Where To Put Your Naughty Parts While Waiting For The Bathroom On A Plane
When you're holiday gift-shopping, please buy my book at Amazon -- "Good Manners For Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck" -- at Barnes and Noble, or at the fabulous independent bookstore near you.
Along with positive reviews in the WSJ and other publications, Library Journal gave the book a starred review: "Verdict: Solid psychology and a wealth of helpful knowledge and rapier wit fill these pages. Highly recommended." (Woohoo!)
The Constant Push To Criminalize Being Male And Male Sexuality
A New Jersey legislator -- Assemblyman Troy Singleton (D-Mount Laurel) -- has proposed legislation making it "rape by fraud" in New Jersey if a person lies with somebody to sleep with them. From CBS/NY:
Women and even men have been lured into relationships with people who aren't who they say they are."You probably would not consent to someone who purported to be a million different things other than they are," Singleton said.
The assemblyman has introduced a bill that would make lying to get someone to have sex equal to rape.
"We think it is important to folks to be protected and this is just another way to provide that protection," he said.
Under the bill, it would require more than a little white lie to land you in jail. The lies would have to be continuous and rise to a high level of deceit.
"When you are told lies of identity, you're basically having a sexual relationship with a person who is a total stranger," Joyce Short said.
Short supports the bill. She claims she was deceived for years by her now ex-husband.
"He lied about his marital status, he lied about his education. He said he had a bachelor's in accounting from NYU and was, in fact, a high school dropout," Short said.
It's always easier to stick the blame for due diligence on the person you're engaging with, but that teaches you nothing.
Personal responsibility really has gone out of style. I also see this as a mark of how dim the voters are.
It was Joyce Short's responsibility to vet who she was with. I was fooled in my 20s. I put the blame where it belonged -- on me -- and never was so naive again.
The therapist Nathaniel Branden once told me that people will tell you who they are -- if you are willing to listen. He's absolutely right. But, of course, this requires more than lazily hoping you've found Prince or Princess Charming.
Who's Afraid Of The Big, Bad Welfare State? Hint: We Should Be A Little Less Smug...
...About what a pioneering, self-reliant nation we are.
@AnneApplebaum pointed out in a tweet that the US's welfare state is NOT smaller than Europe's, linking to this WaPo op-ed by Robert Samuelson. It centers on new figures published in a report on government social spending by the The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) -- a group of wealthy nations. Samuelson writes:
Call it a massive case of national self-deception. Indeed, judged by how much of their national income countries devote to social spending, we have the world's second-largest welfare state -- just behind France....Direct government spending isn't the only way that societies provide social services. They also channel payments through private companies, encouraged, regulated and subsidized by government. This is what the United States does, notably with employer-provided health insurance (which is subsidized by government by not counting employer contributions as taxable income) and tax-favored retirement savings accounts.
When these are added to government's direct payments, rankings shift. France remains at the top, but the United States vaults into second position with roughly 30 percent of its GDP spent on social services, including health care. We have a hybrid welfare state, partly run by the government and partly outsourced to private markets.
...The main message that Americans can take from this report is that we need a higher level of candor. The very complexity of our hybrid system seems intended to disguise the reality that we have a welfare state. We have created a new vocabulary to validate our denial. From our "safety net," we distribute "entitlements" that are not "handouts" and don't qualify as "welfare" payments. We pretend (or some of us do) that our Social Security taxes have been "saved" to provide for our retiree payments, when today's Social Security checks are mainly financed by the payroll taxes of today's workers, just as yesterday's checks were financed by the taxes of yesterday's workers.
If we were more honest about these matters, we might have an easier time debating what are admittedly difficult and unpopular choices. Who deserves benefits, how much and why? What are the consequences for taxpayers and the larger society? Does our hybrid mix of public and private power make sense? These are insistent issues that won't vanish even though we pretend they don't exist.
Missing Links
I think I dropped them on the floor while getting dressed.
Steal This Printer!
That's practically the deal -- $44.99 in a deal today at Amazon for the (normally $149.99) Canon PIXMA MG5520 Wireless All-In-One Color Photo Printer with Scanner, Copier and Auto Duplex Printing, Black (Tablet Ready)
To buy other things at Amazon and help support this site, here's a link: Search Amy's Amazon
And don't forget to buy my book, "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck," for all the naughty and nice people in your life! Only about $11 with Amazon's discount!
Desert Sky At Night, Half-Naked Woman In The Morning
There was a half-naked woman -- one who looked very much like me -- wandering the sidewalks of Rancho Mirage, California.
Gregg, Aida (my wee Chinese Crested), and I spent Thanksgiving with some Michigan friends who also have a place in the desert.
The sky here is especially beautiful, and Gregg took a picture as the moon was just coming out. 
When we're here, we usually stay in our friends' guest room, but it was occupied, so they put us and another one of their friends up in a wonderful little bungalow at the country club across the way.
Friday morning, Gregg drove out to Starbucks to get me coffee and, while he was gone, I wanted to let Aida out on the patio in case she needed to pee. When trying to secure the space, I managed to lock myself out. While wearing only a towel and my down booties!
It's cold here in the morning and evening, and I realized Gregg might be a while, so I clutched the towel around me and wandered off down the path of bungalows looking for a maintenance worker. And, by the way, it was a rather abbreviated towel -- accessorized by my REI down booties -- and no, there are no pictures of that!
I saw Gregg over the stone fence of the parking lot and turned back to go to our pad. He spotted me and thought, "Who's that crazy woman in the towel and the clown shoes." And then he realized, "Uh-oh...she's my crazy woman." (Though I can't imagine Gregg, who our French friend Laurent describes as my "grizzly-sized data nazi," ever saying "uh-oh.")
And yes, he, too, wishes he'd thought to whip out his phone and take a photo.
Where Does The Government's Responsibility Begin And End For Non-Government Employees Held As Hostages?
If you go off into a war zone as a private citizen -- disregarding State Department warnings -- should the government be financing your rescue and rehabilitation?
I saw a tweet about a hostage taken in Syria who ended up escaping from his jihadist captors. The tweet was an irate one, complaining that the US government did not even pay for the hostage's plane ticket back!
I figured the irate nature of the tweet meant that the government had ignored one of its own. Actually, that wasn't the case. Nancy A. Youssef writes for McClatchy:
WASHINGTON -- The only thing as bad as being tortured for months as a captive of jihadists in Syria was dealing with the U.S. government afterward, according to one former American hostage.Matt Schrier, 36, a freelance photographer held by extremists for seven months in 2013 until he escaped, has told McClatchy that the bureaucracy he endured upon his return home was a second kind of nightmare following the months of abuse he suffered while he was a hostage.
"I never thought it would get this bad," Schrier said.
The FBI never told his father that he had been kidnapped. It waited six months into his capture to produce a wanted poster, and only after his mother prodded. It allowed jihadist forces to empty his bank account - $17,000 - with purchases on eBay, even as the government warned hostage families not to pay ransom so as not to run afoul of anti-terrorism laws.
After his escape, the government made him reimburse the State Department $1,605 for his ticket home just weeks after he arrived in the United States. The psychiatrist assigned to help him readjust canceled five appointments in the first two months. And when he had no means to rent an apartment, FBI victims services recommended New York City homeless shelters.
The FBI declined to comment on the specifics of Schrier's complaints but said in a statement that "When an American is detained illegally overseas, the FBI's top priority is ensuring the safe return of that individual."
"To that end," the statement said, "the FBI provides support services to victims and their families, to include help in meeting short-term exigent needs, and shares information about their loved ones that is timely and appropriate."
There is no way to independently confirm Schrier's version of events, and emails he shared with McClatchy make it clear that his relationship with his FBI handlers was, at best, acrimonious. But his telling of his experience is consistent with the the anger relatives of other hostages have expressed in interviews with McClatchy when speaking of their interactions with U.S. government officials.
"The next time the FBI calls me will be the first time," said Schrier's father, Jeffrey, 67, who lives in Coconut Creek, outside Fort Lauderdale, Fla. "I thank God my son was able to escape, because if he was waiting for the government to spring him he would still be waiting in that hellhole."
Spurred by the recent beheadings of three Americans who'd been held hostage in Syria by the Islamic State, the Obama administration earlier this month said it is reviewing the way government agencies handle hostages and their families.
I appreciate people who go into a danger zone to bring the story to the world, but if they get in trouble, should their backup and exit plan really be the US taxpayer?
Nippy
Links on ice.
The Wymyn Who Missed Biology Class
Feminism argues for sameness, not fairness, notes Helena Cronin.
via @CHSommers, who pointed out in a tweet that Cronin is "an outlier. In the academy the extreme is the mean."
Minky
Furry little links with sharp teeth...
The Ridiculousness Of What Is Now Black Thursday Frigging Night
Isn't anybody calculating the tradeoff?
I watched a little TV last night and heard ads for stores opening at 6 pm on Thursday for the ugly hell that is "Black Friday."
So, store employees have to leave their family dinners and go back to work at, what, 4 or 4:30 pm? And people are all going to go shove each other out of the way to save, what, $10 or $100?
I'm a girl whose last garment purchase (a Michelangelo eveningwear skirt) was made on ebay ($6 plus $6 shipping), so it isn't that I'm using piles of money for kindling. It's just that I don't think people ask themselves the question: Is that amount of savings really worth leaving the family and going off fight your way through Sears or Macy's or wherever?
And it starts earlier and earlier than ever.
Via @SmallgGay, check this insanity out. Melissa Montoya writes in the News-Press:
By the time Thursday arrives and people gather around the dinner table to feast on turkey, David Valentin will have been at Best Buy on Cleveland Avenue for 15 days.The 32-year-old and five of his friends take turns in between jobs to reserve their first spot in line to receive Best Buy's door buster deals when the retailer open its doors at 5 p.m.
How much can you possibly be saving that this amount of time would be worth it?
I just bought my wonderful copyeditor, wonderful bookkeeper, and wonderful new assistant some presents online.
I thought I could get a discount on the ones for my bookkeeper and assistant with a coupon code, but I wasn't spending enough in total, so I ended up spending $10 more on the gift for each.
Times are a bit tough for those of us who are writers in what has now become the Golden Age of trying to pay (in total or in part) with "But You'll Get Exposure!" (If I want exposure, I'll run naked down Wilshire Boulevard.)
But I learned from engineering professor Dr. Barbara Oakley to think in terms of tradeoffs.
These two people are truly wonderful and, ultimately, I'm happy to spend money on getting them something nice. Also finding something different and also very nice -- for what amounts to $20 in savings -- would just be a stupid waste of time.
RELATED: Retail employee Shawn Binder writes at SpliceToday that he has "zero respect" for Black Friday and Thanksgiving shoppers. (SpliceToday is the site of Russ Smith, who brought to life and published a paper I loved, New York Press, back when I was living in New York.)
I don't agree with Binder on this -- his calling Black Friday and Thanksgiving shopping "a reminder from the privileged that their time is more valuable than others, and that their families are more important."
I just don't think people are thinking about it. It's monkey behavior. Deals?! Shop! (Insert excited chimp sounds here.)
Culture Doesn't Rape; A Few Criminal Dirtbags Rape
A ridiculous Nicholas Kristof column on "rape culture" made my brain boil. No, according to Kristof, the problem isn't that an individual may have raped (he's referring to the allegations against Bill Cosby); it's a "culture that enables rape."
I live in Los Angeles. I dated a movie actor, a TV actor, a couple of comedians, a movie critic, a couple of executives, a few screenwriters, and a number of movie workers (sound guys, a director, etc). I have never, ever had anyone try to rape me, nor have I seen a culture that promotes rape.
Okay, sure, my experience is not necessarily everyone's experience, but really, as Katie Roiphe pointed out a while back about the (bullshit) "one in four!" statistic: If one of every four of your female friends was a victim of rape...wouldn't you know?
And sure, casting couch has been around forever and will continue to be around. But for the most part, if you don't want to sell your ass for a part in a movie, you don't have to -- meaning, you're quite unlikely to be drugged and used (as per the allegations against Bill Cosby).
However, Kristof writes in The New York Times:
Whatever the truth of the accusations against Cosby -- a wave of women have now stepped forward and said he drugged and raped them (mostly decades ago), but his lawyer denies the allegations -- it's too easy for us to see this narrowly as a Cosby scandal of celebrity, power and sex. The larger problem is a culture that enables rape. The larger problem is us.We collectively are still too passive about sexual violence in our midst, too willing to make excuses, too inclined to perceive shame in being raped.
I'll give him the last one. But the rest? Bullshit.
It's the feminist party line.
But the reality is, just as a certain kind of person robs liquor stores, a certain kind of person rapes. There isn't "rape culture" causing it; it's explained by a combination of genes and environment, their interplay, and free will.
Kristof adds:
Too often boys are socialized to see women and girls as baubles, as playthings. The upshot is that rapists can be stunningly clueless, somehow unaware that they have committed a crime or even a faux pas. The Rolling Stone article describes how the rape victim at the University of Virginia, two weeks after the incident, ran into her principal assailant.Continue reading the main storyContinue reading the main storyContinue reading the main story
"Are you ignoring me?" he blithely asked. "I wanted to thank you for the other night. I had a great time."Likewise, a university student shared with me a letter her ex-boyfriend wrote her after brutally raping her in her dorm room. He apologized for overpowering her, suggested that she should be flattered and proposed that they get back together. Huh?
Anyone who is a person knows this is not the norm. This is sick thinking. Again, it's common to sick people; we don't have a culture that says this is okay.
And after a quick bit dismissing men who are falsely accused and have their educational lives and their lives ruined by it, he disproves everything he wrote in the column:
One study published in 2002 found that about 90 percent of college rapes were committed by a tiny number of serial rapists.
Exactly. Keep that line. Erase the rest, and you've got a column with some truth to it.
via @instapundit
Loogie
Hock a linkie instead; it's less gross on the soles of other people's shoes.
Traffic-Stopping Protests: Productive Or Counterproductive?
Do you help your cause -- in awareness or other ways -- or hurt it by snarling traffic and preventing countless people from getting to work, getting their kids to school, or getting to their meeting?
Consider that an ambulance, even if it's not on the freeway, can be slowed by residual traffic issues from a protest like this.
The knee-jerk thought is that this only hurts a cause. But is that ultimately the case?
(Annoying autoplay video at the NBC story about this.)
Why The New Treatment Of Rape On Campus Is Terrible For Victims
Campuses now put rape accusations before kangaroo courts made up of students and university employees. This is the equivalent of being a victim of a violent crime while in high school and, instead of going to the police and possibly having your day in court, having the matter brought up before a meeting of the student council.
A woman was raped while attending UVA. Robbie Soave writes at reason:
Rolling Stone's expose, which quickly went viral, details the unbelievable ordeal of an 18-year-old freshman, "Jackie," in the fall of 2012. The crime took place at Phi Kappa Psi, where Jackie was attending her first fraternity party with a date, a Phi Psi junior, who eventually lured her to an upstairs bedroom. Jackie then endured three hours of agonizing violence at the hands of seven students, who held her down while they raped her. One male, whom she recognized, brutalized her with a beer can instead. Hours later she fled the frat house battered and bloody.Little could have been worse than that ordeal. But the quiet indifference of the people in whom Jackie confided came close. Her friends dissuaded her from going to the hospital or calling the police. Jackie recalled one saying, "She's gonna be the girl who cried 'rape,' and we'll never be allowed into any frat party again," as if the potential loss of social status was the real crime here.
Worse still, university administrators did nothing to correct the notion that keeping quiet was the best policy. A few months later, after finally working up the courage to go to the administration, Jackie told Nicole Eramo, head of UVA's Sexual Misconduct Board, about her assault. Eramo gave her four options: file a police report, file a formal complaint with the university, file an "informal" complaint, or do nothing. The informal complaint process would have obligated the accused to face Jackie in Eramo's presence, and the administrator would have suggested some kind of resolution. The formal complaint process offers the possibility of an academic punishment, like suspension or expulsion. Eramo didn't express a preference for one option or the other; Jackie ultimately did nothing, and that was just fine from the university's perspective.
...Yet much of that outrage is misdirected. One of the most common reactions to the Rolling Stone story seems to be this curious question: why weren't the rapists expelled? Indeed, much of the broader coverage has focused on the fact that no student has ever been expelled for rape at UVA.
...The mother of a UVA student who reported her rape summarized this position thusly: "In what world do you get kicked out for cheating, but if you rape someone, you can stay?"
That sentiment makes for a great outrage quote, but it's entirely wrong. Cheating and raping are not related things. The former is in academic infraction deserving an academic punishment, like expulsion; the latter is a violent crime deserving a rigorous police investigation. Students who are confessed rapists shouldn't be expelled, they should be put in jail.
Merely ejecting rapists from a campus community would be a terrible approach. Rapists, experts tell us, are serial predators. They are public health hazards. Shuffling them from community to community, rather than confronting their misdeeds in a criminal setting, would allow them to claim additional victims. Do the bureaucrats at the Department of Education--who are now mandating that universities at least consider expelling rapists--really sleep any better at night with the knowledge that they have made it more difficult for violent criminals to earn degrees?
Treating rape as akin to plagiarism, or copying off someone else's test, trivializes violence against women. What UVA administrators did, in listening to students' accusations and failing to report them to police time and time again, is worse than trivializing: it's an outright cover-up. Eramo reportedly justified UVA's policy of burying rape accusations when she told Jackie, "Nobody wants to send their daughter to the rape school." That stunning moment of honesty should disabuse everyone of the notion that sexual assault adjudication belongs in the hands of university administrators.
Rape cases need to be reported to the police and dealt with by our justice system. The one where there are judges in robes, not student council members in flip-flops.
