union dues to maintain "labor peace" and prevent "free riding." They declined only to extend this shameful logic to home-based family members on the grounds that these folks are not really government workers.
Ordinary mortals might rejoice at this victory for commonsense and a mom's right to keep her meager subsidies--but not lefties such as Salon's Joan Walsh. She saw this as a victory for the "one percent" and the "plutocrat cartel" who could now avoid paying higher taxes to boost the wages of home healthcare workers, most of them low-paid women.
Never mind that the real threat to these "low-paid women"--otherwise called moms--comes not from filthy rich people, but the government itself. For example, Washington Examiner's Sean Higgins recently reported that Illinois has implemented a new program requiring these moms to call the government twice a day to clock in and clock out. If they don't, they are technically overbilling the government and risk being fired from their job as a "caregiver" and being replaced by a real government worker.
This shows that what's really insidious about attempts to classify moms as state workers and force them to pay union dues is not that their First Amendment rights are violated. It is that it turns the whole notion of a safety net on its head, redefining the relationship between the government and the citizenry.
Lunch
Links with pickles, onions, and a side of mayo. (I love mayo.)
Letter From An American Expat About The TSA And The "Security" State
From TSA News Blog. The letter, from Alexa Chiang, is to Wendy Thompson, co-founder of Freedom to Travel USA (FTTUSA), whose personal story is here. Chiang writes:
Hi Wendy,Just want to send you a note to say, thank you for all your efforts and commitment.
I feel like the government we have now is so scary. It's not that the Obama Administration is scary, or the Bush Administration is scary, per se (although I think all the people working in so-called "security" are out of their minds and f#$@king mad!). My biggest fear is that they now have set up such a vast system in place to infringe on each individual's privacy so extensively that, if just one administration, be it the current one or future one, decides to abuse it and suppress people, they can. They can do so easily. Our freedom hangs in the balance, and so many people don't see it.
People assume that this cannot happen in America. Why they are so trusting, I do not know. I guess people think I'm paranoid, or a conspiracy theorist. Whatever. We've seen this happen in history before.
. . . I'm continually shocked and disappointed at how our current society, people refuse to accept any level of risk of danger in life. People want to live in a risk-free society with zero tolerance for the fact of life that sometimes, shit just happens. And it's a good trade-off to maintain our freedom. We live in the safest time in history, at least those of us living in civilized world, and we let all sorts of fearmongering get to our heads.
Again, thanks for all your work!
Alexa Chiang
Re-read that last paragraph: We live in the safest time in history.
I've said this many times -- like in the op-ed I wrote about the TSA -- that trying to live in a "risk-free" society comes at too high a price:
Our founding fathers were a bunch of obnoxious jerks - and I mean that in the most reverent way. They were fiercely opposed to blind obedience to authority and risked their lives to flip it the bird. Oh, how disappointingly - and dangerously - far we've fallen. Our constitutional rights are increasingly being eroded, and so many Americans are just standing around blinking like livestock....We cannot ensure our complete physical safety - not even by throwing away all of our civil liberties. Trading our rights for security (or, in this case, "security") is exceptionally dangerous. Every time we go all "We The Sheeple ...," every time we allow one more civil liberty to be yanked from us, it's that much easier to take the next and the next, until we wake up one day wondering how we ended up living in a police state. Better that we do our sobbing now than then.
How Green Is My Car Windshield?
You know the world has changed when you come out to your car and see that somebody's left a "rewards card" on your windshield for discount pot delivery.
I don't smoke pot; hate the stuff. But is there anyone here who thinks the world will end (or even change for the worse) in any meaningful way because people can get their pot legally? (That is, in many or most cases, with some bullshit diagnosis by some bullshit doctor that they "need" pot?)
The truth is, I used to get mushrooms when I lived in New York from a service called "Weed Deliver." I got them just a few times. I could have gotten them, pot, hash, and other drugs all the time. But I didn't.
Guess what: availability does not equal addiction.
To Protect And To Bully
A man in Utah says he was arrested for the crime of not complying with a police officer's order to stop putting out a brush fire that threatened his home. From World Liberty News:
SANTAQUIN, UT -- A man was arrested for disorderly conduct and obstructing justice when he refused to stop spraying water on a brush fire that had ignited in a field behind his home.The incident happened on July 4th in a field located behind a row of houses. At approximately 9:30 p.m., some brush caught fire due to errant use of fireworks. Spectators quickly assisted and one woman called 9-1-1 for help.
"An apparent spark lit a tree over there from an old orchard on fire," said 36-year-old Santaquin resident, Jason Thornton. "Myself, my two nephews, and a few neighbors rushed to action, got our hoses out, contained the fire to one tree, waiting for the fire department to show up."
Mr. Thornton continued: "While fighting the fire, somebody said, 'stop!' I told them, 'no' in a very unpolite way. He told me again to stop. I said, 'No, I'm manning this fire. I'm not stopping until the fire department gets here.'"
"Then the man came over and put me in handcuffs and told me I was under arrest," he said. "They gave me a citation for disorderly conduct and obstruction of justice."
His wife, Kelly, told Police State USA that the arrest was totally uncalled for.
"He was out with the a lot of neighbors helping out," said Kelly. "I had called 9-1-1. They had the fire under control when a cop came up to them and told them to stop. [Jason] did not know it was a cop. He told the cop he was not stopping until the fire department got there."
"While he was spraying down the ambers, the cop told him he was arresting he put him in handcuffs and took him to his car," Kelly told Police State USA. "The fire department was not there yet. It was a crazy, intense situation. The cop did not even try to help with the fire."
I couldn't find corroborating stories from traditional media sources, but I did find the guy talking on video:
I do see more and more of this. Perhaps it's just because we have more media than ever and because we can all easily shoot footage and upload it and post stories on the web. But there's been an erosion of our civil liberties that has increased in pace and scope since 9/11, and doesn't seem to be ceasing.