"It's The Economy, Stupid!": Schumer Figures This Out Only Six Years Too Late
New York Senator Charles Schumer gave a speech the other day saying Democrats made a mistake putting health care "reform" (scare quotes are mine) before the economy. Peter Suderman writes at reason:
At a speech at the National Press Club yesterday morning, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) argued that Democrats were wrong to take on health care reform so soon after the 2008 election."Unfortunately, Democrats blew the opportunity the American people gave them" after electing Barack Obama president and Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, Schumer said, according to Bloomberg News. "We took their mandate and put all our focus on the wrong problem--health care reform." Democrats, he argued, should have focused on jobs and the economy first, and tackled health care reform later. It wasn't a mistake the pass the health law, in other words, but a mistake to put it at the top of the to-do list.
Of course, it's all about what's good for the Democrats at the polls, not what's good for the country.
And he's still all "Big Government Uber Alles" -- smack dab in the face of its failure.
Colleges Are Pressing Out Lifelong Victims
Heather Mac Donald writes at City Journal on the modern Salem Witch Trials -- "The Microaggression Farce, the latest campus fad, which sees racism everywhere." Mac Donald believes -- and I agree -- that it's creating a new generation of permanent victims.
Even the most multi-culti on campus are not safe.
UCLA education professor emeritus Val Rust was involved in multiculturalism long before the concept even existed. A pioneer in the field of comparative education, which studies different countries' educational systems, Rust has spent over four decades mentoring students from around the world and assisting in international development efforts. He has received virtually every honor awarded by the Society of Comparative and International Education....Rosalind Raby, director of the California Colleges for International Education, says that ..."There is no one more sensitive to the issue of cross-cultural understanding."
Again, sorry, that won't stop you from being the head du jour on the platter.
Rust had changed a student's capitalization of the word "indigenous" in her dissertation proposal to the lowercase, thus allegedly showing disrespect for the student's ideological point of view. Tensions arose over Rust's insistence that students use the more academic Chicago Manual of Style for citation format; some students felt that the less formal American Psychological Association conventions better reflected their political commitments. During one of these heated discussions, Rust reached over and patted the arm of the class's most vociferous critical race-theory advocate to try to calm him down--a gesture typical of the physically demonstrative Rust, who is prone to hugs. The student, Kenjus Watson, dramatically jerked his arm away, as a burst of nervous energy coursed through the room.After each of these debates, the self-professed "students of color" exchanged e-mails about their treatment by the class's "whites." (Asians are not considered "persons of color" on college campuses, presumably because they are academically successful.) Finally, on November 14, 2013, the class's five "students of color," accompanied by "students of color" from elsewhere at UCLA, as well as by reporters and photographers from the campus newspaper, made their surprise entrance into Rust's class as a "collective statement of Resistance by Graduate Students of Color." The protesters formed a circle around Rust and the remaining five students (one American, two Europeans, and two Asian nationals) and read aloud their "Day of Action Statement." That statement suggests that Rust's modest efforts to help students with their writing faced obstacles too great to overcome.
The Day of Action Statement contains hardly a sentence without some awkwardness of grammar or usage. "The silence on the repeated assailment of our work by white female colleagues, our professor's failure to acknowledge and assuage the escalating hostility directed at the only Male of Color in this cohort, as well as his own repeated questioning of this male's intellectual and professional decisions all support a complacency in this hostile and unsafe climate for Scholars of Color," the manifesto asserts.
...The Ph.D. candidates who authored this statement are at the threshold of a career in academia--and not just any career in academia but one teaching teachers. The Day of Action Statement should have been a wake-up call to the school's authorities--not about UCLA's "hostile racial climate" but about their own pedagogical failure to prepare students for scholarly writing and advising. Rust is hardly the first professor to be criticized for his efforts to help students write. "Asking for better grammar is inflammatory in the school," says an occasional T.A. "You have to give an A or you're a racist."
The authorities chose a different course.
Yes -- ye olde head on platter.
This behavior is coming from students who have grown up in what, at any other time in history, would be considered luxurious comfort. And that is true of almost most people who grow up in America, even those who do not grow up in middle-class families.
I believe that so much comfort -- and the notion that even the slightest discomfort is a form of injustice -- has played a role in both many people's unwillingness to stand up for our civil liberties and in the witch hunts going on on campus. Oh, the horror that a professor would correct your grammar!
And yes, there's obviously all sorts of multi-culti victim studies-think behind this, too -- of course -- but I think the perceived "right" to comfort at all times is something we've overlooked.
Loggy
The land of linkin'.
Hop On Black Friday Deals Week!
Some big savings on limited-time deals at Amazon
OR: Search Amy's Amazon here.
Need to add something on for free shipping? How about my book, "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck"? Buying a new copy also helps me earn back my advance and sell the next one!
Why People Riot And Loot And The Silence Of Al Sharpton And Jesse Jackson
Wayne Root, who refers to himself as a "middle-class white guy," writes at The Blaze about the notion that people riot and loot because they have nothing:
I believe the opposite is true -- people have nothing because they riot and loot. It's their attitude that causes them to have nothing in life. That attitude is on display as they scream "F- the police" and commit crimes against people, police and property.Secondly, it's really stupid to burn down your own community. The rest of the world stops feeling sorry for you and just wants to avoid you. The stores you're burning or looting are often owned by blacks, or other minority small business owners. They will be forced to leave and never come back. The rest of the world won't dare replace them -- who'd want to invest in a neighborhood where people burn, destroy or rob their own community businesses. So next time you have nowhere to shop and wonder why...look in the mirror.
I disagree with him on his intimation that you somehow deserve trouble if you (rightfully, in many states) refuse to provide a police officer with ID or answer his questions (when there's no probable cause -- no reason to believe you are guilty of a crime).
But I think if the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons of the world actually cared about black people as much as they care about their own advancement, they'd speak up and tell those who are rioting that they are laying waste to their own neighborhoods and the advancement of their neighbors. And this is true whether they burn the beauty shop owned by their black next-door neighbor or a liquor store owned by somebody of another color.
Not Exactly Martin Luther King Protesting In Ferguson
There were many actual protests across the country -- people lying down in Beverly Hills on the street and people standing on freeways in other places in Los Angeles, for example. You may be angry about this if you're on the freeway trying to get home, but this is peaceful civil disobedience.
Law prof Jonathan Turley writes about the case and "the curious sight of rioters and looters demanding 'justice' when what they are really describing is mob justice in Ferguson, Missouri." From the first Turley link:
The evidence in this case gives Wilson a strong defense. Brown allegedly was coming from the commission of a crime where he appeared to threaten a store clerk. The forensic evidence appears to contradict those who insist that Brown was not shot in a struggle but with his hands in the air. There is evidence that Wilson was injured in a struggle, the gun was discharged in the car and Brown was shot at close quarters leaving blood on the gun. Finally, more than a half-dozen black witnesses reportedly gave testimony supporting Wilson. Other scenarios could explain the evidence, and there is still the question of why so many shots were fired. But those questions might never be answered, a reality of some criminal cases.The law requires us to deal with facts, and when those facts do not support a criminal charge, prosecution is barred regardless of popular demand.
In the end, it rings hollow to cry "no justice, no peace" when you are rioting or looting. There can be no justice if it is merely the result of demonstrations rather than demonstrated facts. Otherwise, the scales of justice become just one more object to throw through the window of an appliance store.
At the second link above, Turley writes:
In perhaps the most symbolic incident, Ferguson Market and Liquor, the store that Michael Brown robbed before he was killed, was looted by people demanding "justice" for Brown.
Turley continues:
Regardless of how one views the evidence of the shooting, the store owner was clearly a victim of Brown and did nothing beyond call the police. However, he now has a ransacked store and is somehow blamed for the killing.The media filmed as people carted out stolen merchandise out of the store last night:
More from Turley:
The discussion of the resulting looting and rioting often seemed a bit too enabling and relativistic. There is no rational connection between ransacking stores and seeking justice...
He also notes to those upset about "states rights" and calling for federal prosecution that the Justice Department looked into the case and found no basis for charges under civil rights provisions. That's President Obama's and Eric Holder's justice department, not the one run by Bull Connor.
Ferguson: What Everybody Keeps Forgetting
What we're missing is any kind of clear rendering of what the facts were.
Jacob Sullum also points this out at reason:
If Darren Wilson had been indicted, he probably would have been acquitted, since crucial questions about his deadly encounter with Michael Brown--questions on which the police officer's self-defense claim hinges--remain unresolved. The physical evidence is ambiguous, and eyewitnesses contradict each other on important details such as who initiated the violence, whether Wilson fired at Brown as he fled, and whether Brown was trying to surrender or trying to attack Wilson. That does not necessarily mean the grand jury was right to reject criminal charges against Wilson, since the standard for an indictment, probable cause, is much lower than the standard for conviction, proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But if a state homicide charge would have been difficult to prove, convicting Wilson in federal court would be nearly impossible.
Via AP, the complete set of grand jury documents released by Missouri authorities.
There were protests in a number of cities. Here in LA, the 10 Freeway (from LA Brea) was backed up for miles after Ferguson protesters walked onto onto it. More of that in Beverly Hills -- in the middle of the street.
In Ferguson, from The Atlantic:
November 24, 12:30 a.m.Several Business Burned in Ferguson
While the large scale demonstrations began to wind down in Ferguson, flames continued to fill the sky as a number of local business continued to burn. According to various reports, Sam's Meat Market, Little Caesar's, Public Storage, and O'Reilly Auto Parts, were among the businesses that were set on fire during the evening's protests. Because of the sheer number of fires, firefighters were unable to even attempt to put some of them out, so the buildings burned on their own for several hours.
In addition to the fires, several business were looting, including a local Walgreens. At least two police cars were destroyed and set on fire, as well.
RELATED: Blog post from lawyer @ScottGreenfield on the grand jury trial charade.
Unsustainable: California Will Soon Have More Retirees On The Payroll Than Workers
From CalPensions.com:
In a few years CalPERS retirees are expected to outnumber active workers, a national trend among public pension funds that makes them more vulnerable to big employer rate increases.A mature pension fund for a growing number of retirees becomes much larger than the payroll. So if the pension fund has investment losses, an employer rate increase to help fill the hole takes a bigger bite from the payroll.
From a commenter at the site:
larrylittlefield Says: November 24, 2014 at 2:20 pm This is not unexpected when you offer one year in retirement for each year worked.And you don't have rapid underlying population and government employment growth to alter the ratio, with a larger number number of current workers reflecting current population and tax base and a smaller number of existing retirees reflecting the less populated past.
None of this should make a difference if pensions are other retiree benefits are properly pre-funded. The ratio ought to be irrelevant.
But that never, ever happens. Generation Greed has taken a large part of the future from the generations to follow. The only questions are the distribution of the past guilt between unions that got retroactive pension increases and past taxpayers seeking lower taxes and getting them through pension underfunding. And the distribution of the pain, usually with the guilty beneficiaries exempted.
via @reasonpolicy
Linkdevil
Seadevil.
The Grand Jury Of Twitter On Ferguson
Here's one.
How To Make The World A Better Place In Just A Few Hours A Week
Spotted from a longtime Venice (California) resident who volunteers teaching people to read:
It's "Wrong" To Call Women "Honey" And "Sweetie"?
Kurt Bayer writes for the NZ Herald of an earthquake recovery boss, Roger Sutton, resigning and speaking with great shame about calling women in his workplace "honey" and "sweetie."
This seems like a parody but it's for real:
"Hugs, jokes ... I do do those things, and I've hurt somebody with that behaviour and I'm very, very sorry about that," Mr Sutton said."But I am who I am. I have called women 'honey' and 'sweetie', and that is wrong. That's a sexist thing to do, and I'm really sorry."
...Ms Malcolm was shocked by the chain of events that led to his resignation.
"It's been hideous. He's a really good man," she said.
"Why have his hugs and jokes been misinterpreted? I have no idea. But he's a touchy-feely person. In Christchurch, we hug everybody and I can't understand it.
"He's a really good man - he's far nicer than I am. He's far more compassionate than I am, but he's also really silly. And that's kind of what I love about him.
"I think he kind of forgot that he was the leader of the public service and he's too informal, he's too relaxed ... but that's who he is. That's what makes him amazing, and why his staff, the Cera staff, love him."
...The employee who raised the complaint is still with Cera.
Mr Rennie met her today to apologise for the "hurt and distress" she experienced.
I'm not real fond of being called "idiot" or "bitch," but "honey" or "sweetie"?
If you feel that in some way hurts or demeans you, here's how you respond if you actually are an equal to men and belong in an adult workplace:
If you, as an adult, don't like what someone's calling you, tell them.
If they persist, tell them again.
Chances are, they'll stop.
If they are saying it as some form of sneering harassment, and if this is somehow preventing you from doing your job, you go to HR.
Like a grownup.
Winkie
One-eyed links.
Advice Goddess Radio, LIVE, Tonight, 7-8 pm PT: Joshua Wolf Shenk On The Myth Of The Lone Genius And The Science Of Partnering Up For Greater Innovation And Success
Amy Alkon's Advice Goddess Radio: "Nerd Your Way To A Better Life!" with the best brains in science.
Joshua Wolf Shenk uses science, fascinating true stories of creative partnerships, and historical evidence to dispel the myth of the lone genius and show that creativity is not the work of an individual mind. It is, in fact, a social activity, and two people, working together, are truly "greater than the sum of their parts."
Join us tonight to find out what it takes to be a creative partner -- and in turn, how to be far more than you can be alone.
Shenk's book we'll be discussing is Powers of Two: Finding the Essence of Innovation in Creative Pairs
Previously, he was the author of Lincoln's Melancholy: How Depression Challenged a President and Fueled His Greatness
Listen to the show at this link at showtime or download the podcast afterward:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/amyalkon/2014/11/24/joshua-wolf-shenk-the-science-of-partnering-up-for-greater-innovation-success
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!
Andrew Sullivan On Illiberal Feminism And The Language Of "Micro-Aggressions"
In a blog item about two men being stopped by feminists from having a public discussion on campus about abortion, Sullivan writes:
Once free speech is made contingent on no one's feelings being hurt, we no longer have free speech. Once that applies even within a university - the one space in our culture where free speech should be absolute - we have left liberalism behind on the march toward progressivism. That's why the logic of "hate crimes" is so pernicious; that's why the language of "micro-aggressions" leads to a public sphere in which some individuals, simply because of their gender or sexual orientation, are deemed unworthy of being allowed to debate. And those of us who speak out against this are damned in the same way: our integrity as human beings impugned, our characters wantonly besmirched, our views dismissed, and our arguments made to look as if they are mere prejudices.Any movement that seeks to win this way is not a movement I want to be a part of. And feminism is too vital a cause and too integral part of our discourse to be hijacked in this fashion.
Here's proud Niamh McIntyre, who brags that she helped shut it down "because my uterus isn't up for discussion."
Horrifying. (And I say that as somebody who is pro-choice -- while finding abortion creepy and awful.) In a free society, you have -- or should not have -- a fucking word of say as to whether anything is discussed.
Again, the answer to speech you deplore is more speech, not shutting down speech.
And here's something Greg Lukianoff notes in his beautifully written little book, Freedom From Speech -- how people are conflating physical and emotional security. Sullivan explains:
The college canceled the debate in part due to concerns about "physical security" of the students - the danger that the college would be mobbed by protestors, making a debate impossible - and their "mental security" as well. What on earth does "mental security" mean? This apparently:Mental security here refers to students' emotional well-being, avoiding unnecessary distress, particularly for any residents who may have had an abortion. With a 300 person protest expected, the event could not have been self-contained and it would have been impossible for those in the closest staircases (at a minimum) to avoid being made acutely aware of the event.
If you are incapable of dealing with the events of your life, you need to get therapy. The answer is not prohibiting others from hearing about an issue of interest to them.
Dumpling
Fat little pillow links.
Who's On Last?
This note was inspired by an exchange with a forensic psychologist, who was kind enough to email me with his unsolicited advice on how I should change my writing style.
I was tempted to respond to his initial email (but didn't): "Wow, I'll do that right away. After all these years developing my style and humor, I was only waiting for you to write to tell me to change it."
About the "I don't need the last word!" thing, I'm also reminded of huffy people who've commented here to say they're outta here and won't be back. (People who say that are always back -- one last time, and maybe a couple more last times after that.)
Your Car Alarm Is Not Protecting Your Car
Friday night, around dinner time, one was going off in my neighborhood for quite some time.
I like to joke that I am merely hostile, not violent. (This is true -- I'm a verbal sniper. These fists were made for typing.)
However, after some minutes of hearing the alarm, if I had a golf club and violent tendencies (plus a little cash laying around for bail), I would have gone out and smashed the person's windshield -- and maybe all their windows, too.
On a positive note, this would have made the alarm real.
Help Me; I'm Dim: Please Explain Why This Is "Casual Sexism"
Per Cat Ferguson at Retraction Watch, Duke conservation biologist Stuart Pimm was the subject of an apology in the Elsevier journal Biological Conservation.
The apology was for the language in his review of Keeping the Wild: Against the Domestication of Earth, in the wake of an outcry over what he wrote.
Here's the apparently lady-horrifying bit from Pimm:
I confess to having had a teenage crush on Julie Christie, the actress in ''Doctor Zhivago'' and ''Darling.'' In the latter film, she has a scandalous affair with a married intellectual. When, at last, he finds that she's having other affairs too, he walks her to the subway, refusing to send her home in the usual taxi. When she asks why, he replies: ''I don't take whores in taxis.'' I teach this as a metaphor for academic discourse. Now, I spend my life in scientific debate: it's what makes science so effective. That some scientists desperately seek attention, however, does not make giving it to them desirable.
Here's the (paywalled) note released by the journal on November 20:
We would like to inform our readers that parts of the book review Keeping Wild: Against the Domestication of the Earth by Stuart Pimm, Volume 180, pages 151-152 are denigrating to women. We have taken action to prevent such use of inappropriate language from recurring, and emphasize that the language used in this book review in no way reflects the policy or practice of Biological Conservation or Elsevier.
Okay, the guy is working really hard to shoehorn an analogy that doesn't quite fit into his paper.
As somebody who has been guilty of going to ridiculous lengths to write a paragraph around a beloved joke -- to the detriment of the subject matter -- I think I see a compadre in self-indulgence.