What isn't increasing is police interest in actual crimes -- the sort that aren't "crimes" that are realliy about some citizen not kowtowing to them.
I write in "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck" that police officers are unlikely to solve your crime -- or even come out and take a report, unless there's a body lying bleeding on your kitchen floor. Identity theft? Car theft? Unless you need a police report for your insurance company or the credit bureaus, why spend the time yapping about something that will be noted in a report and filed away, unlikely to ever be looked at again.
via @reasonpolicy
Monkey
Linky with fur and a shrieking laugh.
From The "So What" Department, TSA Division
In yet another show of the pretend security provided by the TSA, they arrested a man at DTW (Detroit Metro Airport) who had a knife hidden in his shoe.
His motivation? Just guessing, but avoiding the fee for checking a bag. Or maybe he wanted to feel like James Bond. Or maybe he wanted to see if he could get it past the repurposed mall workers manning the TSA checkpoints.
Nobody will ever bring down a plane with a sharp object. Ever, ever.
Searching for sharp objects, searching people without any suspicion that they are criminals is a disgusting civil liberties violation that opens the door to more and more erosions of our civil liberties.
The Arrogance Of Obama In Circumventing Congress
President Obama has a nasty habit of ignoring or suspending our laws. Disgustingly, in a Rose Garden speech on Tuesday, he pledged more of this and sniffed, "So sue me" to those who have a problem with his violating the separation of powers. Jonathan Turley writes in the NY Daily News:
The unanimous decision of the Supreme Court late last month that President Obama violated the separation of powers in appointing officials is the type of decision that usually concentrates the mind of a chief executive. Obama, however, appeared to double down on his strategy -- stating in a Rose Garden speech on Tuesday that he intended to expand, not reduce, his use of unilateral actions to circumvent Congress.Summing up his position, the President threw down the gauntlet at Congress: "So sue me."
The moment was reminiscent of George W. Bush's taunting Iraqi insurgents over 10 years ago by saying, "Bring 'em on."
It was irresponsible bravado from a man who was not himself at the receiving end of IEDs and constant attacks that would go on to cost us thousands of military personnel. I imagine some lawyers at the Justice Department may feel the same way about Obama's "sue me" taunt. They are the ones being hammered in federal courts over sweeping new interpretations and unilateral executive actions.
The renewed promise to go it alone is a familiar refrain from this President. He even pledged to take unilateral action to circumvent Congress in front of both Houses, in his State of the Union address this year -- to the curious delight of half of Congress, which applauded wildly at the notion of being made irrelevant.
The President was as good as his word. When Congress failed to pass the Dream Act loosening immigration laws for certain groups, the President ordered the same result unilaterally. His administration also ordered massive changes in Obamacare -- from lifting statutory deadlines, to exempting classes of business, to shifting hundreds of millions of dollars from appropriated purposes to other uses.
The same is happening with recess appointments.
"The Flurry Of Catcalls"?
A man named Joel Wool has a letter to the editor of the Boston Globe, mentioning "The flurry of catcalls that women encounter as they walk to work or school..."
Sorry, but I have boobs the size of Mars times two and lived in New York City and walked, biked, and roller-skated everywhere, and never experienced this supposed Sno-Globe of catcalls so many women supposedly do.
Wool was responding to a Cathy Young piece in the Globe in which she correctly asserted -- per my experience and reading -- that "the overwhelming majority of men need no teaching that rape is a repugnant crime."
Young continues:
Just four decades ago, "loose" women were often seen as undeserving victims, and vestiges of such beliefs may linger today. Citing those cultural attitudes, many women's groups argue that anti-rape efforts should focus only on educating men. Still, the overwhelming majority of men need no teaching that rape is a repugnant crime. Yet some men still commit it -- just as people steal, rob, and even kill despite strong legal and social prohibitions.Research by Boston-area clinical psychologist David Lisak finds that a tiny minority of young men -- about 4 percent -- are serial predators who knowingly coerce unwilling women into sex, usually by taking advantage of their intoxication. These men are also very likely to commit other offenses, from battery to child sexual abuse. The message "don't rape" is likely to be lost on them. (While violent offenders can sometimes be reformed through learning empathy, this process not only requires intensive intervention but has a fairly modest success rate.)
Much has been made of claims that a Canadian poster campaign reminding men that an unconscious woman cannot consent led to a 10 percent drop in reported sexual assaults. But correlation does not prove causation. In crime surveys in the United States, the rate of sexual assaults dropped by more than 50 percent from 1999 to 2005 with no targeted educational campaigns.
Today's campus sexual assault prevention programs built around teaching men not to rape focus on telling male students to make extra-sure they have their partner's consent, even if she seems willing. Such advice is likely to make many decent young men super-anxious or super-chivalrous -- to the point of condescension -- without having any impact on actual bad guys.
There's No Trickle Down From Corporate Welfare
At Real Clear Markets, Matthew Mitchell writes that it's a misconception that crony capitalist welfare -- when governments privilege and bail out a handful of favored firms -- that the rest of the economy somehow benefits:
This is how the Bush Administration sold the bank bailouts. It's how the current Administration sold the auto bailouts. And it's how the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is trying to sell the Export-Import Bank.Mounting evidence, however, suggests the opposite is true: economies whose firms sink or swim based on political patronage grow slower and are less stable than those in which firm success depends on an ability to meet the market test.
Economists know that when governments privilege particular firms, the broader economy suffers. Important work in the 1960s and '70s by Gordon Tullock and Anne Krueger showed that when governments dispense privileges, firms expend resources chasing those privileges. They lobby, donate to political campaigns, and employ expensive government-relations operatives. This activity expends real resources even though it fails to create net value for the economy.
In 1990, New York University economist William Baumol extended this work, showing that when governments dispense favors, entrepreneurs spend time brainstorming new ways to obtain privilege rather than new ways to create value. Baumol and the research he spawned shows that this vein of "unproductive entrepreneurship" doesn't just cost the economy at a particular point in time (as Tullock and Krueger showed); it also retards the rate of economic growth, doing damage for years to come.
The fair market -- and the healthiest market -- is the free market.
Linkulus
It's a cloud, filled with links. And maybe a Crackerjack prize, if you're lucky.
Advice Goddess Radio, LIVE Tonight, 7-8 pm PT: Dr. Andrea Brandt On How "Mindful Anger" Can Improve Every Area Of Your Life
Amy Alkon's Advice Goddess Radio: "Nerd Your Way To A Better Life!" with the best brains in science.
Whether you're an anger venter or an anger withholder (or something in between), this is a show for you.
My guest tonight, therapist Dr. Andrea Brandt, writes that "our culture has a built-in phobia of negative emotions," which isolates us from each other and has myriad unhealthy and counterproductive effects on us personally.
Her goal -- in her book, Mindful Anger: a pathway to emotional freedom, and on this show -- is not to help you get rid of your anger but to help you understand and handle it in healthy and constructive ways. You should, in turn, find that this leads to cascading positive effects in every arena of your life.
Listen at this link at 7-8 p.m. Pacific, 10-11 p.m. Eastern, or download the podcast afterward:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/amyalkon/2014/07/07/dr-andrea-brandt-on-how-mindful-anger-can-improve-every-area-of-your-life
Don't miss last week's show with evolutionary psychologist Dr. Vladas Griskevicius, "Making More Effective Choices By Using 'Deep Rationality'":
Listen at this link or download the podcast:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/amyalkon/2014/07/01/dr-vladas-griskevicius-make-wiser-choices-via-deep-rationality
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.)
Please consider ordering my new book, the science-based and funny "Good Manners For Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck," (only $9.48 at Amazon!). Orders of the book help support my writing and this radio show!
Three Ways To Make Obamacare Suck Less (Plus One More From Me)
Alexis Garcia and Nick Gillespie write at reason about Nick's three:
1. Let anyone buy "catastrophic plan."As it stands, only people under 30 years of age and a few other folks can buy cheap"catastrophic plans" that cover few regular procedures but protect you against very costly medical emergencies. Catastrophic plans are much cheaper than the cheapest comprehensive bronze plans at Healthcare.gov.
One of the selling points of Obamacare was that it would let people choose plans that fit their needs. If a catastrophic plan is what you want, why not be allowed to buy one despite your age?
2. Force insurers to compete across state lines.
Health insurance companies, in cahoots with state insurance commissions, have carved up their territories like old-school mob families.
A true national market that would force insurers to compete across state lines for customers on the basis of price and service. A national market would expand consumer options and eventually lead to new ways of doing business. It works in auto and home insurance and would work with health insurance, too.
3. Grow the supply of medical care already.
Obamacare increases the demand for medical care but does virtually nothing to grow its supply.
That's a recipe for shortages and long wait times.
The quickest way to grow the supply of health care is to ditch all sorts of barriers ranging from super-slow FDA approval processes for new drugs and devices to protectionist professional licensing to tightly restricted medical school admissions. Almost three dozen states give existing hospitals an indirect say in whether new, competing hospitals can be built!
Scrapping all of these rules and more would make health care easier and cheaper to get.
And I'll add number 4: Untie healthcare from the workplace.
Feelings Of Good Grade Entitlement From University Students
Ronald Lipsman, Professor Emeritus of Mathematics at the University of Maryland, writes at Minding The Campus about the blowback he often receives from students after posting the semester's grades.
The F students aren't the big complainers. They know they've screwed the pooch. It's the D students who come around whining, begging, and presenting excuses. (Although a D is passing at this school, students need at least a C to get credit for the course from the School of Engineering.)
He calls this a typical email he gets:
I am a second-year chemical engineer and I need at least a C to pass the course.I honestly put a lot of time and effort into your class and I felt like I learned more than my course grade is reflecting.
While studying for the final exam I spilled milk on my laptop, rendering it unusable. My father had to take me to the Apple store for repair. This whole ordeal took up most of my study time. I don't mean to make excuses, but due to these circumstances I had a very short amount of time to study for the exam, and my performance was impacted.
I honestly put a lot of time and effort into your class and I felt like I learned more than my course grade is reflecting. Considering all the good I've done throughout the semester, I think I should at least get a C. I will get kicked out of my major if I do not get a C in the class. Please reconsider my grade or even allow me to do any work to boost my grade.
Once again Mr. Lipsman, I am asking out of the kindness of your heart please bump my grade up a little more, please! Please, if there is anything that you can do, I would very much appreciate it.
He lays out the main themes that emerge from the "email cavalcade" that he endured:
•The student claims to have worked hard on the course. In some instances, this may be true; but in many, I know that it is not. Too many students have a warped idea of what hard work actually entails.•The student is always a victim of some special circumstance (illness, accident, family crisis, poor advice, exceptionally challenging workload, etc.). The victim card is played often and instinctively. "It's not my fault!"
•The student asserts his "right to pass." Implicit is the belief that if he is properly enrolled, in good standing and pursuing a legitimate degree program, then he is entitled to be passed through this checkpoint in his journey - regardless of performance. He is entitled to a C merely by his legitimate presence in the course.
•"If you don't give me a C, my future is in jeopardy." Not only is he entitled, but the penalty for depriving him of his right will be severe. The resulting consequences for him will far outweigh any moral anguish suffered by me for distorting the legitimate outcome of the course's process.