My take -- and I think this seems rather obvious: He loves that line from "Darling," and Julie Christie, to boot, and was determined to stick both of his loves in a scientific paper.
But "casual sexism"? Why is this "casual sexism"?
Do we now define any mention by a man of sex that happens to include a woman as "sexism"?
How To Make A Potential Employee Live To Ruin Your Company
I dealt with this sort of "call anytime!" stonewalling in the excerpt below from the op-ed editor of a big paper, who sat on a book-related op-ed I wrote for almost four months.
I sent it to him -- with his permission -- a week and a half before my book came out. He kept promising to read it "this weekend," or "this weekend," and apologizing -- and then engaging in the same pledge to read and disappearo over and over.
He even did this after he had me do work on the piece, which he ultimately passed on -- a month after I did the work and he then ignored me repeatedly again. Finally, I tricked him into picking up the phone, which is how I heard that he was passing.
Pro Tip: If you call from a blocked number, they wonder whether it might be a celebrity: "George Clooney?" "Hi, no...Amy Alkon!"
Now, I know that the guy didn't owe me the publication of my piece -- far from it. But it was the indecency of the treatment that got me: being told over and over that he'd behave differently and then never having that happen. This gave me a lot of upset and a number of nights where I woke up at 3 a.m., all upset or worried and trying to strategize.
Really, if the guy had simply said from the start, "Hey, I'm too busy; send this to the slush pile address," I would have, no biggie. But he never did.
The upshot: Where I am normally quick to shrug off slights (and, in fact, joke that I have a mind like a steel sieve), I now live for the day I will meet somebody from his paper and tell them all about the way he treats people. And I'm not the only one, as I, not surprisingly, heard subsequently.
On a related note, there's a smart piece at Harvard Biz Review by Anne Kreamer on "The Rise of the Rude Hiring Manager:
A culture of rudeness. Rachel, a 60-year-old former news producer turned freelance marketer, was introduced by a friend to the CEO of "a fast growing 'deep content' company with clients like GE and Xerox." The company seemed like a good fit for Rachel's portfolio of skills, and employed a large staff of experienced journalists, artists, and web designers. After a brief phone conversation, the CEO wanted to meet with Rachel "ASAP." During their first in-person conversation, Rachel and he discovered shared viewpoints, and after talking for an hour, the CEO asked Rachel to meet with his editorial VP. But first, the CEO gave Rachel his card. "This is my direct line," he said, "and I return every call on this line. Call me by the end of the week." Rachel did as requested. Six weeks later, after several awkward interactions with the CEO's assistant, he finally took Rachel's call.CEO: "Hi Rachel, I'm too busy to talk today."
Rachel: "I understand --maybe Monday?"
CEO: "Well, I can't commit to that right now, either. And I need to tell you, it doesn't inspire me that you've been calling so much."
Rachel: "On the day we met you asked me to call you two days later. That was six weeks ago. I've called less than once a week."
CEO: "Well, every time you call your name doesn't go to the to top of the list - it moves to the bottom! This doesn't mean I've lost interest in you and your work, but it's not cool to do what you're doing."
Rachel: "I understand. I won't call again. Thank you."
The colleague who set up the initial contact told Rachel: "There is no bad intent here -- like me, he gets 300 emails a day and works 18-hour days across five continents. It's not personal."
I wrote a book about emotion in the workplace called It's Always Personal. And no matter what others say, it nearly always is. People hiring today have precious little time to read, process information, and respond to even urgent issues like staffing. But this comes at great peril to their organizations and to the rude employer. Instead of fostering good will among the prospective hires they interview, enemies like I-live-to-see-this-company-destroyed Martin are made.
Kreamer's piece is smart, and her book looks smart, too, so I'm getting a copy and will have her on my radio show soon.
What Feminists Used To Fight For
An Ashe Schow column in the WashEx quotes Ayaan Hirsi-Ali on how feminism used to be -- before it devolved into what she called (and I agree is) "trivial bullshit." (This amidst fighting for discrimination against men -- or at least laughing it off.)
"I want you to remember that once upon a time, feminists fought for the access -- basic right -- access of girls to education," she said.Hirsi Ali -- who despite the harsh words she said, spoke softly, almost timidly -- told the story of a fight between her mother and father when she was about 11 years old. Her mother wanted to take her and her sister out of school because education would lead them to rebel against their family and "bring shame upon us." Her father responded by saying, "If you take my girls out of school, I am going to curse you and you are going to burn in hell."
Taken out of context, Hirsi Ali said, one might side with her mother, but in reality, she said it was her father that allowed her to be educated and helped make her what she is today.
"That's what feminists used to fight for -- the access for girls to education," Hirsi Ali said. "They used to fight for the recognition of girls as fellow human beings and recognition of their personal liberty."
And Hirsi-Ali is right:
Feminism needs to fight the real war on women: Radical Islam and other parts of the world where women don't even have the right to an education or to leave their home without a male guardian.
Helpful Society-Improving Tips
Hey, cellboors -- do have yourself a nice big portion of shut up.
Please buy my book at Amazon -- "Good Manners For Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck" -- at Barnes and Noble, or at the fabulous independent bookstore near you.
Is That An Alien Ray Gun In Your Finger...?
We now like to start off teaching kids as early as possible that they don't have free speech -- for example, by suspending them for the use of an imaginary laser gun.
Robby Soave writes at reason:
Stacy Middle School in Milford, Massachusetts, took steps to neutralize a dangerous public nuisance: 10-year-old Nickolas Taylor, who had threatened some of his classmates with his weapon of choice while cutting in line.That weapon is an imaginary laser gun, which he conjured into existence by pointing his finger and uttering laser noises. Quick, get this maniac away from other kids before he disintegrates them with his mind!
Thankfully, school officials intervened and suspended the aspiring sci-fi villain.
Linko
Loco, but not as crazy.
Black Friday Deals Week Starts Today
Some big savings on these limited-time deals at Amazon
OR: Search Amy's Amazon here.
Interesting thing somebody bought a couple of the other day (which I didn't even know existed)? The Rachel Ray lasagna lugger
Need to add something on for free shipping? How about my book, "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck"? Buying a new copy also helps me earn back my advance and sell the next one!
Some Of The Bette People Are Reading "Good Manners For Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck"
I just got this from one of the wonderful publicists on my book at my publisher, St. Martin's Press:
This article featuring an interview with Bette Midler just went up on Harper Bazaar's Blog and she just so happens to mention owning your book! Very exciting stuff!
To join those enjoying my book, here's a link to it at Amazon: "Good Manners For Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck." Here's a link to the book at Barnes and Noble.
Along with positive reviews in the WSJ and other publications, Library Journal (in September) gave the book a starred review:
"Verdict: Solid psychology and a wealth of helpful knowledge and rapier wit fill these pages. Highly recommended."
Orders of the book (new only, not used!) help support my writing and keep me eating out of the refrigerator instead of the Dumpster! A very good thing. And I truly appreciate every one anybody buys.
Children Are People, Not Possessions...Right?
Where should we draw the line on letting a parent deny a child medical intervention that is likely lifesaving?
A Canadian judge has ruled that an Aboriginal woman has right to take her cancer-stricken daughter out of chemotherapy. Tom Blackwell writes in the Canadian Nat Post:
BRANTFORD, Ont. -- An emotional dispute over a family's decision to pull their cancer-stricken daughter out of chemotherapy ended Friday with a potentially far-reaching constitutional decision, as a judge ruled First Nations' people have a legal right to seek out traditional native remedies.That right under the Constitution extends to eschewing modern medicine in the process, suggested Ontario Justice Gethin Edward.
He rejected a request by the hospital that had been treating the 11-year-old girl to force the local children's aid society to apprehend her so she could resume chemotherapy. Doctors have said her kind of leukemia has a 90% cure rate with modern treatment, but is an almost certain death sentence without it.
Earning applause from many in a packed courtroom Friday, the judge said traditional health care is an integral part of the family's Mohawk culture and therefore protected by the Constitution. He cited Section 35(1), a provision that recognizes "existing aboriginal and treaty rights," but is more often associated with native fishing and hunting practices than treatments for deadly diseases.
Evidence showed the mother from Six Nations reserve is "deeply committed to her longhouse beliefs and her belief that traditional medicines work," said Judge Edward.
...The judge did not address the fact that the girl's parents also took her to a private Florida clinic run by a non-native businessman whose only licence is reportedly for providing massages - but who claims he can treat cancer.
More on that:
Juliet Guichon, a University of Calgary bio-ethicist, was more blunt, saying the case seems no different than those where the courts have ruled a religious belief -- like that of Jehovah's Witnesses -- is no justification for denying a child needed treatment."The real issue is not whether the mother has a treaty right to practise traditional medicine but whether the child has a right to life and to medical decision-making that can help her live," she said. "How does 'traditional aboriginal medicine' mean taking a child by motored vehicle to a white man in Florida, who has no apparent medical qualifications and recommends eating raw vegetables to cure leukemia?"
The girl began chemotherapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia in late August but pulled out after 10 days, she and her parents saying the hospital was putting "poison" in her body.
As well as receiving unspecified aboriginal remedies, the girl travelled to the Hippocrates Health Institute in Florida for other alternative treatment. According to a CBC report, the institute provided cold laser therapy, vitamin C injections and a strict raw food diet as part of a service that cost $18,000.
Chief Hill said it was the family's right to seek out any alternative care they chose. As for actual traditional medicines, she said she did not know exactly what the girl had received.
As for why the judge decided this way, could it be that Canadian Aboriginals are lots groovier and more PC-mystical than Canadian Jehovah's Witnesses?
(It seems some beliefs are cooler to "respect" than others -- all the way to a child who will likely end up dead thanks to her parents' belief in some quack's vitamin C treatment and maybe a couple shakes of a shaman's chicken bone necklace over her left foot.)
In a ... (1995) Canadian case, B(R) v. Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto [23], Jehovah's Witness parents refused a blood transfusion for their severely anemic 1-year-old daughter who was at risk of congestive heart failure. The baby was made a ward of the court in order to administer clinically necessary blood transfusions. The Supreme Court of Canada ultimately ruled that this state intervention was a legitimate limitation on religious freedom. In their ruling the Court considered Canada's Charter of Rights (section 2 (a) - right to freedom of conscience and religion) versus the Ontario province's obligation to a "child in need of protection" under the Ontario Child Welfare Act.
RELATED: How traditional beliefs in Africa -- kissing corpses -- help spread Ebola.
About that "Hippocrates Health Institute," here's cancer doc Orac at ScienceBlogs with the nutshell:
1. A child is diagnosed with a treatable, curable pediatric cancer. (Note that most pediatric cancers are among the most curable cancers there are. Pediatric leukemias and lymphomas, for example, have gone from a virtually-zero survival rate 50 years ago to survival rates that approach 90% or even more. Truly, if there is a triumph of science based medicine, it is in pediatric cancers.)2. The child begins chemotherapy, going through part of the recommended protocol, and suffers the expected side effects.
3. The parents, who quite naturally have a hard time watching their child suffer, hear about some quackery or other that promises to treat their child without the side effects of chemotherapy. If they are prone to belief in "natural healing" or alternative medicine, there is a good chance that they will stop their child's chemotherapy and opt for the promise of the "natural healing" that claims to be a cure without the pain.
4. Doctors, alarmed at the likelihood that the child will die, report the child to the child protective service authorities, who intervene.
5. There is a court case. If the court case goes against the parents, frequently they flee with the child, as Daniel Hauser's mother did, as did the parents of Katie Wernecke, Abraham Cherrix, and Sarah Hershberger, among others.
6. At this point, one of two things happens. Either the parents are persuaded or ordered to treat their child properly (as in the case of Daniel Hauser); they come to some sort of compromise that allows the child to get some treatment plus "alternative healing" (as in the case of Abraham Cherrix); or, a depressingly common outcome, they win the "right" to let their child die through medical neglect, as has just happened with this First Nations girl with lymphoma.
6. Through it all, quacks leap on these stories as examples of "fascism," and "gunpoint medicine" in order to promote their world view of "health freedom" (otherwise known to skeptics as the freedom from pesky laws and regulations outlawing fraud and quackery), as happened in virtually all these cases, but most notably recently for the case of Sarah Hershberger.
Orac's take:
No doubt this ruling is monumental and precedent-setting, but in a very bad way. So, in other words, our neighbor to the south (at least to me in southeast Michigan, which is the only place where Canada is to the south) have declared that letting children die of cancer is an "integral" part of Aboriginal identity. I am not exaggerating. The court apparently didn't even take into account whether the "natural healing" chosen by the girl's family works. Meanwhile, Six Nations Chief Ava Hill is exulting over the ruling, apparently unconcerned that it will result in the death of an 11 year old girl. As I've said many times before, a competent adult should have the right to choose any form of medicine he likes or even to choose no treatment at all, but children are different. They are not capable of understanding the implications of their decision, and this girl, at 11 years old, isn't even in the gray area of the later teen years where an argument can sometimes be made for self-determination even though the child is a minor. They need and deserve protection from such outrageously bad choices on the part of the parents.This case is a complete failure on the part of the province of Ontario and of Canada itself to protect the lives of its most vulnerable members, children, particularly children of a minority group. Even worse, it is an indictment of the First Nations, which, rather than seeking to protect one of the most vulnerable members of its community, a girl with a treatable, potentially curable cancer, instead glommed onto this case as a vehicle to promote its rights vis-a-vis the Canadian government. I don't think it was cynically done; no doubt the leaders of this particular First Nations community and Six Nations Chief Ava Hill believe in their Aboriginal natural healing. On the other hand, it's hard not to think that there was some opportunism given that the parents appear not to have even chosen to use Aboriginal "natural healing" techniques.
Instead, they are using the rankest quackery, which has nothing to do with aboriginal natural medicine, administered by Brian Clement in a "massage establishment" in Florida.
...The interests of the child must come first, and if parents can't be persuaded to continue treatment of a highly curable tumor, then the state has a duty to step in. It's a duty at which Ontario and Canada have failed in the case of this First Nations girl. It's also a duty that First Nations authorities who supported the parents in filing suit have utterly failed to uphold.
Here's an Orac commenter's categorization of parental rights vs. parental duties:
I'm pretty certain I'm on record on a long-ago post on Respectful Insolence opining that being a parent - or more generally a guardian (natural or legal) - of a child doesn't confer rights so much as it confers duties - most notably, in the case of medical care, the duties to look out for a child's best interests.While there may come a (surely heartbreaking) point where withholding curative treatment from a child with cancer, in favour of, say, palliation, I would think that until reaching that point, it's in the child's best interests to have an opportunity to reach adulthood - that is, to pursue curative treatment, however unpleasant.
A Trend: Colleges' Pervy Prying As A Condition Of Registering For Classes
Susan Kruth writes at theFIRE.org:
Back in September, I wrote ... about a Title IX training program for students developed by CampusClarity and adopted by nearly 200 colleges and universities nationwide that included questions about the details of students' sex lives. Clemson University, where the program was mandatory, suspended its program soon after students and media outlets objected to this invasion of privacy. Now students at Florida Atlantic University (FAU) are speaking out against the same survey, which they must complete before registering for classes.WPTV (West Palm Beach, Fla.) relayed some of the questions included in the survey:
•How many times have you had sex (including oral) in the last three months?
•With how many different people have you had sex (including oral) in the last three months?
•If you had sex (including oral) in the last three months, how many times had you used a condom?As a spokesperson for FAU noted, colleges and universities are required by the reauthorized Violence Against Women Act to offer sexual assault prevention training to students. But universities' legal obligation to offer training does not mean that they must require such training, let alone this kind of breathtakingly intrusive questioning.
FAU student Cheryl Soley voiced her objection to the survey, saying, "I just don't understand why questions pertaining to how many times I've had sex have anything to do with campus life." Indeed, if CampusClarity and FAU can't come up with a better way to combat sexual assault than by forcing students to divulge their (lawful) sexual interactions, they need to work harder. Soley isn't alone in feeling uncomfortable with the questions--FAU spokesperson Joshua Glanzer told WPTV that approximately 80 students expressed concerns.
A spokesman for CampusClarity told Campus Reform that next year, the program will include a "decline to state" option with these questions, and that institutions can already request this option. All colleges and universities using this program should do so immediately so that students are not forced to choose between maintaining their privacy and enrolling in classes.
Mu Shoo Links
Forking delicious.
Al Sharpton: Paying Taxes Is For The Little People
(He's much too busy race-baiting to worry about such mundanities.) Besides, money and Al have a one-way relationship. Money goes in, not out. Even -- as you'll see from the NYT piece -- if he owes it to the federal government.
Paul Caron writes at TaxProfBlog about a NYT story -- "As Sharpton Rose, So Did His Unpaid Taxes," by Russ Buettner. Caron writes:
Mr. Sharpton's influence and visibility have reached new heights this year, fueled by his close relationships with the mayor and the president. Obscured in his ascent, however, has been his troubling financial past, which continues to shadow his present.Mr. Sharpton has regularly sidestepped the sorts of obligations most people see as inevitable, like taxes, rent and other bills. Records reviewed by The New York Times show more than $4.5 million in current state and federal tax liens against him and his for-profit businesses. And though he said in recent interviews that he was paying both down, his balance with the state, at least, has actually grown in recent years. His National Action Network appears to have been sustained for years by not paying federal payroll taxes on its employees.
With the tax liability outstanding, Mr. Sharpton traveled first class and collected a sizable salary, the kind of practice by nonprofit groups that the United States Treasury's inspector general for tax administration recently characterized as "abusive," or "potentially criminal" if the failure to turn over or collect taxes is willful.
Mr. Sharpton and the National Action Network have repeatedly failed to pay travel agencies, hotels and landlords. He has leaned on the generosity of friends and sometimes even the organization, intermingling its finances with his own to cover his daughters' private school tuition.
If you want to be a crook and get away with it, be in government. If you want to get away with more, be someone who has consistently used his skin color to get ahead -- and never mind whether the allegations he's making are life-ruining to the falsely accused, or whether he's racist and race-baiting.
From the NYT piece:
He accused an upstate New York prosecutor, Steven A. Pagones, of being part of a group of white men whom he said had abducted and raped the teenager Tawana Brawley, an allegation that a grand jury report showed had been fabricated.He often used strident language that many saw as inflaming racial tensions. During rallies at the Slave Theater in Brooklyn, he characterized black people who disagreed with him as "yellow niggers" and called white people "crackers." After a car in a prominent Hasidic rabbi's motorcade jumped a curb in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn and killed a 7-year-old black boy in 1991, Mr. Sharpton referred to the neighborhood's Hasidic Jews as "diamond merchants." In 1995, he referred to a Harlem businessman who wanted to expand his store into a space that had been occupied by a black-owned business as a "white interloper."
A comment from the NYT:
Westside Guy, L.A.
Mr. Sharpton has never been anything more than a craven opportunist. People were wondering who paid his daughter's tuition at Poly Prep years ago. He has, like Jesse Jackson, used race as a trump card to line his pockets and taken advantage of prejudice as a means of personal advancement. He is a con man, plain and simple. And now, he has succeeded to the point where corporations are lining up top fill his pockets. I cash only hope that someone has the guts to charge him with Tax Fraud. But I doubt it. Too many friends in high places now afraid he'll play the race card. Hats off to Reverend Al. He's scammed everyone, including the IRS. Shame on Mayor DeBlasio for giving this guy air cover.
via @instapundit
It's Hag-vember!
The bush is back -- and it's on your feminist girlfriend's upper lip!
Samantha Allen writes at The Daily Dot:
It's No-Shave November, the month when men put down their razors to let their facial hair roam free in the name of prostate cancer awareness....This year, it's time to fight back: If the name of the game is prostate cancer awareness, women should take up arms (and drop razors) as well--after all, we'd just be spreading the word.
No-Shave November, with its giggling discussions about body hair, usually brings about the same boring jokes about women's body hair, reminding women that they should be shaved clean for the pleasure of the male gaze.
Oh. Please.
When my boyfriend comes to see me, he avoids wearing shirts he knows I'll hate.
Why?
Because, yes, shockingly, it's nice -- and even smart -- to look attractive to the people you'd like to have attracted to you.
Back to Samantha Allen:
We don't have to play the part of the perfect pussy-shaving housewife in order to support prostate cancer research. We can turn ourselves into the human Chia Pets of men's nightmares with flowing '70s bushes, bristly leg hair, and yes, even little mustaches (and no, cute costume mustaches from American Apparel don't count) while also raising awareness about men's health--and, dare I say it, supporting the men in our lives by not shaving in solidarity.
It gets better:
As Ellen Friedrichs writes for Everyday Feminism, the taboo against women's body hair constricts women's possibilities for gender expression, especially along lines of race and class. By giving men an excuse to speak up about women's body hair, No-Shave November often unwittingly reinforces this taboo along those same lines, hence the repugnant and not uncommon joke that "Muslim women [are] showing support for Movember." Similar policing can be seen in treatment of devout Sikh women, who don't cut any of their body hair, even when medical conditions cause significant hair growth, including that of facial hair. When we allow facial hair to be seen as the exclusive territory of men, we accept a world of constricted possibilities for women.
I know -- about now, you're starting to be unsure whether this is a parody. (It's not.)
RELATED, from my column, "When Harry Met Hairy":
It's great when your girlfriend reminds you of somebody exotic out of the movies -- when that somebody is Mila Kunis or Eva Mendes, not Chewbacca.As for your girlfriend's notion that the defurred look traces to "anti-feminist propaganda," way back before there was Cosmo, there was Ovid, the Roman poet, advising women looking for love: "Let no rude goat find his way beneath your arms" (don't let your underarms get stanky like a goat), "and let not your legs be rough with bristling hair." Archeological evidence (including hair-scraping stones and an impressive set of Bronze Age tweezers) suggests that women -- and often men -- have been shaving, depilating, and yanking out body hair since at least 7,000 B.C. In the early 1500s, Michelangelo sculpted David (who would have been a hairy Middle Eastern dude, looking more Borat than baby's bottom), making him look like he was too busy spending three weeks at the waxer to slay Goliath. And these days, male bodybuilders also remove their body hair, lest their admirers have to peer through the hair sweater to find the pecs and abs.
You, likewise, would just like to see your girlfriend's legs without having to send your eyeballs off on a search party through Furwood Forest. (You must look back fondly on the days when you could picture her naked without first giving her a mental bath in a vat of Nair.) Is there a double standard at play here? Sure there is -- if you'd shave a Fidel Castro beard to be more attractive to her but she refuses to shave her Fidel Castro legs.
...She can still rebel against the patriarchy in other ways, like by going around in snarky T-shirts and blogging about how leg shaving is an obvious plot to keep women in the shower and out of the House of Representatives. The bottom line, for you and many other men, is that it's really sexy to run your hand through a woman's hair -- just not the hair on her ankles.
The Indignities Of Life As A Woman In A Muslim-Majority Country
Female police recruits in Muslim-majority Indonesia (a supposed center of "moderate" Islam) are forced to undergo "virginity tests," reports Kate Hodal in The Guardian:
Female recruits hoping to join Indonesia's police force are forced to undergo two-finger "virginity tests", a rights group has found, a practice that leaves the women traumatised, humiliated and in pain.The testis listed publicly as a requirement to enter the force and performed as part of the chief of police's health inspection guidelines for new candidates, which requires women to complete an "obstetrics and gynaecology" exam.
While female recruits are also expected to be single and not marry until they have been in the force for a few years, Indonesia's national police website claims they must also undergo virginity tests in addition to general medical and physical examinations, with the added warning: "So all women who want to become policewomen should keep their virginity."
The practice contravenes Indonesia's national police principles as well as international human rights policy, says Human Rights Watch (HRW), which interviewed female police recruits and serving female officers across six cities.
While women who "failed" the test were not necessarily prevented from entering the force, all of those interviewed said the examination was painful and traumatic and described the practice as widespread.
"Entering the virginity test examination room was really upsetting," one interviewee said. "I feared that after they performed the test I would not be a virgin anymore. They inserted two fingers with gel ... it really hurt. My friend even fainted."
via @TimCushing
Winky
One-eyed links.
"Religion Of Peace"-Linked Terrorist Slaughter Up 60 Percent
Plus a just-sent email from Jerusalem, from a close friend of a close friend of my mother's (really), about this morning's terrorist attack on a Jerusalem synagogue.
Alan Cowell writes in The New York Times:
LONDON -- As Western governments grapple with heightened apprehension about the spread of Islamic militancy, an independent study on Tuesday offered little solace, saying the number of fatalities related to terrorism soared 60 percent last year.Pointing to a geographic imbalance, the report by the nonprofit Institute for Economics and Peace said five countries -- Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan and Syria -- accounted for four-fifths of the almost 18,000 fatalities attributed to terrorism last year. Iraq had the bloodiest record of all, with more than 6,300 fatalities.
At the same time, the statistics in the organization's Global Terrorism Index suggested that the world's industrialized nations -- often the target of threats by groups such as Al Qaeda and the Islamic State, which is also known as ISIS or ISIL -- had suffered relatively few attacks on their soil since the Sept. 11, 2001, onslaught in the United States and the July 7, 2005, suicide bombings in London.
Four groups -- the Islamic State, Boko Haram in Nigeria and the Taliban, which is active in both Pakistan and Afghanistan -- took credit for two-thirds of worldwide deaths related to terrorism in 2013, the report said, describing radical variants of Islam as "the key commonality for all four groups."
My mother just got this from email from someone in Jerusalem. She wouldn't know a chain email from Kim Kardashian's ass, but it seems to be real (I Googled the text in it; plus the woman's name was in it, along with her real email address. [Mom, you gotta learn to strip these things out]). My mom subsequently emailed me back to verify it.
18th November, 2014I wish to G-d I did not have to write this letter but write it I will because you need to know.
This morning in the religious neighborhood of Har Nof, Jerusalem, at 07:01, men were saying their morning prayers, prayer shawls about their shoulders and phylacteries on their foreheads as is commanded; two terrorists walked in to the synagogue armed with machetes and guns and hacked four Jews to death, maiming and injuring 13 others.The lives of 5 others hang in the balance including two policemen that rushed to the synagogue when they heard the gunshots. So far there are 26 newly-orphaned Jewish children
The terrorists knew each and every one of the men they attacked. One [of the terrorists] was the janitor of the synagogue, one worked opposite in the convenience store; both were Israeli citizens, with blue Israeli ID's, both were incited to hatred by others and found themselves capable of the most horrific of all. Perhaps they saw the Da'esh broadcasts of beheadings because this is no different.
The immediate reaction of Hamas leader Khaled Mashal was to announce that Israeli Arabs are in the best position to slaughter Jews since they have freedom of movement. The terrorists were from Jabel Mukaber (next to Armon ha Natziv) and the UN HQ was just a tiny village with 10 houses and during the last Intifada while we were busy with exploding buses they built thousands of houses and imported residents from Hebron.The BBC barely mentioned it; CNN on line actually said 6 people died in an attack, 4 Israelis and 2 Palestinians after the suspected hanging of an Arab bus driver. The bus driver, a respected member of Egged, committed suicide but the Palestinian Authority spread a rumour he was killed.
Until the world wakes up to the horror of what these people do, that it has nothing to do with human rights or supposed stolen lands, that their single intent is to kill Jews, this will not stop. Thanks to the vast sums of "aid" and the evil UNWRA Hamas is currently the second wealthiest terror organisation in the world but they will not spread the wealth to provide succour to their people because then they will not be angry.
Israel does not release the names of the slain until their families have been informed and until now just two names have been released - Rabbi Meir Twerski, renowned and highly respected Rabbi and humanist. Reb Avrohom Shmuel Goldberg, originally from Liverpool in the UK.
Graphic images from the attack here. The bottom photo, amidst the blood, contains part of (probably) some elderly and infirm man's walker.
At the site, whomever posted them writes:
It's simply unfathomable how these subhuman savages can enter a house of worship (Shul) during morning prayers (Shachris) armed with axes, knives and a gun and slaughter innocent men while wrapped in their prayer shawls. The photos are somewhat reminiscent of the horrific Islamic terrorist attack in Merkaz Harav Yeshiva that claimed the lives of eight innocent students. That yeshiva is 4 minute drive from the site of this latest Islamic terror attack.
What would Mohammed do?
'The time (of Resurrection) will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews; until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: 0 Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him!'" Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Number 6985
Christianity has been the inspiration for some terrible behaviors; the thing is, Jesus didn't say to go kill people. He said to feed the poor, heal the sick; that kind of thing. As an atheist, I can get behind that kind of thing, even if I find god-belief silly and really want to know what Jesus was doing between the time he was a baby and then showed up all bearded, along with why the hell nobody seems to wonder about that.
The Surveillance State Is A Very Dangerous Place To Live
In The Boston Globe, columnist Kevin Cullen quotes Margaret Marshall, retired chief justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court:
"The massive, barely perceptible assault by the government on the right to privacy is perhaps the greatest threat to freedom of the press and free speech our country has ever known," she said. "9/11 caused a recalibration of the trade-offs between privacy and security in this country, and the balance we struck is not compatible with a free people living in an open society."
Unfortunately, survey says:
"Americans Say They Want Privacy, but Act as if They Don't"
That's from a Claire Cain Miller piece in The New York Times -- which doesn't quite get at the real problem quite as well as one of the commenters on the piece:
Americans say they are deeply concerned about privacy on the web and their cellphones. They say they do not trust Internet companies or the government to protect it. Yet they keep using the services and handing over their personal information.That paradox is captured in a new survey by Pew Research Center. It found that there is no communications channel, including email, cellphones or landlines, that the majority of Americans feel very secure using when sharing personal information. Of all the forms of communication, they trust landlines the most, and fewer and fewer people are using them.
Distrust of digital communication has only increased, Pew found, with the young expressing the most concern by some measures, in the wake of the revelations by Edward Snowden about online surveillance by the government. Yet Americans for now seem to grudgingly accept that these are the trade-offs of living in the digital age -- or else they fear that it is too late to do anything about it.
"The reason is often they don't have real choice," said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. "It's not like picking up the newspaper and realizing ice cream has too many calories and you can start eating frozen yogurt, information that people can act on."
One reason is that once people are invested in a service -- if they have all their social contacts on Facebook or years of email on Gmail, for instance -- they have a hard time giving it up.
"It's this modern economy that doesn't really rely on price, but on connections and stickiness," Mr. Rotenberg said. "The companies have done everything they can to make it impossible to go somewhere else."
Commenter Larry L. nutshells the real deal well:
Larry L, Dallas, TX
I think the fault in the author's reasoning is that Americans do care about their privacy. The problem is that if you want to do ANYTHING today, you have to submit to the demands of a relatively small cartel of communications and media empires. In other words, American consumers really have no choice in the matter and they have really no legal recourse (unlike in Europe where there are laws the specifically govern such things).The truth is that the entire technological infrastructure has been basically usurped for twp things: spying and marketing. Every other form of innovation has been waylaid on the way to market so that billions can be spent for a lot of useless stuff that do not solve this generation's central challenges: nutritious food, clean water, disease control, climate change, energy infrastructure, financial stability and democracy.
via @PostBaron
Lax Due Process On Campus May Disproportionately Affect Minority Men
Richard Painter writes at Legal Ethics Forum about the removal of due process from men on campus, and how it can "have a disproportionate impact on accused students who are racial minorities and foreigners":
•Witnesses from a majority ethnic group - white Americans on most campuses -- may provide testimony affected by conscious or unconscious bias, for example resentment of sexual overtures toward another member of their group by minorities or foreigners.•Witnesses, and the accuser, may be more likely to misinterpret communications and actions of minorities and foreign students than communications and actions of other students. Language differences can make this problem worse.
•In any mixed gathering of students, statistically there are likely to be more witnesses from the majority group than from an accused students' minority group.
Also, in the current atmosphere - created in part by the federal government - faculty members may not advocate for an accused student in the process. Traditionally, accused students have gone to faculty members they know for support in student disciplinary cases ranging from plagiarism to under-age drinking and vandalism. In sexual assault cases however, faculty members may fear being accused themselves of engaging in a "cover up" and refuse to weigh in with fact finders on such matters as the character and veracity of the accused. If so, the accused student is left with a single faculty member, if there is one, who is willing to be designated as an official advisor for the student in the disciplinary process, assuming the procedural rules allow it. Other faculty members might avoid discussing the case - particularly in email but even verbally - for fear of ending up in the crosshairs of the University, the Department of Education or even the Department of Justice. This in turn could make accused students more dependent upon outside lawyers, disadvantaging those who cannot afford a lawyer. In the case of accused minority and foreign students, an intimidating atmosphere could discourage faculty members from doing a critical part of their job, which is to protect these students from any type of discrimination.
...It would be tragic for American colleges and universities to exacerbate one type of discrimination in order to fight another. We should be able to do both at the same time. Being more diligent in reporting sexual assault cases to law enforcement and allowing those cases to be handled by a justice system run by professional prosecutors and judges, is probably the best answer (arguably the most serious cases, such as those likely to result in expulsion of a student, should only be handled by law enforcement in the first instance). By contrast, procedurally sloppy administrative prosecution of students by untrained academic personnel, including other students, could have disastrous consequences.
via @WalterOlson
Goopy
Stickylinks.
Countdown To Black Friday Deals Week
Some big savings on these countdown deals at Amazon
OR: Search Amy's Amazon here.
Need to add something on for free shipping? How about my book, "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck"? Buying a new copy also helps me earn back my advance and sell the next one!
"If You Are Embarrassed By Your Healthcare Architect..."
...You can throw your healthcare architect under the bus.
President Obama, reports Josh Gerstein at Politico, claims Obamacare wasn't deceptively sold to via the "stupidity" of American voters, to borrow Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber's word:
"The fact that an adviser who was never on our staff expressed an opinion that I completely disagree with in terms of the voters is not a reflection on the actual process that was run," Obama declared at a press conference here, speaking for the first time about the comments by MIT economist Jonathan Gruber.When the president was asked whether he had intentionally misled the public in order to get the law passed, he replied: "No. I did not."
Do you think there's a staffer on hand to sand the President's nose down after statements like this?
While Gruber was not a staffer, he was a paid consultant whose models were used to help assess the impact of various policy changes being considered as part of health care legislation. Official logs show he visited the White House about a dozen times between 2009 and this year.Despite Obama's dismissive tone toward Gruber, the president has acknowledged that some of his own statements about the law were ill-advised, in particular his repeated promises that if Americans liked their health care plans they could keep them. In fact, many plans were deemed inadequate under the law, leading people to get notices that their plans were being canceled.
The question about Gruber was just a taste of the challenges Obama faces back home from newly ascendant Republicans, as they consider how to use control of both chambers of Congress to try to frustrate the president's agenda on issues ranging from health care to climate change to immigration.
Frustrate away! Please!
Man Arrested For Sitting While Black Now Suing Cops (Who Were Just Exonerated)
The officers were exonerated of allegations they used excessive force, reports Bill Hudson at CBS/St. Paul:
Three St. Paul police officers involved in the January arrest of a man -- who recorded the incident and claimed he was being targeted because he was black -- have been cleared of allegations that they used excessive force, police announced Friday.But Christopher Lollie's still angry, and he's now suing the city and the three officers for stopping and arresting him without probable cause, for false imprisonment and for using excessive force.
Lollie was being questioned, and then confronted, by three St. Paul police officers in a downtown St. Paul skyway when things went from bad to worse.
"It's stressful, but I'm glad there's a light being shined on the situation," said Lollie from his attorney's law office.
Lollie was waiting to meet his children at a nearby daycare in what he thought was a public area of the First National Bank building.
Security officers there asked him to leave and Lollie, who is African-American, refused when he spotted other non-minorities in the same area.
That's when officer Lori Hayne first approached Lollie, whom his lawyers say was under no legal obligation to give his name to Hayne.