•Finally, "You, professor, can fix this." No notion of personal responsibility enters the equation. The burden of this unfortunate affair lands on my doorstep to correct the injustice. The student inhabits a cosmos in which he is not in control of his destiny.
Lipsman feels that the above five manifestations of the student entitlement mentality are reflective of patterns present in society in general, which include:
•Admittedly, this might be too heavily concentrated among government employees, but who hasn't encountered an employee that complains of being overworked at the same time that both his inbox and outbox are suspiciously empty.•We're all victims these days; of racism, sexism, ableism, and other isms you haven't yet recognized. We're being screwed by big corporations, small businessmen, unscrupulous co-workers, bad neighbors, even members of our family. We are all categorized into boxes according to race, gender, age, geography and so on. And we are certain that those in the other boxes are working feverishly to limit opportunities for the occupants of our box.
•As a victim, my rights are being violated. I speak not of the rights granted to me by the Constitution, but instead those guaranteed to me by politicians. These include my right to a great paying job, a fine home, the best medical care, a secure retirement, an exceptional education - not to mention nice clothes, top notch appliances, a month's annual vacation and a great set of wheels. To all this, I am entitled because ... well, because from FDR to Obama, I've been told so.
•And if I don't have these things, then not only are my rights being violated, but my life is being ruined.
•Finally, it is the primary responsibility of the government to ensure that my rights are not violated and that all the things promised to me by government are delivered to me by that government.
And he points this out at the end:
The university has traditionally played a societal role in converting callow youth into mature and responsible adults. Let us not subvert that role by giving in to immature and irresponsible behavior.
via Old RPM Daddy
Linkubus
It's the other kind of succubus.
Yes, A Lesson From The French In How To Be Nicer To People
Laurie Pike just posted a blog item on The Paris Blog about my bit in "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck" on this subject.
Sneer all you want about the French, but make this habit a habit wherever you go, and I think you'll see that you have warmer interactions and feel better about being out in the vast strangeropolises we live in.
Celebrating Freedom By Acting Like Other Adults' Mommy
Via Overlawyered, there were food restrictions for those who wanted to watch the fireworks on public land in Howard County, Maryland. Amanda Yeager reports for the Balt Sun:
On Friday, vendors running booths at the county's flagship fireworks event will have to comply with new regulations on their food and drink offerings for the first time since Howard County Executive Ken Ulman passed an executive order to ban sugary drinks and restrict other junk food in county buildings and at county-sponsored events.While Ulman and health advocates have touted the regulations -- the first and only of their kind in the state -- as an important step in the fight against obesity, some vendors have balked at what they consider unnecessarily restrictive rules.
The executive order, signed into law on Dec. 11, 2012, effectively bans non-diet sodas at county-sponsored events and limits the percentage of high-calorie packaged snacks that vendors can offer.
According to the regulations, 50 percent of packaged food offered at county events must contain 200 calories or less per portion. Non-diet cold drinks must contain 40 calories or less, and diet drinks may only contain five calories and constitute only 33 percent of a vendor's beverage offerings.
Wanna buy a black market doughnut?
And does anybody think this is making fat people thinner? PS Per Gary Taubes' "Why We Get Fat," it is carbohydrates -- sugar, flour, starchy vegetables like potatoes, apple juice -- that cause the insulin secretion that puts on fat.
So that reduced calorie hot dog bun and that banana you're eating aren't doing you any favors.
If you want to get thin, you eat high fat, low-carb food. Like bacon.
Boom
Can somebody please explain to me the allure in lighting explosives on fire as a form of fun? I mean, if you are over 12 and not a hobbyist safecracker.
And no, I'm not talking about the pretty fireworks in the sky, like the ones shot off from boats in the Marina.
I'm talking about the noisy M-80s and M-80 type fireworks and such that sometimes take off a finger or two in the excitement.
Thanks for scaring my dog, buttwads.
On the bright side, nothing over here is burning. Yet.
This is why "safe and sane" fireworks are illegal in LA "@epn424: #LAFD on a tree fire started by fireworks. pic.twitter.com/7rxWe3vs7L"
— Kim Baldonado (@KimNBCLA) July 5, 2014Lincqueville
Alinxis to his close friends.
The Crime Of Not Celebrating The Girlfriend's Birthday On Her Actual Birthday
Need your help here. I have a hard time understanding why one's birthday must be celebrated on one's exact actual birthday or it's a crime against birds, cake, and humanity.
That is the attitude some people have, and I'd like to understand why not celebrating an adult's "special day" on the exact special day is a problem.
A guy has a conflict on that date and his girlfriend is turning 30, which she considers a "milestone" -- another thing I don't really understand (and find a sort of excuse for being "poor me" about his doing something else on the day).
She wants to go away for the weekend to celebrate her birthday. Is there some reason that this shouldn't happen the weekend before or weekend after?
And I'm especially asking those of you who are birthday sentimentalists, which I am decidedly not.
LA Schools Would Set Fire To Taxpayer Dollars, But There's A Drought On
You can't be going around Los Angeles lighting bonfires right now.
So, now, after realizing that giving every kid an iPad ($1 billion pricetag) was a costly disaster, school officials are hoovering up another $40 million or so to buy every high school kid a laptop, reports Robby Soave at reason.
via @instapundit
"Why Is Your Boss Involved With Your Health Insurance In The First Place?"
Dr. Michael J. Hurd writes at his website:
This past week, the U.S. Supreme Court released its decision in the highly-publicized case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. The Court sided with Hobby Lobby (a family-owned business and employer) in a narrow 5-4 ruling, which declared family-owned corporations are not required to pay for insurance coverage for contraception under the Affordable Care Act if doing so conflicts with their religious beliefs.Many are reacting negatively to the ruling. They're saying, "Your boss shouldn't be involved with your birth control." That's entirely correct. But the real question is: Why is your boss involved with your health insurance, in the first place?