Lollie's attorney, Paul Applebaum, said, "The situation went downhill from there as other officers were called in to respond."
Those other two officers, Michael Johnson and Bruce Schmidt, arrived and pushed Lollie up against a skyway wall.
While Lollie complied with officers, he continued to exclaim he had done nothing wrong.
Soon after, he was struck with the electric probes of an officer's Taser gun.According to his civil lawsuit, Lollie suffered "bruising, burns and lacerations and has endured humiliation and emotional distress."
Applebaum, his attorney, said Lollie was doing nothing wrong, and didn't resist police.
"You can't stop citizens who aren't breaking the law and doing nothing suspicious and ask them to explain themselves," he said. You can't "ask for their identification and ask where they came from and where they are going."
This story, by Mara H. Gottfried in the Pioneer Press, has some of the reporting the other lacks. For example, the City Attorney saying that the area was, indeed, a public space:
Chris Lollie was in a public area of the St. Paul skyway when a security guard told police he was in a private area, the city attorney said Wednesday.A guard said the 28-year-old man was sitting "for some time" in a skyway-level lounge area designated for building employees, a police report said, and officers were responding to that information when they arrived, St. Paul City Attorney Sara Grewing said.
The guard's report led to the Jan. 31 encounter with police that has drawn national attention and criticism. Whether the downtown area where Lollie was sitting was public or private has been the crux of the case.
Lollie, of St. Paul, posted a cellphone video on YouTube last week that showed officers confronting and tasing him. The video, which Lollie titled "Black man taken to jail for sitting in public area," has been viewed more than 1 million times.
Lollie was charged with misdemeanor trespassing, disorderly conduct and obstructing the legal process. The city attorney's office dismissed the charges July 31.
"Our job is not to second-guess the decision that officers on the streets make to maintain order and protect the public," Grewing said. "Our job as prosecutors is to determine whether those elements of a crime are present to prove to a jury, and we just didn't have that here."
The case was always clear to defense lawyer Luke Rezac. He felt so strongly that Lollie should not have been charged with trespassing while in a public place that he agreed to represent him for no charge.
Chris Lollie, when approached by police officers, was no longer in the space. (It sounds like he stuck around there after being told it was private because he realized it was not, and refused to put up with what he perceived as racism.)
He told the guard to go ahead and call the police, but when they took time to come, eventually got up and began walking through the skyway. It seems the police thus had no probable cause to ask him for ID -- and Minnesota is a state where you don't have to give your ID to a police officer (called "stop and identify") unless there's "reasonable suspicion of criminal activity." (As Elizabeth Nolan Brown puts it in that reason.com link:
Unless "being a black man in public" qualifies as reasonably-suspicious behavior, I'm not sure how Lollie's case meets this legal requirement.
Oh, but wait -- not showing ID makes you suspicious! -- one argument goes. And Nolan Brown for the win:
Community cops should not have a right to stop anyone they want for any (or no) reason and then use force against them if they refuse to show an ID. That is not constitutional policing, that is the mark of a police state.
My earlier post on this is here.
via the wonderful police watchdog, @radleybalko
Special Needs Kids Get "Protected" Out Of Their Playground
Liz Bullard writes at Crosscut that, in mid-October, the Seattle Parks department notified a playground for special-needs kids that they'd have to dismantle it, citing "extreme dangers" and "hazardous conditions."
You're thinking, Hmm, live wires flailing around? Razor-edged monkey bars?
Nope.
These so-called liabilities consisted of a four-foot rope ladder, secured at its top and base, a simple tree swing suspended from a large cedar tree, and a unique nest made of thick rope and bicycle tires.These simple play features may seem ordinary, but to our campers they are anything but. Here children with cerebral palsy, autism and developmental delays are encouraged and assisted as needed to climb and swing alongside their typically developing peers. The joy is palpable.
We complied with the order, but it has left a bitter taste in our mouths. Our kids have been robbed of the simple pleasure of climbing and swinging under a beautiful tree.
What we call the Wild Zone was designed to provide relief from the highly controlled and often hyper-medicalized world our kids move in. We are deeply unsettled and frustrated by their loss.
A private non-profit in in south central Seattle, the Seattle Children's PlayGarden is dedicated to providing children of all ages and abilities a safe, accessible and adventurous place to play away from therapy, doctor's offices, tutoring and school. Thousands of children have played here over the last nine years under the supervision of PlayGarden staff or a parent's watchful eye. There might even be a few lucky children who have played here free from any hovering adult.
None of them have been significantly injured -- not a sprain nor a fracture nor a serious wound among them.
The real injury comes from the Seattle Parks Department. But, unfortunately, bureaucrats are far harder to remove than a tire swing.
via @reason
Sloppy
Messylinks.
Tonight's "Science News You Can Use" Radio, 7-8pm PT: Amy Alkon & Dr. Jennifer Verdolin On The Evolutionary Psychology Of Looking Sexy
Join us tonight for a fun look at the science of attraction, and learn how to look hot to the people you want -- without becoming the indentured servant of some plastic surgeon until you're 90.
About the show: This is a very special every-other-Sunday-night show with science-based advice columnist and author Amy Alkon and animal behaviorist and author Dr. Jennifer Verdolin laying out science news you can use to solve your relationship problems or just improve your relationships and have a better life.
(And yes, I will still be doing shows on the best behavioral science books on weeks in between.)
Listen at this link at showtime (7-8pm PT, 10-11pm ET), or get the podcast here afterward:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/amyalkon/2014/11/17/amy-alkon-dr-verdolin-the-evolutionary-psychology-of-looking-sexy
And don't forget to buy our science-based, fun, funny, and illuminating books -- support our show while entertaining yourself and learning a thing or two to improve your life.
Amy's new book is "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck."
Jennifer's is "Wild Connection: What Animal Courtship and Mating Tell Us about Human Relationships."
I Got A Little Busy Feeling Smug, And Then...
Don't forget what a great Christmas gift my book "Good Manners For Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck", will make for all your asshole friends -- and all your well-mannered ones who enjoy a good read. (The above link is to Amazon; here's the one at Barnes and Noble.)
By the way, Library Journal gave the book a starred review: "Verdict: Solid psychology and a wealth of helpful knowledge and rapier wit fill these pages. Highly recommended."
Orders of the book (new only, not used!) help support my writing and keep me from eating out of a Dumpster. Yay!
Yes, There Exists A Lawyer's Smackdown Letter With This: "Jesus Hello Kitty Christ On A Rocket-Powered Toboggan..."
Marc J. Randazza is the lawyer who saved my butt when TSA worker Thedala Magee and her Gloria Allred wanna-be lawyer tried to squeeze $500K, a blog takedown, and a written apology out of me for daring to exercise my free speech rights to complain about my Fourth Amendment rights being violated.
Randazza told me that, as a lawyer ethics thing, he needed to inform me that I could probably settle -- pay a little money, apologize, take down the blog item, but said, "I sense you'd rather chew glass." ("You sensed right," I told him.)
One of the things I love about Randazza is how colorful he is and how he doesn't feel he needs to stick to the dull province of lawyerly writing. This response to Julien Blanc's threat to 8chan is yet another (hilarious) and kickass example of that. (Co-counsel, named below, is Michael Cernovich.)
An excerpt:
Lets go back to page one. Your client is the guy who seems to advocate sexual assault against random women, on the basis that he's Caucasian, and they're not. Neither Mike, nor I, are in any danger of winning the "Male Feminist of the Year Award." But Jesus Hello Kitty Christ on a Rocket-Powered Toboggan, are you FREAKIN' SERIOUS?If you have the audacity to file a defamation claim on behalf of a guy who advocates sexual assault, and relies on racist bunk to justify it, then come at us, bro. Our client might just waive his CDA immunity and let the case stand on the merits of the defamation claim. I can not express how much joy I would find in watching you try and articulate how your client's reputation has been harmed by anything other than his own asinine, racist, sexist, rapey-creep-scumbag statements.
...Your client made some really objectionable statements. There is a price for that - it is called "criticism." Your client acted like an ass, and people pointed at him and said "look at that asshole!" Rather than answer the criticism, your client sought to cower behind a wall of censorship. This really isn't advisable for someone like your client, who will likely need to raise the shield of the First Amendment at some time in the near future.
Julien Blanc may bully Japanese girls, but he will not bully our client. And, with any luck, he'll try and bully the wrong Japanese girl. We hope that when he does, the event gets captured on video.
via @TimCushing
A Bit Of Irony About The Feminist Fundamentalists Going After Matt Taylor For His Shirt
Great point by Siam Goorwitch on Metro/UK:
What's perhaps most ironic is that the people who pounced on Matt Taylor are the very same ones who argue that the continual focus on the outfit choices of powerful women is petty and undermines their status.
And then, despite having started so sensibly, she goes all off the rails:
Yes, it features scantily dressed women on it, but in week where the biggest story on the planet was a picture of Kim Kardashian's glistening naked arse with a f*cking champagne coupe balanced on it, I'd suggest that if we want to talk about harmful depictions of women, that should be our jumping off point.Not least because (sadly) I'm sure it was seen and admired by far more influential young minds that this incredible scientist in his supposedly offensive shirt.
Can someone please explain to me why the Kim Kardashian photo is a "harmful depiction" of a woman? I rather liked it because it reminded me of Jean Paul Goude's photos of Grace Jones.
On a side note: I love a woman who uses the word "arse."
Waaah, Drivers Are Using Their Taxpayer-Funded Street
I love Waze, or, as I call it, "Wazie," the app I use to get from place to place without sitting for eons in parked LA traffic.
Waze, through crowd-sourcing, tells you the fastest way to get where you're going, often helping you find side streets you wouldn't otherwise know of unless you lived in the neighborhood. Via TMZ:
A glut of cars are ending up on the same side streets and it's become a nightmare for homeowners trying to leave.So the neighborhood meetings are all about torpedoing the Waze App, and they think they found a waze.
Here's the plan ... since Waze is based on crowdsourcing, residents are uniting to report congestion in their area so cars are rerouted to other streets.
Um, unlikely, because Waze can see how fast you're going, and unless you're a resident driving up and down your street, Waze is likely to see that you and a bunch of other people in your reporting area have not moved, except maybe on foot, from the kitchen to the bathroom.
If those residents really cannot leave, they either need better driving skills or a traffic light.
Lunky
Linky that trips all over itself.
The Reverse Boohoo: What If A Female Scientist Wore A Shirt With Images Of Hot Men On It?
For anyone who's been living under a rock this week, here a photo "offending" shirt.
David Burge with the nutshell on the furor:
@Iowahawkblog
"Man Forced to Apologize for Sexist Shirt After Successfully Landing Spacecraft on Comet" has to be the ultimate headline for our age.
And that question again: What if a female scientist wore a shirt with images of hot men?
Do you think there's a man alive whose response would be to whimper that he is being chased out of science?
Clearly, feminism is no longer about demanding that women be treated as equals, but as eggshells.
Thanks, but I'll be having no part of that -- or of feminism's lack of interest for the rights of anyone who lacks a vagina and outright calls for discrimination against men.
And I hope more and more women start to be vocal in saying the same.
On a side note, there's a certain kind of nerd who wears that kind of shirt, and I've always had a soft spot for that guy and the way he sees the world. The sort of hope and love of space fantasy and dream of a bullet-bra'd fantasy woman of that guy is the stuff jobs landing spacecraft on comets are made of.
Hey, What About All That Slave Labor California Will Be Losing?
That's effectively the reprehensible question asked by lawyers for Kamala Harris, California Attorney General, in response to an order to release non-violent offenders to relieve prison overcrowding. Paige St. John writes for the LA Times:
The judges, for a second time, ordered that all nonviolent second-strike offenders be eligible for parole after serving half their sentence. They told corrections officials to submit new plans for that parole process by Dec. 1, and to implement them beginning January.Most of those prisoners now work as groundskeepers, janitors and in prison kitchens, with wages that range from 8 cents to 37 cents per hour. Lawyers for Attorney General Kamala Harris had argued in court that if forced to release these inmates early, prisons would lose an important labor pool.
Prisoners' lawyers countered that the corrections department could hire public employees to do the work.
via @RadleyBalko, from whom I nicked the "slave labor" take on this.
Linkfetti
Throw some around here.
How Govt Does Biz: There's A Single Wrench In Existence To Attach Our Nation's 450 ICBMs
David E. Sanger and William J. Broad write in The New York Times about Pentagon studies revealing major nuclear problems:
The reports are a searing indictment of how the Air Force's and Navy's aging nuclear weapons facilities, silos and submarine fleet have been allowed to decay since the end of the Cold War. A broad review was begun after academic cheating scandals and the dismissal of top officers for misbehavior, but it uncovered far more serious problems.For example, while inspectors obsessed over whether every checklist and review of individual medical records was completed, they ignored huge problems, including aging blast doors over 60-year-old silos that would not seal shut and, in one case, the discovery that the crews that maintain the nation's 450 intercontinental ballistic missiles had only a single wrench that could attach the nuclear warheads.
"They started FedExing the one tool" to three bases spread across the country, one official familiar with the contents of the reports said Thursday. No one had checked in years "to see if new tools were being made," the official said. This was one of many maintenance problems that had "been around so long that no one reported them anymore."
Senior officials said they were trying to determine how much the emergency repairs would cost. "It will be billions" over the next five years, one official said, "but not $20 or $30 billion."
That is in addition to tens of billions of dollars that the Obama administration has already designated to upgrade nuclear laboratories and extend the lives of aging warheads. The huge investment has been hard to explain for an administration that came to office talking about a path to eliminating nuclear weapons around the globe, though President Obama has also pledged to make the country's nuclear arsenal as safe and reliable as possible.
"If you like your warhead..."
via @joshgreenman
The New Prudes Are The Feminists
Paris Lees is sick of it -- writing on VICE about all the thinking and speech that is no longer permitted in the feministsphere:
I'm sick of being told that being sexual is bad. That being sexualized is bad, gauche and unpalatable. "When was the last time you heard a man describe a woman with an adjective that wasn't dripping in sexual innuendos and defaming premises?" Author Lauren Martin asked in her op-ed for Daily Elite earlier this year, which has now had over 694,000 shares on social media, including the other day on my Facebook feed. "When was the last time you heard a man describe a woman as beautiful?"Erm, I don't know. Yesterday?
I know plenty of guys who lovingly refer to their lovers as beautiful. And smart. And sexy. And every other complex thing that made them fall in love with them. Of course, some men do describe women in rude, reductive ways. But that doesn't mean that every time a man describes a woman as sexy that it's a bad thing, or, indeed, that men never appreciate women for their beauty.
...I've been told that I'm hot when I'm bare-faced. I expect most women have. I've also been told that I'm beautiful ( all the time--seriously, guys, it's getting boring) when I'm wearing a smokey eye. These things are not black and white.
Shortly after reading the Daily Elite piece, someone shared an article on Facebook called "Attention Instagram 'Models', You are Selling Yourselves." The fact that it is hosted on theproblemismen.com is a bit of a giveaway that it's not to be taken as an intelligent feminist critique, but the 70,000 shares it's had on social media suggest that more than a few people are taking it seriously. Rather helpfully, it's accompanied by a photo of a young girl posing in a bikini. It reminded me of the time Julie Bindel wrote a piece moaning about expressions of lesbianism in pop culture--giving the Daily Mail an excuse to run pictures of young, scantily clad celebrities lezzing it up at parties.
Anyway, theproblemismen.com article begins by slut-shaming girls who post saucy pics online. "Posing in a lace bra and a G-string on Instagram doesn't give the perception that you are a 'lingerie model'... it makes you look cheap... like the only value you offer is your body."
Of course, there are real issues with underage girls posting sexual photos online which are then picked up by pedophile sites, but telling girls that it makes them look "cheap" isn't the answer. And why does posing in your bra suggest that the only value you offer is your body? I've got photos of my graduation on Facebook but I don't remember anyone telling me: "Your brain isn't the only value you offer, Paris."
Some cute guy who looks to be about 30 messaged me on Facebook Thursday night, saying he wants to get together with me when I'm in New York. I thanked him but told him I had a boyfriend. "you're stunning," he said.
I'm also 50, and I think it's cool as hell that a guy who looks like he's 30 just said that to me.
The stupid thing would be not appreciating that.
RELATED -- feminism, of course, involves aggressive humorlessness and butthurtness. From The Verge, "I don't care if you landed a spacecraft on a comet, your shirt is sexist and ostracizing":
A number of the scientists involved on this incredible project were interviewed in the hours leading to contact by Nature Newsteam. One of those Rosetta scientists was Matt Taylor, who chose to dress, for this special occasion, in a bowling shirt covered in scantly clad caricatures of sexy women in provocative poses."This is going to be a very long day but a very exciting day," said Taylor. "I think everyone should enjoy it because we're making history."
No one knows why Taylor chose to wear that shirt on television during a massive scientific mission. From what we can tell, a woman who goes by the name of Elly Prizeman on Twitter made the shirt for him, and is just as bewildered as he must be that anyone might be upset about her creation. But none of that actually matters. What matters is the fact that no one at ESA saw fit to stop him from representing the Space community with clothing that demeans 50 percent of the world's population. No one asked him to take it off, because presumably they didn't think about it. It wasn't worth worrying about.
Oops. I forgot to feel "demeaned" and "ostracized."
This is the sort of casual misogyny that stops women from entering certain scientific fields. They see a guy like that on TV and they don't feel welcome.
I find his shirt seventies-ugly, but if you decided you won't enter a field because somebody wears a shirt you, say, find offensive, you didn't want to be in that field all that much, anyway, did you?
How do women who are truly men's equals behave? They take any "keep outs" to be challenges that make them work even harder.
When I was a kid, my mother told me that some people don't like Jews, and I needed to work even harder because of that. That's the message of success, not "Boohoo, somebody offended me; I'll go hide under the bed." (That's the message of feminism, the new infantilism.)
via @CathyYoung63
Got Bilk?
Police disability guidelines in Montgomery County, Maryland have been changed so cop with a hangnail doesn't get the same disability pay as a cop with full-body paralysis. From the WaPo editorial page:
For years many officers routinely claimed full disability at retirement, a straight-up scam that bilked county taxpayers of millions of dollars. Finally, after overcoming ferocious opposition to any change from the union that represents officers, the county settled on a legislative fix that took effect in 2012 -- and even then the union continued to fight the change.Fortunately, the county council stuck to its guns, and now the results are clear, as is the scale of the abuse that was taking place in the police department. On a force where full disability was once a routine method of retiring at nearly full pay, there has been a sea change.
To recap: Over the five years that ended in 2009, 91 officers in Montgomery were awarded disability pensions, which are tax free. That amounted to more than 60 percent of all retirees from the police force. By comparison, just three officers in Fairfax County received such a benefit over the same span.
...The root of the problem was that the department did not have -- and the police union would not accept -- a common-sense distinction between serious and minor impairments. Officers who suffered nothing more than sore backs and knees -- the usual problems -- were treated no differently than the very rare officer paralyzed from the waist down. And it was not uncommon for youngish officers with relatively minor disabilities to retire with full benefits and take full-time jobs elsewhere -- sometimes physically demanding ones.
How many police officers could have been kept on the street with the money the union de facto stole from the public?
via @walterolson
Goofy
Links in Bozo's ugly shoes.
More Scummy From Obamacare Architect Jonathan Gruber (Another Video Discovered)
There's now another newly uncovered video of Jonathan Gruber talking about a "clever" way to exploit "the lack of understanding of the American voter." Jake Tapper writes at CNN:
As Congress voted on the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, in 2010, one of the bill's architects, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, told a college audience that those pushing the legislation pitched it as a bill that would control spiraling health care costs even though most of the bill was focused on something else and there was no guarantee the bill would actually bend the cost curve.In recent days, the past comments of Gruber -- who in this 2010 speech notes that he "helped write the federal bill" and "was a paid consultant to the Obama administration to help develop the technical details as well" -- have been given renewed attention. In previously posted but recently noticed speeches, Gruber discusses how those pushing the bill took part in an "exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter," taking advantage of voters' "stupidity" to create a law that would ultimately be good for them.
In this fourth video, Gruber's language is not as stark as in three previous instances, but his suggestion that Obamacare proponents engaged in less-than-honest salesmanship remains.
"Barack Obama's not a stupid man, okay?" Gruber said in his remarks at the College of the Holy Cross on March 11, 2010. "He knew when he was running for president that quite frankly the American public doesn't actually care that much about the uninsured....What the American public cares about is costs. And that's why even though the bill that they made is 90% health insurance coverage and 10% about cost control, all you ever hear people talk about is cost control. How it's going to lower the cost of health care, that's all they talk about. Why? Because that's what people want to hear about because a majority of American care about health care costs."
In a previous post, I called Gruber "redolent with contempt for the voter." Who brings a guy on to write legislation like this? An administration that shares his contempt.
The Death Of Free Speech Starts On Campus
Harvey Silverglate in the WSJ:
On campuses across the country, hostility toward unpopular ideas has become so irrational that many students, and some faculty members, now openly oppose freedom of speech. The hypersensitive consider the mere discussion of the topic of censorship to be potentially traumatic. Those who try to protect academic freedom and the ability of the academy to discuss the world as it is are swimming against the current. In such an atmosphere, liberal-arts education can't survive.
A recent absurdity he mentions in the piece: The president of Smith College wrote a letter to the Smith community "to students and faculty who were "hurt" and made to feel "unsafe" by campus panelist Wendy Kaminer's comments...in defense of free speech!
Silverglate continues:
On Oct. 27, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology circulated a survey questionnaire to its entire student body on the issue of sexual assault--a so-called "climate survey" to try to determine and expose the extent of the problem at the school. Remarkably enough, the survey itself came accompanied by, guess what:"TRIGGER WARNING: Some of the questions in this survey use explicit language, including anatomical names of body parts and specific behaviors to ask about sexual situations. This survey also asks about sexual assault and other forms of sexual violence which may be upsetting. Resources for support will be available on every page of the survey, should you need them."
Hypersensitivity to the trauma allegedly inflicted by listening to controversial ideas approaches a strange form of derangement--a disorder whose lethal spread in academia grows by the day. What should be the object of derision, a focus for satire, is instead the subject of serious faux academic discussion and precautionary warnings. For this disorder there is no effective quarantine. A whole generation of students soon will have imbibed the warped notions of justice and entitlement now handed down as dogma in the universities.
Your College Professor Is Not Your Knowledge Slave
I wrote a "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck"-related piece for the New York Observer on manners for college students -- but not same-ole/same ole you see all over the Internet, like "Empty the trashcan in your dorm room before your dorm-mate tries to strangle you in your sleep." (Yawnies!)
Instead...well, here's an excerpt:
There are old-fashioned etiquette rules that still matter, like not licking your plate clean unless there's a power outage or you are dining with the blind. But at the root of modern manners is empathy--asking yourself, Hey, self! How would I feel if somebody did that to me?Remembering to use empathy as a behavioral guide is especially important for students going off to college for the first time, and especially when engaging with professors, whom students too often treat as service providers. Taking full advantage of college means being mindful of treating them as people. The following tips will help you do that:
Think of college as a four-year employment contract: To get the most out of college, "treat your college classes like a job and your professors like your supervisor," advises Texas State University Psychology Department lecturer Carin Perilloux.
There actually is a rulebook: It's called "the syllabus," and no, professors don't slave away writing it so they look busy enough to get tenure. Pay special attention to the part laying out class policies (such as cell phone use and where to sit if you arrive late).
Some of the rules may seem arbitrary and annoying, like a professor's ban on hats or pajamas in class (yes, probably a violation of your constitutional rights). You show that you take a class seriously by wearing what you'll eventually be wearing to work (or at least something in the neighborhood of it), which probably won't be pajamas unless your life's ambition is providing philosophy instruction to your cats.9_18_GoodManners
Emailing your professor: Use of "u," "ur" and "n stuf " is fine if you are 12 and emailing your BFF. When corresponding with your professor, take that extra millisecond to tap out the "yo" before the "u." (How much time do you really save by typing "how u bin?")
Start your email off with a salutation--"Dr." or "Professor" or whatever professional title they've told the class they prefer--as opposed to "Hey."
If you are asking to meet with them, propose a few times and look up the location of their office in the campus directory instead of asking them to write out directions. Chances are, they didn't slave away getting a Ph.D. because all the jobs for mall information officers were taken.
These may seem like minor points, but they are not unimportant. It's through small gestures of consideration like these--taking care not to needlessly suck the professor's time and energy--that you show respect.... (CONT'D...)
$362 Uber Fare While Drunk: Think Of It As A Behaving-Like-A-Dipshit Fine, Not Reason To Go All Moochstarter On Your Friends
In "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck," I call it "Moochstarter" -- people using web-based begging in ways that would never be acceptable face-to-face.
Imagine coming up to somebody you haven't seen for a while but who is eating in the same restaurant you are: "Hi...nice to see you, and just hoping you'd give me $50 toward the new boots I really want."
That's what a lot of people do on the Internet. And sure, there are some campaigns for good causes (and no, I'm not talking about funding that filmed vanity project that nobody will ever see or make a dime on). But so many of the causes are about people pressuring a bunch of their friends and acquaintances to be accountable for their mistakes or pay the bills for stuff they'd like but, oh...earning money is such a tacky hassle.
Via Charlotte Allen, who puts it like so the latest moochblogger: "I'm a free-lance writer, so please chip in for the $362 Uber bill I racked up while drunk"
Charlotte writes, "Here's how you, too, can get GoFundMe suckers to pay your sky-high ride-sharing tab":
Uber Stole My 26th Birthday
Last night was Halloween. Great time. Today is my 26th birthday. Not so great time. I live in Baltimore and went out with my friends to celebrate my birthday at midnight. When 3 AM rolled around, I suggested we take an Uber hole to avoid drunk driving (#responsibility/#MADD). I live 22 minutes , tops, from the party I was leaving.When I awoke this morning, I heard a friend talking about how outrageous Uber rates were the night before (9x original rate). I checked my bank account to, unbeknownst to me, I see a charge for $362. Not only is it my 26th birthday, it is rent day. My rent is $450 and I can no longer pay it today due to this completely outrageous charge.
I have had little to no luck in disputing this transaction.
I waitress at two restaurants and freelance for a City Paper. I worked incredibly hard this week to be able to enjoy my birthday this weekend. This misunderstanding has cost me 80% of the funds I have to my name (embarrassingly so) and I spent a good two hours of my birthday crying over it. I feel taken advantage of and cheated by the Uber name. $367 for a 20 minute ride should never be justified, even on Halloween.
Please donate even just $1 if you think this is utter and complete bullshit and also hilarious and very, very depressing at the same time.
But as Charlotte points out, Uber shows its "surge price" and makes the customer sign off on it.
Note the refusal in accountability:
I have had little to no luck in disputing this transaction.
It takes a special kinda something to make drunken mistakes and then ask everybody else to pay for them.
Snoopy
Peanutsy links -- only darker.
Countdown To Black Friday Deals Week
Some big savings on these countdown deals at Amazon
OR: Search Amy's Amazon here.
Need to add something on for free shipping? How about my book, "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck"? Buying a new copy also helps me earn back my advance and sell the next one!
Will Your Left Eyeball Fall Out If You See A Little Flesh?
Facebook is protecting its users from getting all hepped up and hot at work with shots like this bit of "porn" -- a premature baby having breakfast. 
More on this from the Puffington Host.
P.S. For much of human history, people were pretty naked and kids knew when people were having sex. Despite this horror, we've managed to soldier on.
In an age when you can be 12 and not have to hunt for your dad's hidden girlie mags but simply get on your nearest device and google up people doing unspeakable things with each other and just about everything in the animal kingdom, Facebook is really offing photos of mommy feeding her baby? (And yes, thanks, so you don't have to mention it, I'm aware that it's a private business.)
via @Popehat
How Plea Bargaining Lands Innocent People -- Especially Poor Black And Latino Men -- In Prison
Scott Martelle reports in a Page One story at the LA Times:
Many folks wind up in prison because they have been strong-armed by prosecutors who carry all the power when it comes to deciding what charges to levy -- and what deals to offer.It's a lopsided system. By the time of arrest, or shortly afterward, the prosecutor is usually intimately familiar with the details of the alleged crime and the available evidence; the defense lawyer, especially when court-appointed, often has scant information and little time with the client before a plea deal is offered, Rakoff says (he focuses on federal cases, in part because state-level data aren't available, but there is nothing to suggest the state courts operate much differently). And that can lead the innocent -- especially, let me add, those who view the system as gamed against them -- to plead guilty to avoid the perceived likelihood of a harsher sentence after a trial in which they have little faith justice will be served.
In the federal system, fewer than 3% of cases filed in 2013 headed to trial, Rakoff writes, continuing a decline that began with the rise in crime in the 1970s and 1980s (in 1980, 19% of cases went to trial).
"[T]he prosecutor-dictated plea bargain system, by creating such inordinate pressures to enter into plea bargains, appears to have led a significant number of defendants to plead guilty to crimes they never actually committed. For example, of the approximately three hundred people that the Innocence Project and its affiliated lawyers have proven were wrongfully convicted of crimes of rape or murder that they did not in fact commit, at least thirty, or about 10 percent, pleaded guilty to those crimes. Presumably they did so because, even though they were innocent, they faced the likelihood of being convicted of capital offenses and sought to avoid the death penalty, even at the price of life imprisonment. But other publicized cases, arising with disturbing frequency, suggest that this self-protective psychology operates in noncapital cases as well, and recent studies suggest that this is a widespread problem. For example, the National Registry of Exonerations (a joint project of Michigan Law School and Northwestern Law School) records that of 1,428 legally acknowledged exonerations that have occurred since 1989 involving the full range of felony charges, 151 (or, again, about 10 percent) involved false guilty pleas.
"It is not difficult to perceive why this should be so. After all, the typical person accused of a crime combines a troubled past with limited resources: he thus recognizes that, even if he is innocent, his chances of mounting an effective defense at trial may be modest at best. If his lawyer can obtain a plea bargain that will reduce his likely time in prison, he may find it 'rational' to take the plea."
Princeton Guilty Of Liking Due Process Too Much
The Feds went after Princeton, essentially accusing the university of violating federal anti-discrimination law for treating those accused of rape with "too much due process," per a Robby Soave reason story.
Yes, up is down, and ass backwards is right-side-up, in the fight to remove rights from men on campus:
Princeton had been one of the last hold-outs on the standard of proof in college rape trials. The university required adjudicators to obtain "clear and convincing" proof that a student was guilty of sexual assault before convicting him. That's too tough, said DOE. As part of its settlement, Princeton is required to lower its evidence standard to "a preponderance of the evidence," which means adjudicators must convict if they are 50.1 percent persuaded by the accuser.Princeton's old policy was also criticized by DOE for allowing accused students to appeal decisions, but not accusers. Both this practice and the evidence standard were revised under Princeton's new, DOE-compliant policy.
Both of these are worrying changes for civil libertarians. Using a low burden of proof in college rape trials is very problematic, since adjudicators are poorly equipped to determine innocence or guilt in the first place. They just don't have the right training. That's part of the reason 28 Harvard University law professors have spoken out against their own campus's new, similarly unfair policy.
...On the other side, Laura Dunn, executive director of victims' advocacy center SurvJustice, hilariously told InsideHigherEd that "ingrained male privilege" was the only reason for using a lower evidence standard.
Yes, women speak this way now and aren't concerned that they seem crazy, totally unjust, or antithetical to everything justice in America has been about.
Loopy
Fruitylinks.
Punctuation Is Good
With the simple addition of a period, this could be a lovely commendation of those who served in the military -- rather than a statement that seems to commend diner waitresses everywhere. Via @EdMorrissey and @TimMatthews:
For a fun, funny, and very interesting grammar podcast, listen to Stop!... Grammar Time, by David Yontz, managing editor at Creators syndicate and copyeditor of my column and "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck." (I think there are more recent episodes on iTunes than are posted at the site.)
Could You Be Guilty Of Something? Depends On How Nice A Car You Have
Shaila Dewan has a piece in The New York Times about how police departments are using "wish lists" to decide which property to seize in the "civil asset forfeiture" bonanza.
That describes when cops accuse you of possibly having merchandise bought with money from some criminal enterprise or contend the cash you're carrying is, oh, perhaps drug money.
Proof? That's your problem. And you'll have to prove that you are innocent -- and sorry about all those lawyers fees and your business maybe going under while you try to get your asset back.
Dewan reports on the Santa's wish list of police goods seizures:
The seminars offered police officers some useful tips on seizing property from suspected criminals. Don't bother with jewelry (too hard to dispose of) and computers ("everybody's got one already"), the experts counseled. Do go after flat screen TVs, cash and cars. Especially nice cars.In one seminar, captured on video in September, Harry S. Connelly Jr., the city attorney of Las Cruces, N.M., called them "little goodies." And then Mr. Connelly described how officers in his jurisdiction could not wait to seize one man's "exotic vehicle" outside a local bar.
"A guy drives up in a 2008 Mercedes, brand new," he explained. "Just so beautiful, I mean, the cops were undercover and they were just like 'Ahhhh.' And he gets out and he's just reeking of alcohol. And it's like, 'Oh, my goodness, we can hardly wait.' "
Mr. Connelly was talking about a practice known as civil asset forfeiture, which allows the government, without ever securing a conviction or even filing a criminal charge, to seize property suspected of having ties to crime. The practice, expanded during the war on drugs in the 1980s, has become a staple of law enforcement agencies because it helps finance their work. It is difficult to tell how much has been seized by state and local law enforcement, but under a Justice Department program, the value of assets seized has ballooned to $4.3 billion in the 2012 fiscal year from $407 million in 2001. Much of that money is shared with local police forces.
...In one oft-cited case, a Philadelphia couple's home was seized after their son made $40 worth of drug sales on the porch. Despite that opposition, many cities and states are moving to expand civil seizures of cars and other assets. The seminars, some of which were captured on video, raise a curtain on how law enforcement officials view the practice.
..In defense of the practice, Gary Bergman, a prosecutor with the Prosecuting Attorneys' Council of Georgia, said civil forfeiture had been distorted in news reports. "All they hear is the woman was left on the side of the road and the police drove off with her car and her money, no connection to drugs," he told other prosecutors at the session.
"I'm not saying that that doesn't happen -- it does. It should not. But they never hear about all the people that get stopped with the drugs in their cars, in their houses, the manufacturing operations we see, all the useful things we do with the money, the equipment, vehicles. They don't hear about that."
Vile Bergman is too bloodthirsty for the win. This procedure is sick and terrible and needs to reflect the tenets of our legal system: Better the guilty go free than the innocent get reeled in.
via @veroderugy
Follow Gregg's Smarts When You Stay In A Hotel
When we stay at a hotel, Gregg never wants to have maid service until after we go. I always figure if there's a maid and it comes with the price of the "rent," take it. Well, here's why that might not be such a good idea.
via The Blaze
Lippy
Mouthylinks.
Obfuscation And "The Stupidity Of The American Voter" Vital To Getting Obamacare To Pass
Jonathan Gruber, the MIT economist who wrote Obamacare is redolent with contempt for the voter and lays out how the mess that was the text of Obamacare was no accident.
A few quotes from the video:
"Get a law that says healthy people are going to pay in; sick people are going to get money; it's not going to pass."
"Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass."
This is dirty government, partisanship at all cost. But until the American people stop watching Honey Boodashian, NCIS, and the game long enough to care, there will not be a change.
via @rogerkimball, @instapundit
Godfather II Nihilism
Welcome to the Obamaconomy!
My boyfriend, who likes to say most of life's problems can be put into perspective with a quote from The Godfather, Mean Streets, Goodfella, and the first 20 minutes of The King Of New York, has transitioned from intoning "This is the business we've chosen" (Godfather II) to "This is the life we didn't choose but we're stuck with."