The whole reason this case came about is because the federal government is mandating employers (of a certain size) to provide health insurance for their employees. Also, tax incentives and various other laws and regulations going back at least to the 1940s have incentivized and/or required federal involvement in the health insurance and medical marketplace.
In a totally free market for health insurance and medicine, it's unlikely employers would be providing health insurance on such a large scale. People would be responsible for obtaining it on their own, and they'd have a vast, complex and competitive marketplace from which to choose the health insurance or medical options that most suited them.
And then there's this right-on bit on individual rights:
The only "right" is the right of the individual to be free from force and fraud. Obamacare denies individual rights by compelling employers to pay for things against their will, and compelling individuals to purchase things against their will. Once you establish this principle, control of everything else is only a matter of time. You've already surrendered the one right that makes all other rights possible: The right to be left alone.The same applies to those clamoring for "religious rights." There's no such thing. You have no right to impose your religion on others using the force of government. You have no right to say, as John Roberts has, that "Socialized medicine and government compulsion are right -- so long as it doesn't tread on religion." This is nothing more than a recipe for religious dictatorship, whether Roberts intended it that way or not.
Yes, it's tyranny to force a religious person to act against his beliefs by paying for another's abortion. At the same time, it's tyranny to force anybody to do anything against their will. Why does Roberts only apply this to abortion and contraception, but not anything else?
A [pox] on both houses: The proponents of Big Government Obamacare who whine when the government sets the terms; as well as the proponents of religious rights who are fine with government coercion, so long as it's from a religious point-of-view rather than a secular one.The only way out of this mess is individual rights, consistently applied. That would mean the end of Obamacare and all things socialist. It would also mean the complete separation of church and state, now and forever.
Let me know when we get there.
"But, Mommmm...Other Kids Are Doing It!"
Economist Veronique de Rugy dispenses with that particular argument for saving Ex-Im and its welfare (um, they prefer the term "subsidies") to mega businesses like Boeing, writing at NRO:
There appears to be one last argument standing. Some Bank supporters still claim that the US must continue subsidizing a few choice exporters because other countries do it, too. Why should the US adopt free market policies when France and China and Germany continue to engage in self-destructive mercantilism, they ask. They conclude that the US must jump off the bridge of protectionism just like the other kids....There are three important points here:
1. it is in every country's self-interest to engage in free trade by ending export subsidies even if other countries don't do the same,
2. the incentives are such that countries tend to adopt policies that are not in their best interest, and
3. countries tend to only agree to reduce their export subsidies it if other countries do it as well.The result of this self-defeating protectionism is tragic. It would be like an unhealthy person only agreeing to watch his cholesterol if everyone else did it, too. In the meantime, that person gets sicker and sicker. But it doesn't make it okay. In fact, this is an argument for ending the Bank right now since its existence exacerbates lawmakers' tendencies to do the wrong thing; the Ex-Im Bank is the bad incentive.
She also links to this Keith Hennessy piece.
Reading Is "Islamophobic"
David Wood on his reading of the Quran, Hadith, and commentary:
Duckie
Rubber linkie, you're the one...
Go 4th With New Shoes
Fourth of July savings on shoes and handbags -- up to 60 percent off -- at Amazon
Search Amy's Amazon
Agree Or Disagree On The Burka Ban in France?
France's chief rabbi condemns the ban on the wearing of burkas in public.
via @Popehat
HPV: Why Thousands Of People -- Mostly Men -- Are Getting Throat Cancer
Science and medicine reporter Matthew Herper writes at Forbes that, like JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon, thousands of people are getting throat cancer. He quotes Eric Genden, chief of head and neck oncology at the Mount Sinai Hospital in New York. "This is an epidemic":
It's very possible that Dimon has been swept up, along with thousands of other men, by an increasingly common disease: throat cancer caused by infection with the human papilloma virus, or HPV....In 2008, the last year for which data are available, the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention estimate that 2,370 women and 9,356 men developed HPV-caused head and neck cancer, about a third of the cases of head and neck cancer that year.
But Genden says that 70% to 90% of head and neck cancer cases worldwide are now caused by HPV; the American Cancer Society estimates that this year, there will be 42,440 cases of head and neck cancer in the U.S.
Traditionally, head and neck cancer patients were older men who smoke and drank heavily. The alcohol and tobacco damaged the cells in the throat, eventually leading to cancer.
HPV-caused cancer is different. The men (and it's still mostly men) who get it are younger. In a series of cases at Mount Sinai, they were between 35 and 65.
...How do you get HPV cancer? HPV is sexually transmitted. It's mainly known as a cause of cervical cancer, which is what happens when it infects women. But men can get it by performing cunnilingus. It's also possible, though less likely, that it can be transmitted by kissing. Eighty percent of sexually active people between the ages of 14 and 44 have had oral sex with an opposite sex partner. Researchers estimate that HPV throat cancer in men will be more common than cervical cancer in women in the U.S.
Most strains of HPV do not cause cancer, either in the throat or the cervix. And most HPV infections are cleared by the body. But in a minority of cases, perhaps 10%, they persist. If the strain is of the right variety - for instance, the HPV 16 strain of the virus - this infection can eventually lead to cancer. When it comes to throat cancer, this process takes decades.
The Government Has No Business Imposing Waiting Periods For Abortion
The Missouri governor rightly vetoed legislation requiring a 72-hour wait, saying that legislators showed a "callous disregard for women" by failing to grant an exception for rape and incest victims. (David A. Lieb at TPM.)
I'm guessing the abortion and rape reason gave him some political wiggle room.
But politicians have no business telling women how their medical procedures should be timed, and I say this as somebody who is pro-choice but who finds abortion troubling, especially when it's done past the clump of cells stage.
Kaiser Family Foundation posts from a Guttmacher policy paper, "Counseling and Waiting Periods for Abortion," from September 2013:
As a way to restrict access to abortion, some states have passed informed consent laws regarding abortion that have gone further than medically necessary. Many states require waiting periods between counseling and the abortion procedure. These mandatory waiting periods may present a hardship for many women, as they necessitate two trips to the health care provider.Additionally, much of the information required to be provided during counseling is misleading, irrelevant, or not scientifically sound. The misinformation includes inaccurate portrayal of risks to future fertility from abortion, inaccurate assertion of a possible link between abortion and breast cancer, and only describes the negative mental health and emotional responses to abortion.
All states waive mandatory waiting period requirements in a medical emergency or when the woman's life or health is threatened. In Utah, the counseling is waived if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest or the patient is younger than 15. In Alabama, the counseling requirement is waived in cases of ectopic pregnancy or severe fetal impairment and in Georgia and Rhode Island it is waived in cases of medical emergency.
Pretty Soon, There Will Be No One In New York But The Homeless And The Billionaires
Union Square Cafe's Danny Meyer is having his rent tripled, he writes in The New York Times:
I OPENED my first restaurant, Union Square Cafe, nearly 30 years ago, at a time when Manhattan rents were low, crime rates were high and the future of the city seemed, even for an optimist like me, to be an open question.Things have changed in New York, which is great news, except perhaps for our restaurant's lease. Union Square Cafe's second 15-year lease will expire at the end of December 2015, and unless we're able to complete a Hail Mary pass with our landlord before that point, we will have to move.
I'm confident that we will find a new home, but the very prospect of taking Union Square Cafe out of Union Square is a heartbreaking pill to swallow. Despite its tight-cornered, low-ceilinged, multilevel eccentricities, we've loved that space. But above all we love the neighborhood that has grown around us -- and whose character now, thanks to soaring rents, is being altered.
Like many of the restaurants that opened during the first decades of the city's rebirth, we have built close relationships with those who came to define our surroundings: greenmarket farmers, publishers, agents, authors, architects, artists, advertising executives, actors, neighborhood activists, civic leaders and a legion of families who moved into the nearby lofts that once held men's garment manufacturers. Long before Starbucks popularized the phrase "the third place" -- somewhere to interact outside of work and home -- it was neighborhood restaurants that helped to define places like Union Square.
It's hard to come to grips with the notion that our success has, in part, contributed to our inability to remain in our neighborhood. There are neither victims nor villains in this story; no sympathy is being asked for, and no fingers are being pointed. But as a city, we've got a problem.
Because the market suggests they can, landlords are using this moment to demand the significantly higher rents they've been waiting for since first betting on their neighborhoods. In our case, the advertised rent is triple what we are now paying.
We aren't alone. In the past year, all kinds of pioneering restaurants that helped set the table for their respective neighborhoods -- including Mesa Grill, in the Flatiron district, and WD-50 on the Lower East Side -- have each lost out to untenable rent escalations. My hunch is that they won't be replaced by restaurants that will become similar pillars of their neighborhood.
For the condos and chain stores that may replace us, such costs can be absorbed or passed on to consumers. But that sort of economics doesn't work for neighborhood restaurants.
Liffey
A river in Ireland. Float us a link or two.
Liberté, Égalité, Beyoncé
Love the shot of that here. (The original.)
And the subject of this post? A few Yanis Marshall-choreographed dance numbers to break up your afternoon. The second has some of my favorite places in Paris. And both have men in stilettos dancing it up.
Table Manners 101: I Did Include Just A Few
My book, "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck," is largely science-based (but readable and funny) tips on human behavior. I did give about 10 basic table manners tips for anyone raised in a cave by wild animals. For example:
What really matters, once you've mastered the basic basics, is how you treat other people while you're at the table.
Hobby Lobby's Hypocrisy On China
Seems Hobby Lobby is rather selective in what they choose to be Christian about. Kim Bhasin writes at HuffPo that Christian critics are disturbed that the company is "happy to profit from the business it does with China," despite the often-terrible work conditions and political conditions that have led to hundreds of millions of abortions:
The arts and crafts retailer Hobby Lobby proudly touts itself as a Christian company that puts people over profits. However, some staunch Christians say there's a gaping hole in that claim -- namely, China.Products bearing "Made in China" labels are found all over the shelves at Hobby Lobby, evidence that some of its wares come from Chinese factories that have a reputation for labor rights violations and rock-bottom wages. Employees at these facilities often end up working grueling hours in prison-like conditions and never earn enough to escape poverty.
"You cannot call your business 'Christian' when arguing before the Supreme Court, and then set aside Christian values when you're placing a bulk order for cheap wind chimes," wrote Christian author and columnist Jonathan Merritt in a recent article for The Week.
Hobby Lobby remains quiet about its dealings in China. The company did not respond to requests for a list of Chinese factories it does business with, and did not provide information about what percentage of its merchandise comes from China.
Then there's China's controversial record on abortion. The country's one-child policy was slightly relaxed in 2013, but the family planning bureaucracy still exists. Since the government instituted the policy 40 years ago, there have been more than 330 million abortions in China, according to health ministry data cited by the Financial Times. Though fewer instances of forced abortion, infanticide and involuntary sterilization now occur because they're banned by the government, they still happen, The Washington Post reported last year.
Here's my earlier post on the Supremes' decision, which is not about corporations' rights but the rights of the individuals who own and run them.
Paternalism And The Homeless
A Chinese billionaire was deterred from giving $300 (and lunch) to homeless men and women in New York last week. The cash part was the problem.