Anyone here have hope (and some reason for it) that the economy will swing back -- and that people who don't work for government and don't sell illegal drugs or children will earn a decent living again?
"Do I Look Muslim In This Pup Tent?" -- How People In Muslim Majority Countries Want Women To Dress In Public
In case you missed it, Jacob Poushter posted at Pew Research about a survey of people in Muslim majority countries asking how much a woman must be disappeared by her clothing to be considered acceptably dressed in public. Saudi Arabians were the most restrictive, with 11 percent wanting to not even see her eyes, and 63 percent wanting the woman covered head to toe, save for a slit for her eyes.
via @aClassicalLiberal
Elfy
Mini links.
Advice Goddess Radio, LIVE, Tonight, 7-8 pm PT: Dr. Beth Montemurro On How Women Develop The Sexual Confidence To Have More Satisfying Sex
Amy Alkon's Advice Goddess Radio: "Nerd Your Way To A Better Life!" with the best brains in science.
Tonight's show is about women and sexual power -- why some women feel like passive participants in their sex lives and why and how other women are able to feel comfortable in their sexual skin.
My guest is Penn State researcher Dr. Beth Montemurro and her book we're discussing is Deserving Desire: Women's Stories of Sexual Evolution.
Listen to the show at this link at showtime or download the podcast afterward:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/amyalkon/2014/11/10/dr-beth-montemurro-how-women-develop-sexual-confidence-for-more-satisfying-sex
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!
The Man's "Known To Be Argumentative"? Well, Send The Armored Car
Lowering the Bar posts about a sheriff saying "an armored vehicle is almost a necessity now."
What was he talking about? A commando operation with an armored car sent as backup to the...yes, 24...men!...sent to collect on..drumroll...a civil judgment.
Collect from...Godzilla? Sasquatch?
Nope -- just 75-year-old Roger Hoeppner. Bruce Vielmetti of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel explains:
Sheriff's Capt. Greg Bean said ... [that] while Hoeppner was never considered dangerous, he was known to be argumentative.
Wow, the guy might try to talk some sense into you..call out the SEALS and arm 'em to the teeth!
Lowering the Bar sums up:
And remember why they were at the Hoeppners' house: to collect a judgment. The Hoeppners hadn't committed a crime, they just owed the city money. I've never actually had to try to collect a judgment, and I understand it can be difficult--sometimes you have to seize and auction assets, garnish wages, or stuff like that. But apparently the city didn't want to bother with all that:Bean said deputies had to handcuff Hoeppner because he was not following all their instructions, but did eventually agree to pay the $80,000 judgment after a visit to a bank -- accompanied by deputies.Wait--they arrested him, drove him to the bank, and stood there while he withdrew the cash from his account? Is that legal? Somebody help me out here. Because it sounds kind of like robbery.
Yes, there are some bullies out there, and more and more, they're the guys with the badges.
via @walterolson
P$IMWB -- Putting $ In Meter While Black
Disgustingly, the wrongfully detained black TV producer's arrest record probably won't go away.
Anita Bennett and Tim Kenneally write at The Wrap:
One week after the Beverly Hills Police Department admitted its officers had mistaken television producer Charles Belk for a bank robber and wrongfully detained him, Belk's arrest record remains on public file and a legal expert says it probably won't go away."Close to 100 percent of the time when someone is arrested, it will stay in that database," criminal defense attorney David Diamond of Diamond & Associates told TheWrap.
Diamond has no ties to Belk, but the attorney does have years of experience dealing with wrongful arrest cases. "It literally happens almost every single day," Diamond said. "Often times it's based on race and often times it's based on laziness by law enforcement agencies."
Belk, whose credits include "The Greatest Song" and "Douglass U," was suddenly taken into custody on Aug. 22 as he walked to his car to check the time on his parking meter. After the Hollywood producer wrote about the ordeal in a Facebook post, Beverly Hills police issued an apology saying it "deeply regrets" mistaking him for a criminal.
...Also on Tuesday, a spokesperson for the Sheriff's Department told TheWrap it is working on removing Belk's arrest record from the online database, but was unable to say how long the process would take.
As for Belk, he doesn't think enough is being done to clear his name. "It's unfair," he said, adding, "I want my fingerprints, mug shot and arrest record removed."
Diamond explained Belk has reason to be concerned. "If someone [a potential employer] does a criminal background check, it will show up," Diamond said.
But the attorney explained that not all hope is lost. "There is a petition called a Petition to Seal and Destroy An Arrest Record. He can file it with the arresting police agency."
However, Diamond cautioned, "more often than not, the Sheriff's Department says no."
Schmoopy
Ridiculinks.
How I Know There's No God
If there were one, he'd do that "smiting" thing from the Bible to sidewalk texters. Yes, I'm talking about those people who suddenly stop in the middle of the sidewalk and start texting (as if they're in the middle of the Sahara and damn if they're going to see another human being for days).
The above is another fine quote from my book "Good Manners For Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck", which I hope you'll buy! The above link is to Amazon; here's the one at Barnes and Noble.
Along with positive reviews in the WSJ and other publications, Library Journal gave the book a starred review in their Sept. 15 edition: "Verdict: Solid psychology and a wealth of helpful knowledge and rapier wit fill these pages. Highly recommended."
(Woohoo!)
Sometimes The Nicest Thing You Can Say Is "I Told You So"
Stef Willen was my editorial assistant for about seven years, during which time I edited a number of pieces she wrote and saw her writing get better and better -- to the point it started to wow me.
One day, a few years back, she told me she wanted to enter a columnist contest for McSweeney's and asked me what I thought of a piece she'd started writing for it on atheism. It was fine -- respectable writing and thinking -- but I flashed on two paragraphs she'd shown me just days before on the fire insurance work she did freelance, in between the work she did for me. They were brilliant and funny and I was dying to see more -- and it was an area nobody else would be writing about.
"Write that. You own that," I said.
And write that she did -- winning the McSweeney's contest and doing a truly fascinating and wonderfully written column for a year, A Total Loss. (Thank you to everybody here who read it and voted for her. You picked the right piece of writing!)
Thrillingly, after she worked very hard on a proposal and chapters and got herself a terrific literary agent, there's big news. As Stef posted on Facebook:
It's actually happening: My column Total Loss is becoming a book!! Publication set for summer 2016 by Atria (Simon & Schuster). Thanks to all of you for your continuing support and to my agent, Katie Shea Boutillier. Now I'm going to go freak the hell out. Scuse me.
(Doing my best to stop her from freaking out...returning the favor, really, as she helped keep from jumping more than a few times in the process of my writing and her commenting on "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck.")
About this book, the talent is all hers, as is all the hard work, but having been there and done my best to help during much of this process, I'm feeling a bit like a proud mother hen.
I'll link to the book when it's out and I hope you'll all buy it. She's a wonderful writer and thinker and says stuff we'd all think if we thought that hard and were that wryly funny.
NY Deputy Cop Slaps Citizen For Refusing To Allow Search Of Car
I get so tired of people whining about the harm technology does to us. As I write in "Good Manners For Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck", technology doesn't make us rude or alienated; it's just a tool. You have a choice in how you use it.
I am conscious that my phone can be an electronic binky and that I can end up staring into it instead of connecting with the world, so I leave it in my purse when I, say, go into a bar. You start that habit and keep it up -- making a sort of "what's my personal culture?" rule for yourself -- and the more you keep it up, the easier it becomes to follow.
One of the really important and really great things about the widespread access to video cameras via cellphones is capturing the violation of civil liberties by arrogant, bullying, abusive cops, like this guy, who surely has gotten away with many more such violations.
Carlos Miller posts at PhotographyIsNotACrime about the New York Deputy, Shawn Glans, who tried to intimidate a man into allowing a search of his car, slapping him on the back of his head. Oops, seems the man's friend was videotaping. And now the abusive Glans is suspended without pay. Yay. Thanks, guys, for refusing to capitulate to the rights violators and for posting the video.
In a Facebook message interview with Photography is Not a Crime, Roberts explained that he and his buddy, Colin Fitch, who owns the car, had parked it at a business that was closed and walked to a nearby party Thursday night. They didn't spend much time at the party but when they walked back to the car, they were confronted by deputies who had spotted a rifle in the back seat and wanted to search the car.Firth had purchased a .22 rifle earlier that day and had left in the back seat, Roberts said.
When Deputy Glans asked to search the car, Fitch would not give him permission, insisting he had done nothing illegal.Unfortunately, that slapping part was not caught on video, but the sound of the slap is loud and clear. But he followed it up by making more threats, proving to be the real asshole.
As they were searching the car, Firth showed them his receipt for the gun and they allowed him to leave.
And thank you, Carlos Miller, for your great site, Photography Is Not A Crime, that highlights police violations of citizens' rights. Yet another light on civil liberties abuses made possible by the computers we carry around in our purses and pockets.
How To Eradicate Religion In A Single Generation
Cosmologist and theoretical physicist Lawrence M. Krauss believes he has the prescription for eradicating religion -- or largely removing it from society -- in just one generation. Billy Hallowell writes at The Blaze:
Krauss, who made this claim while delivering a speech to the Victorian Skeptics Cafe in Australia in late August, spoke, among other subjects, about how children should be taught about faith in schools, claiming that religious systems shouldn't be treated "as if they're all sacred."Instead, he argued for changes in how children learn about religion and critical thinking -- proposals that are just beginning to gain traction this week.
"What we need to do is present comparative religion as a bunch of interesting historical anecdotes and show the silly reasons why they each did what they did," he said. "Instead of shying away from it, we have to explicitly educate people to confront their own misconceptions."
Addressing the future of religion, Krauss cited gay marriage and slavery in offering up a dire prediction: that religion could be largely eradicated within just one generation's time.
I think he's overestimating the level of attention people pay in school and underestimating the power of confirmation bias, a human cognitive bias describing how we seek out information that confirms our beliefs and aggressively ignore information that disputes them.
Woofy
Links that smell like a tiny wet dog.
Give The Gift Of Better Fancy Coffee At Home Than You Can Get At A Coffee Shop
An old post about how I spend just a few dollars a week drinking troughs of fancy coffee at home, thanks to a couple relatively cheap groovy devices I bought at Amazon.
My blog is an "Amazon Associates" affiliate, meaning that if you buy things at Amazon through my links, I get a wee kickback (at no cost to you) which helps support the work I do here (and keep me from snacking out of Dumpsters).
Every purchase you make is much appreciated.
If you don't see a link that appeals, go wide with this link: Search Amy's Amazon
Here are Early Black Friday Deals
If You Like Your Obamacare Subsidy...
You'd better hope you didn't get it via one of the federal exchanges.
Allahpundit writes at Hot Air that the Supreme Court will decide whether federal consumers -- those who bought their policies off federal instead of state exchanges -- will are eligible for the subsidy they were told they'd be getting.
Only if you bought your policy through an exchange created by a state are you eligible for help from Uncle Sam. That ruling is a nuclear bomb for the White House, obviously, because it would mean that the vast majority of new enrollees in O-Care would suddenly be on the hook for the full cost of their premiums. That would prove too expensive for many of those people, which would mean lots of dropped coverage and total chaos in the insurance industry.
More -- from law prof Abbe R. Gluck at ScotusBlog.
What Outrage Can We Manufacture Today?
I got an email from a well-meaning commenter here, "Subject: Harvard to teach students how to have anal sex," noting that Harvard's a private institution, so they can offer whatever class they want, but that this offering a sign of our deteriorated culture.
I had a hard time believing that Harvard was going to have a class in anal sex -- and no, they actually aren't. But the way some websites are headlining this, it's like students are getting credit for it.
I took 12 seconds to click on a few links and I wrote back to the person:
But this isn't a class Harvard is offering. A student-run organization is behind this.Sex Week is coordinated by Sexual Health Education & Advocacy throughout Harvard College, or SHEATH, a recognized student-run organization on campus.I appreciate that you sent this because I'm a little tired of the outrage machine -- looking to manufacture outrage at every turn...probably as a way to get web traffic and get people to feel cozy about being on the same side.
As for how to have anal sex, use lube, darlings.
And frankly, since the store Good Vibrations was (heh, heh) behind the workshop, it was probably interesting, fun, and good.
Tuesday, November 4 What What in the Butt: Anal Sex 1015:00 pm, Sever 113
Come learn everything about anal sex from the experts of Good Vibrations, a sex-positive store located right in Brookline! They will dispel myths about anal sex and give you insight into why people do it and how to do it well. They will cover a wide variety of topics, including: anal anatomy and the potential for pleasure for all genders; how to talk about it with a partner; basic preparation and hygiene; lubes, anal toys, and safer sex; anal penetration for beginners, and much more! Learn the facts about this exciting yet often misunderstood form of pleasure, find out the common mistakes people make, and get all your questions answered!
The workshop nobody cared to mention:
Losing Your (Concept of) Virginity6:00 - 7:30 pm, Harvard College Women's Center (Canaday B basement)
This event aims to explore the myths, stigmas, and popular ideas surrounding virginity. Through documentary clips, activities, and group discussions, we will consider the historical context of virginity and its different social, political, personal, and religious meanings. All are welcome to attend and share their thoughts, though no sharing of personal experience is required, and no identities are assumed. Does virginity matter? How does a person lose their virginity? What does virginity really mean? And what does it mean to you?
Ghosting: Going Casper On Somebody
I'm answering a question for my column on "ghosting" -- which describes when somebody a person has dated or been in a relationship just disappears without a word. No contact, no goodbye, no nuthin.
This isn't a dictionary term, so I wanted to find out what the word on the "street" is -- do you consider it ghosting if you've been on a single date with somebody and neither party contacts each other afterward? Is the guy, in a hetero thing, supposed to contact the girl even if he has no interest, just to say, "Thanks, bye!"
Or do you consider it more hurtful to write back to the person and -- in not so many words -- say, "By the way, I just wanted to let you know I'm just not that into you"?
And finally...does it matter if there's just been one date? And is your answer different if there's been some light smoochiewoochie (nothing heavy or naked-y)?
Criminally Compassionate Man, 90, Arrested For Feeding The Homeless In Public
Eeuw, ickypoo...homeless people. We sure don't want to see them if we can help it. Have them being all hungry and destitute and hopeless right in front of our eyes in our vacation paradise.
Bob Norman of WPLG and Kelli Kennedy of AP write about a 90-year-old Florida man and two ministers who were arrested in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, for violating a new ordinance that "effectively outlaws groups from feeding the homeless in public" (at Ft. Lauderdale beach):
On Sunday, the city charged three people, including two ministers and a 90-year-old homeless advocate, and they could face up to 60-days in jail for their so-called crime."I fully believe that I am my brother's keeper. Love they neighbor as thy self," explained Arnold Abbott.
90-year-old Abbott prepares hundreds of meals each week for the homeless in the kitchen of the Sanctuary Church.
"We serve two entrées at every feeding," Abbott said.
But Abbott's work now has him in trouble with the law.
He faces possible jail time and a $500 fine for feeding the homeless after he was charged Sunday with violating a new ordinance that virtually outlaws groups from sharing food with the hungry in the city.
"One of police officers came over and said 'Drop that plate right now,' as if I was carrying a weapon," Abbott said.
...Back in 1999, Abbott sued the city for banning him from feeding homeless on beach, a lawsuit he won.
"I'm going to have to go to court court again to sue the city of Fort Lauderdale, the beautiful city. These are the poorest of the poor. They have nothing. Don't have a roof over their head, and who could turn them away?" Abbott asked.
And about some kid on vacation seeing homeless people lined up for food, would this really be a terrible thing...or would it be a learning experience that would help the kid see that not everybody grows up in a nice house in the suburbs. Or that sometimes, those who do end up having some hard times for various reasons.
Dinky
Wee little links.
I Can Garrote You With A Piece Of Dental Floss
I might even be able to kill you with a toothbrush.
There's been yet another example that teachers and administrators are the dumbest people in elementary schools.
On a related note, I probably had access to knives from about age 5 or 6 on, so I could cut up apples. I sometimes brought one to school in my lunch. My mother's greatest worry was -- no, not that I'd launch a mass slaying, but that the knife wouldn't make it back home to be washed and taken back to school the next time she gave me an apple.
Well, it's 2014 now, and things have changed. Now bringing a wee paring knife to school is -- yes -- grounds for suspension. Maybe even expulsion. Even if your intentions only appear to be slicing fruit.
Lenore Skenazy writes at reason:
Da'von Shaw, a Bedford, Ohio high school student, brought apples and craisins to school for a "healthy eating" presentation...
And wouldn't you know it, he ended up with a five-day suspension.
The superintendent suggested that Da'von's punishment could actually have been much worse: an entire year's suspension. I guess the school was being incredibly lenient when it decided not to put Da'von's life on hold for a year over nothing.A while back, when we first started hearing about these zero tolerance follies, I might have sputtered something like, "What are we teaching kids when a school refuses to make any distinction between actual danger and normal life?" But now I realize: We are teaching kids precisely what they need to learn in a hyper-terrified society. They need to understand that society today refuses to distinguish between an infinitesimal risk and a huge one. Zero tolerance is perfect training.
Some day, if he doesn't do something crazy like bring a nailclipper to school, Da'von will graduate. Eventually, he will matriculate into American adulthood, where, if he wants an easy time of it, he will not roll his eyes when a TSA agent confiscates his 3.5 oz tube of Pepsodent, and not slam the door when a cop comes to investigate him for letting his son play at the park, unsupervised.
In other words: To get along as he goes along, Da'Von will be expected--required!--to accept safety hysteria as a way of life.
Obedience training for the American public. Hooozagooboy!
Our Response To Domestic Violence? "Yeah, Whatever..." -- If The Victim Is A Man
Natasha Devon writes in the Telegraph/UK that model, actress, and TV host Kelly Brook has an autobiography out -- in which she admits to physically assaulting two of her boyfriends.
The response? Three tumbleweed blew down the street in the UK. If that.