Christopher Blattman writes in The New York Times:
This didn't sit well with the nonprofit New York City Rescue Mission. The Rescue Mission offered to help with lunch, but wouldn't cooperate in handing out cash. So midway through a meal of sesame-crusted tuna and filet of beef, some 200 homeless people discovered that they would not be getting money. Instead, the Rescue Mission would accept $90,000 on their behalf. You can imagine the anger and humiliation.The millionaire, a recycling tycoon named Chen Guangbiao, wanted to set an example of generosity in the world's financial capital. To announce the $300 giveaway, he'd taken out a full-page advertisement in The New York Times.
The executive director of Rescue Mission said he was worried that people might spend the handout on drugs or alcohol. This pessimism (and paternalism) is common and understandable. But evidence from other countries suggests we should be more optimistic.
Globally, cash is a major tool to fight extreme poverty. The United Nations is handing out ATM cards to Syrian refugees alongside sacks of grain. The evidence suggests these cash programs work. There have been randomized trials of cash grants to poor Mexican families, Kenyan villagers, Malawian schoolgirls and many others. The results show that sometimes people just eat better or live in better homes. Often, though, they start businesses and earn more.
In Uganda, my colleagues and I worked with a nonprofit that offered $150 and five days of business planning to 900 of the poorest women in the world. After 18 months, the women had twice the incomes of a random control group.
...In 2010, Jim Rankin, a reporter for The Toronto Star, asked himself the same question. So he handed out five $50 prepaid Visa and MasterCard gift cards to panhandlers. What did they buy? Mostly food. Some phone minutes and clothes. A couple bought liquor as well.
It seems poor people given money will often use it to good end. But what if they just want to drink? What if that's what alleviates their suffering and makes them feel good? Will you not give them money in case they want to buy drugs or alcohol with it?
As Bittman points out, it also seems that there are preconceived notions and perhaps some organizational self-interest on the part of the organization that nixed the money-giving.
A commenter writes:
Nav Pradeepan, Ontario
Shame on New York City Rescue Mission for forbidding the distribution of cash to New York's homeless. The audacity of the NYC Rescue Mission to accept $90,000 "on their behalf" adds to the insult of those who are less fortunate. While its shameful behavior needs to be condemned, the generosity of people like of Mr. Chen Guangbiao deserve a much praise - especially in this age of austerity and widening income gaps.Professor Blattman provides numerous examples of where cash handouts have helped people in the developing world. But he need not look beyond the U.S. for proof. Welfare payments are made in cash. Our salaries are also paid in cash. Do some welfare recipients misuse their welfare check? Sure. Do some employed people waste their hard-earned money in gambling, alcohol abuse, cigarettes etc.? They most certainly do and, perhaps, more so than welfare recipients.
If the NYC Rescue Mission truly wants to "rescue" the homeless, it needs to start by first respecting their dignity and independence.
Another commenter writes:
sylvia kronstadt, salt lake city
I approve, of and personally feel, a range of charitable impulses, including handing a $50 bill to a harrowed man holding a sign on a busy street corner. If he needs to use it for alcohol and cigarettes, I don't mind. I know the feeling.Giving money to "charities" is a perilous undertaking. It's always been a moral compromise, from my perspective. Most of the ones I've investigated spend the vast bulk of their resources on salaries (often exorbitant), fund-raising, "image consultants," and fancy offices.
The New York City Rescue Mission spends $2 million on fundraising and $3 million on "program expenses" to "shelter, feed and clothe 160 men and 30 women each day/night." Only one trustee's income is listed, but it's over $150,000. The Mission's 2012 IRS Form 990 indicates that it began the year with over $4 million in net assets and ended the year with nearly $10 million. In 2013, it ended the year with $12.6 million in net assets, a $2.6 million "excess."
Why didn't it "sit well" with the Mission when the Chinese millionaire made his grand gesture? What business is it of theirs? I wish the philanthropist had simply bypassed the Mission and handed out the money himself. It would have been a nice experience.
Chinese millionaires -- and anyone else who feels the urge to give, in whatever way he or she pleases -- should be encouraged and applauded.
Slurpee
Linkee, 7-Eleven-style.
SLC Officer Kills Dog In Man's Fenced Yard; SLC's Top Cop Pissy About Criticism
This is just so terrible. Officers were looking for a lost child and Officer Brett Olsen entered Sean Kendall's fenced-in yard and then, instead of just backing out when he encountered Kendall's 3-year-old Weimaraner, shot the dog in the head. Kendall confronts two other cops, still at the scene, on video.
(The video isn't as long as it looks because the camera was dropped at one point. Forward it to the end, to the backyard shot.)
More from J.D. Tuccille at reason:
Perhaps feeling a bit besieged after dog owner Sean Kendall posted a video of his impassioned confrontation with Salt Lake City police after one of their fellow officers entered his yard and shot his dog, Geist, Police Chief Chris Burbank stepped in front of a camera--and acted pissy that anybody would dare criticize his officers."Evidence shows that the dog was extremely close, in fact within feet of the officer," he insisted, immediately after stating that he wouldn't insert himself into the review of the case.
Well, OK. Let's give him that one. After all, Officer Brett Olsen, the shooter in the incident, had barged into the dog's yard at the time, while searching for a missing child in the neighborhood. He hadn't sought permission, and he apparently made no effort to back out.
Kendall's dog, Geist.
More here at the petition site:
Police said the dog was "aggressive," but Kendall isn't buying their explanation. He says that Geist (pictured above) had never shown aggression before, and was, most likely, simply walking toward the officer out of curiosity about the stranger in the yard. In fact, he says, any dog would do the same thing."The idea that he attacked an officer -- it just doesn't make sense," sad Kendall. "I believe my dog came out of the dog kennel to see what was going on, who was here, stopped right here, and those were his last moments."
Kendall says that he has now lost his best friend. "He was a member of my family. He was just goofy and funny and he loved to play. He was a big cuddler, a big cuddler, and now he's gone," said Kendall. "You know we slept together, we went on hikes together."
He says the sight of his dog lying dead from a bullet to the head is now "burned into my eyes."
"Just the sheer sight of seeing my dog there -- it was traumatizing," Kendall said. "Now he's dead. I have him wrapped up in a blanket in the back of my truck, and now I have to go bury him."
Kendall met with Salt Lake City police at the city's police headquarters on Monday, but came away frustrated that no action is being taken against the cop who killed his dog.
Kendall say the officer who killed Geist needs to pay with his job.
"The only thing that I would be satisfied with is having this officer terminated," said Kendall. "I feel that his judgment was completely inappropriate."
But the police defended the officer's actions, saying there were "extenuating circumstances."
"A child is missing," said Salt Lake City Police Sergeant Greg Wilking. "If you're a parent, you would want us to look everywhere for your child. We wouldn't want to leave any stone unturned."
The boy was reported missing at 4:30 pm, police said. He was found safe and asleep in his parent's basement at 5 pm.
Dogs being shot by cops happens too often these days in this country.
via @BernardKingIII
Making Sense Of The Hobby Lobby Decision
At reason, Peter Suderman explains, referencing Damon Root, that it's not about corporations' rights but the rights of the individuals who own and run them:
You'll probably hear a fair amount of commentary and complaining about the religious rights of corporations. But that's not the best way to think about the decision. The language of the ruling, written by Justice Samuel Alito, emphasizes repeatedly that it's not really about corporations--it's about the individual people who own and operate those corporations.The gist of the decision, as Reason's Damon Root explained earlier, is that Obamacare's contraception mandate, which applies to most employers with more than 50 people as part of the law's essential benefits rules, violates the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a law which provides that "government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability." Any exceptions should further a "compelling governmental interest" and be the "least restrictive means" of doing so.
The key to Alito's ruling arguably comes down to just two words: "a person's."
The big question isn't whether the contraception mandate violates the religious freedoms of some faceless corporate entity entirely separate from the individuals who own that company--it's whether the requirement would violate the free exercise of religious for the particular people who founded and now run the company.
As Alito writes in his opinion, "A corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings to achieve desired ends....When rights, whether constitutional or statutory, are extended to corporations, the purpose is to protect the rights of these people."
From the Cato Institute amicus brief on the case:
The real issue in these cases is whether individuals who wish to conduct their business lives in accordance with their religious beliefs forfeit the right to do so when they organize their business in the form of a corporation--in particular, a closely held corporation. Individuals who choose to organize their business affairs this way "do not check their religious values at the office door."
Yoohoo...untying health care from the workplace, anyone?
Time Off For Attentive Behavior
The Finnish way of schooling kids -- 45 minutes of schoolwork followed by a 15-minute break -- seems to make for more attentive students in class.
Tim Walker, an American who taught school in Helsinki, writes at The Atlantic of how Finland keeps kids focused through free play:
I didn't see the point of these frequent pit stops. As a teacher in the United States, I'd spent several consecutive hours with my students in the classroom. And I was trying to replicate this model in Finland. The Finnish way seemed soft and I was convinced that kids learned better with longer stretches of instructional time. So I decided to hold my students back from their regularly scheduled break and teach two 45-minute lessons in a row, followed by a double break of 30 minutes. Now I knew why the red dots had appeared on Sami's forehead.Come to think of it, I wasn't sure if the American approach had ever worked very well. My students in the States had always seemed to drag their feet after about 45 minutes in the classroom. But they'd never thought of revolting like this shrimpy Finnish fifth grader, who was digging in his heels on the third day of school. At that moment, I decided to embrace the Finnish model of taking breaks.
Once I incorporated these short recesses into our timetable, I no longer saw feet-dragging, zombie-like kids in my classroom. Throughout the school year, my Finnish students would--without fail--enter the classroom with a bounce in their steps after a 15-minute break. And most importantly, they were more focused during lessons.
At first, I was convinced that I had made a groundbreaking discovery: frequent breaks kept students fresh throughout the day. But then I remembered that Finns have known this for years; they've been providing breaks to their students since the 1960s.
Research by Anthony Pelligrini seems to confirm this.
I'm wondering if I should incorporate this into my writing life. I already take naps -- about 15 to 25 minutes of nappiness every three or four hours. But maybe a walk around the block with Aida between writing jags would make me more productive.
Why I Love Venice And Why I Always Talk To Strangers
I don't need to walk Aida because she can pee in the yard but she's social and so am I, and she loves getting those messages dogs leave for each other in the form of pee, so we've been going out for walks in the evening.
When we do, I almost always have some interesting or at least warm conversation with somebody.
Tonight, I got no further than around the block when a guy standing on the sidewalk holding his bike commented on my wild pants -- in a very nice way -- and I stopped and talked.
He was from Kalamazoo and the guy he was with was from Senegal. I hung out and talked with them for 45 minutes and had a great time, and learned that the Muslims and Christians in Senegal get along very well -- among other things.
The guy from Kalamazoo is sending me some of his music, which the guy from Senegal said gave him chills when he heard a recording of the guy's work. (I loved that he said that -- people so often fail to tell creative people what their work means to them, and it means a lot when somebody tells you they got something out of something you created.)
The guy from Senegal also said he's amazed that people fight wars for this country and then are just left to go homeless and without medical care.
The guy from Kalamazoo also told me to look up Viola Luizza.
Ever since I moved out of my parents' home, I've always tried to live in neighborhoods where you can be around a lot of people when you leave the house. I love the adventures you can sometimes have just by walking a few blocks.
Bet Your Sweet Linkie
I have no idea what a bippy is, but you can bet that too, if yours is sweet and bettable.