As Devon writes:
According to the charity Mankind Initiative, which issued a statement outlining disappointment at the lack of public backlash against Ms Brook, one in six men will experience domestic violence during their lifetime. It's already incredibly difficult for men to admit they have been abused by their partners, without the media and celebrities further reinforcing the idea that women beating up men is no big deal and actually rather funny....In everyday rhetoric, female-on-male abuse is not only tolerated but sometimes actively celebrated. "She wears the trousers in their house" and "you've got him well trained" are both phrases I've heard uttered with admiration and awe by women who would never entertain the notion of someone saying such a thing if the gender roles were reversed.
via ifeminsts
Smoochy
Linky with a little tongue.
Remember, When You're Working In A Donut Shop At 92 To Make Ends Meet...
You're doing it, in part, at least, to pay the pensions of the arrogantly lazy postal workers who didn't pick up your mail.
This tweet and about an hour and a half of my day today came out of my making the mistake of dropping a letter into a blue postal mailbox that I hadn't complained to the Postal Inspector about previously.
Complaining to the Postal Inspector is how I got them to stop ignoring the blue mailbox in my neighborhood -- after figuring out they were ignoring it when tracked packages I put in it still weren't scanned almost a week after I'd dropped them in the box.
Of course, postal employees feel no need to answer the phone at the post office, so I can't get anyone on the line at the Neilson Way Post Office to ask whether they, you know, wouldn't mind terribly doing their fucking job and going up to that box by Fourth Street, opening it up, and getting out the mail?
Sure, it's possible my letter just got lost. Possible but unlikely. I send and get countless pieces of mail every week. They all mostly get to me almost all of the time.
It Takes A Big Man To Ride A Little Scooter
I got an email from a dismayed female reader whose husband went out and bought a Vespa, the Italian motor scooter. He told her he was going to get a motorcycle and she expected something a little more, uh, Harley.
Men who ride Vespas and other scooters will tell you that they are secure enough in their masculinity that they don't need their transportation to be all hairy chested for them.
But the reality is, image matters, especially one's wife's image of her husband. Motorcycles are iconically manly and sexy in a way a Vespa is not. It's the imagery of Hell's Angels, "Easy Rider," and "The Wild Bunch" -- versus what's basically the "My Little Pony" of ground transportation.
Your thoughts?
Generous Parental Leave Policies Don't Help Women Get Ahead In Business -- Quite The Contrary
Unintended consequences alert: What if everything feminists want for women will set women back (in terms of how feminists see "back" -- women staying home with children) in business?
Very interesting piece by Christina Hoff Sommers at HuffPo on how American businesswomen are achieving beyond their Swedish counterparts -- women with exceptionally generous parental leave policies:
Generous parental leave policies and readily available part-time options have unintended consequences: instead of strengthening women's attachment to the workplace, they appear to weaken it. In addition to a 16-month leave, a Swedish parent has the right to work six hours a day (for a reduced salary) until his or her child is 8 years old. Mothers are far more likely than fathers to take advantage of this law. But extended leaves and part-time employment are known to be harmful to careers -- for both genders. And with women, a second factor comes into play: most seem to enjoy the flex-time arrangement (once known as the "mommy track") and never find their way back to full-time or high-level employment. In sum: Generous family-friendly policies do keep more women in the labor market, but they also tend to diminish their careers.According to Blau and Kahn, Swedish-style paternal leave policies and flex-time arrangements pose a second threat to women's progress: they make employers wary of hiring women for full-time positions at all. Offering a job to a man is the safer bet. He is far less likely to take a year of parental leave and then return on a reduced work schedule for the next eight years.
I became aware of the trials of career-focused European women a few years ago when I met a post-doctoral student from Germany who was then a visiting fellow at Johns Hopkins. She was astonished by the professional possibilities afforded to young American women. Her best hope in Germany was a government job -- prospects for women in the private sector were dim. "In Germany," she told me, "we have all the benefits, but employers don't want to hire us."
How do things break down in terms of women vs. men?
When the Pew Research Center recently asked American parents to identify their "ideal" life arrangement, 47 percent of mothers said they would prefer to work part-time and 20 percent said they would prefer not to work at all. Fathers answered differently: 75 percent preferred full-time work.
via @sexyisntsexist
The Catcalling Gap: In NYC, It's A Race And Class Thing
In TIME, Kay Hymowitz gets into what some have touched on -- how "street harassment is largely a class thing. In New York ... that means it's also a race thing":
Young women who tense up as they approach a construction site know full well that walking past the guys who drive the fork lift will almost surely result in some unwanted attention; walking past the architects who are pouring over the blueprints probably won't.The catcalling gap will make sense to anyone who has noticed that middle class men and women tend to have a different physical and sexual presentation than their less privileged peers. Psychologists have long known that there are marked class differences in child rearing that can explain this. Preparing their children for office and stable domestic life, middle class parents have always nudged their children to display what was once known as "bourgeois propriety." The term doesn't seem to fit an America where, as the "Advice Goddess" Amy Alkon has said, even "nice people say f-k." But middle class homes continue to encourage their children to use their "inside voices," to demonstrate bodily self-discipline (one reason obesity has become a class marker), to play nice, and to soften the rough edges of male physicality. They ban toy guns from their homes and petition schools to prohibit dodgeball and other "human target" games.
Lower income parents tend to be less "proper" in their childrearing, dispensing more physical punishment and shrugging off rough and tumble play. The difference shows up in school where lower income kids, particularly boys, have more trouble sitting still, paying attention, and keeping quiet; educators consistently report they have more behavior problems. It should come as no surprise that these same boys grow up to become men who are more blatantly, and for middle class women especially, more obnoxiously, interested in every passing young thing. In rare but important instances this goes well beyond obnoxious; lower income men (and women) are also more likely than middle class to be involved in domestic violence disputes.
The catcalling gap creates some cognitive dissonance for promoters of the idea of "white male privilege." If men of color and working class dudes are the biggest offenders, then middle class (mostly white) are the good -- or at least the less bad -- guys. Middle class men may no longer open doors for women or help them carry heavy suitcases, but most of them would be mortified to hear a friend shout "Hey baby; shake that thing!" to passing strangers as they rush to take their poli-sci class or make their 10 a.m. project meeting.
...When [middle-class white women] move to a chaotic, multicultural city ... especially if they venture into Harlem and Times Square, they find themselves bumping up against all types -- blue collar and poor men, immigrants and children of immigrants, men whose parents may not have raised them to treat women with the sort of restraint their own brothers and fathers do. And they don't like it one bit.
Because Kay has a sense of humor, she heads-upped me about this in a way I loved:
@KayHymowitz
Hey baby, make sure you read my piece on catcalling-gate.
I of course tweeted those kissing noises back -- the ones construction workers in New York City make to you as you're walking down the sidewalk. (I know, I know...amazing how I managed to survive so many years of such terrible spoken-word sidewalk trauma without ending up in a psychiatric hospital!)
Sadly, however, America gone weenie -- weeniemen, weeniewomen, probably even weeniedogs, and I don't just mean the dachshunds.
Oh, wait -- not all men and women. PPen -- like Kay Hymowitz -- gets it, commenting in my previous post on the catcalling video:
One thing to admire about black and Hispanic culture is the men don't sit around and ponder whether a man should be asking a woman out. They just do it.Black and Hispanic women on the other hand don't sit around and ponder whether they are being harassed by men hustling dates. If they're annoyed they'll just tell a dude to fuck the hell off.
Likewise, if some guy had been walking in tandem with me down the street, like in that video, I would have screamed at him in a way that would have shriveled a number of his organs.
Where all of these people looking to criminalize speech -- catcalls, even! -- go wrong (besides in having a very short memory of the contents of the First Amendment) is in acting like the "victims" of catcalls must be protected by some force outside themselves. (Protected from life getting too "lifey" -- to borrow from one of Andrew Sullivan's blog commenters I quoted in my post from yesterday.)
As I've been noting recently, women, increasingly, demand to be treated as eggshells instead of equals.
The way to empower women, on the other hand, is to tell them they're powerful and to act like it, damn it...which is the antithesis of what so many women, especially white, middle-class women, are being told these days.
Aggressive-Aggressive Notes
As I write (in some detail) in "Good Manners For Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck", when it's possible to get somebody to pull back on their rudeness, it's wise to cool your jets and approach people in a matter-of-fact way. When it's impossible, however, the hate note can be really satisfying. As are a couple of these. (My favorite includes the condom.)
MILFY
Yummymummylinks.
The Latest Wrongheadedness On "Equality" From Jessica Valenti: "Pay Men Less!"
Men often make more in the workplace because they don't take the first salary offer or raise offer they get; they negotiate for more. Another reason they make more is that -- as far as I know and hear -- most who have kids don't leave at 4pm or spend a good bit of their days dealing with kid problems while at work.
Jessica Valenti feels that women should make the same money as men -- that your supposedly lower pay as a woman is about being a woman, not that you didn't negotiate for more or aren't divided in your loyalties between home and work.
The truth is, as we've all heard people bring up in these arguments, if businesses could hire women for 70 or 77 cents or whatever lower rate on the dollar they would pay an employee of the same value who's a man, workplaces would be all female. (What employer doesn't want the same work they'd pay $100 for at a rate of only $70 or $77?)
Christina Hoff Sommers exposes the wage gap myth at the HuffPo:
For example, its researchers count "social science" as one college major and report that, among such majors, women earned only 83 percent of what men earned. That may sound unfair... until you consider that "social science" includes both economics and sociology majors.Economics majors (66 percent male) have a median income of $70,000; for sociology majors (68 percent female) it is $40,000. Economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Manhattan Institute has pointed to similar incongruities. The AAUW study classifies jobs as diverse as librarian, lawyer, professional athlete, and "media occupations" under a single rubric--"other white collar."
Says Furchtgott-Roth: "So, the AAUW report compares the pay of male lawyers with that of female librarians; of male athletes with that of female communications assistants. That's not a comparison between people who do the same work." With more realistic categories and definitions, the remaining 6.6 gap would certainly narrow to just a few cents at most.
Yet, Valenti assumes any pay disparity is discriminatory and vagina-driven, writing in The Guardian:
Now, I never thought I'd find myself arguing against something in the US Equal Pay Act, and I understand that men may not exactly love the idea of taking pay cuts - or giving up power more broadly - in the name of gender justice. But the scales have been tipped toward the men for too long, and if fixing a huge systemic inequality means that some guys' paychecks need to take a hit - I'm always OK with privileging the marginalized.This kind of progressiveness at the workplace is not about giving women "special treatment" or punishing men. We need to put a final end to a long-standing injustice and redress an unmoving wrong - it may take radical action, but it's not a radical idea.
A commenter, "morngnstar," asks the right question:
Just a question: if in some particular workplace, the women currently make more money than the men, would you lower their pay and raise the men's?
That Catcalling Video
I'm a little late to the parade, due to various writing deadlines and a weekend spent trying to not toss my cookies on various people's rugs (after suffering motion sickness while flying and then all weekend, even while Gregg drove long straightaways)...but I've been wanting to comment on this since it popped up on various people's Twitter feeds.
Here, via Slate, is the video:
The actions of the men in this video reflect Error Management Theory in action -- long-shot mating opportunities better attempted than missed entirely. Per David Buss and Martie Haselton, the evolutionary psychologists behind the theory, people will try to make the least costly mating error. For men, a missed mating opportunity is more costly than a turn-down, so they err on the side of trying to hit on a woman. (Women, on the other hand, are biased to be suspicious of a man's level of commitment, and err on the side commitment skepticism.)
Getting back to the video, if you are strutting your stuff on the street in New York in painted-on clothing -- as this girl was -- you look like you're looking for some male attention, and you're likely to get it...including especially vocal attention from the guys who aren't Park Avenue-dwelling hedge fund managers.
If, however, you don't want male attention, you don't wear clothes so tight that passerby can count the moles on your back without your removing your shirt. I do want male attention, so I don't wear baggy clothes in public -- ever. That said, I do my best to dress like I'm selling my brain, not my ass.
Marty Klein echoes my thinking on this and adds the racial angle:
She's wearing skin-tight clothes that emphasize her every curve, and the catcalls are almost exclusively from men who seem unemployed, marginalized or even homeless at best. I leave it to the video's producers to explain why they have a shapely young white woman walking through mostly Black and Latino neighborhoods.The producers and many others call Roberts' experiences in the video "sexual harassment" or "verbal abuse." Clearly, she didn't verbally invite a single one of the mens' comments (although most adults would agree that her clothing choice would typically be coded as provocative). And clearly, she didn't respond to the comments.
That said, there wasn't a single comment that threatened or insulted her. No one suggested sex, invited sex, or demanded sex. Essentially, these brilliant comments ranged all the way from 'Wow you look great' to 'Wow, I like looking at you.' Pointless and stupid, an unwanted, frustrating intrusion into her private minute. Multiplied, of course, by 100. Not that she or any other woman generally walks the streets for 10 hours at a time, of course.
...Defining an unwanted "Lookin' good!" (even from a scary-looking guy) as harassment trivializes real harassment. Defining catcalls as sexual experiences trivializes sex. Most importantly, defining words as violence trivializes violence.
Anyone--feminist, bureaucrat, politician, journalist--who promotes such nonsense should be held responsible for misleading the public, creating epidemics of sexual violence, and generating fear. Fear that intimidates and disempowers people. Fear that incites people to demand action, even if that action curtails their own and others' rights.
Here's some of that calling for curtailing of rights -- depressingly, by the "director of the Center For Legal Studies at Northwestern University, published in The New York Times.
I liked this guy's response in the comments:
Ibarguen, Ocean Beach
Can we pass a law to punish young women I pass on the street for staring me down with a toxic mixture of hostility, revulsion and contempt, simply because I am an aging, overweight, sloppily dressed, manifestly not rich, white male? It's a constant, debilitating blow to my self-esteem....Despite the organization's name "Hollaback!" the video they produced is of a woman suffering in silence. Clearly not a solution; neither is the law speaking up, talking back for her.
Law blogger Scott Greenfield provides a voice of reason:
Apparently, the Room for Debate folks were unable to find any thoughtful voice to question the underlying premise, that the utterance of words, even if unseemly, on the street rises to the level of harassment at all. Or to the question of whether anything that a woman finds undesirable or annoying, is automatically swept up in pejorative language like "harassment."One of the most dangerous, ongoing issues is the use of such terminology untethered from meaning; the same can be said of sexual assault, which can range from a physical attack to "stare rape" and off-color jokes. This is the lexicon of Humpty Dumpty, if not George Orwell. Neither words nor conduct is magically transformed into "harassment" because someone chooses it to be so. Words have meaning, and meaning is not informed by each individual's feelings.
The knee-jerk reaction to anyone who questions the dogma of victimization is that it must be in support of the hated conduct. It's a logical fallacy, but one of many that's ignored, and a banal defensive reaction. I don't write in support of catcalling. I don't do it, and wouldn't. I don't commend it, and wouldn't.
That it's annoying isn't in dispute, but neither life nor the law entitles anyone to go through life without annoyances. In the scheme of such things, the annoyances reflected in the video are remarkably petty. That anyone would even consider a man saying an unwanted hello to a woman worthy of prosecution reflects how detached a grasp the relative evils of life appear when viewed through the prism of feminist entitlement to a world where they are never annoyed.
More from Glenn Reynolds in USA Today:
Different cultures and ethnicities have different ideas of what constitutes appropriate intersexual behavioral, and there's no particular reason why the standards of upper-middle-class white feminist women should set the norm for everyone. In the old melting-pot days, it might have been appropriate to say that minorities needed to be assimilated to traditional WASP standards of decorum -- "civilized" or "elevated" in the idiom of the day. But we've long since moved past the notion that there is only one legitimate way to behave as an American. (WASPs, in fact, are now often portrayed as unpleasantly frigid, sexless, and over-controlled). And, that being so, it would be astonishing if the only place where WASP standards still continued to rule was in this particular area. Should it be a crime to say hello to a stranger? Are women so delicate that they need patriarchal protection simply to go out and about? And if so, what does that say about women's ability to function independently in the larger world?Second, and more troubling, the notion of going after minority males for inappropriate behavior toward white women raises unsettling memories of Jim Crow. Emmett Till, for example, a 14-year-old black youth who visited Mississippi from his home town of Chicago, broke the local behavioral code by flirting with a white cashier while buying some bubble gum. A few days later he was kidnapped, brutally beaten, and fatally shot in the head. An all-white jury, presumably viewing Till's behavior as culpable, refused to convict his killers.
I feel sure, of course, that the makers of today's catcalling video didn't think for a moment about the Emmett Till case, and I am positive that they would not endorse the fatal lynching of the men they pictured. Nonetheless, it's worth noting that the history of controlling minority men's intersexual behavior in this country is closely intertwined with the history of lynching. Those who choose to get involved in this field need to be aware of that history, lest they unintentionally make things worse.
And remember that this is 10 hours of footage. This echoes a point Sullivan posted from a commenter:
I'd love to see the full 10 hours of footage. If all they could get is a boiled down two minutes of mostly guys saying hello, good morning, god bless, it seems like the world is not quite as hostile as they hoped it would be. I wonder how many thousands of men she walked by in that 10 hours that said nothing, didn't notice her at all.
Another Sullivan commenter:
Ouch. As a woman, Hollaback's campaign makes me cringe. It's so sad to see that in 40 years, feminism has gone from a radical protest movement addressing issues of importance to women in their role as half of the human race, like endless war and oppressive poverty, to a PC crusade by middle class women to make life less uncomfortably "lifey" for women as individuals.None of the progress of the last half century would have been possible without the unqualified right to free speech, including advances in women's rights. Free speech means free speech for everyone, including assholes and drunks, and for every kind of statement, including those an individual might disagree with or using words they might find offensive. There is no right to be shielded from unwanted communication, and frankly, life would be less rich if there were.
I can't believe people are seriously suggesting regulating who can speak to whom in public, let alone calling it a "gateway crime" to chat someone up. I am in no way defending lewd or crass behavior, and have felt harassed myself on many occasions. However, a good chunk of the offenders shown in this video are merely saying hello in one form or another. There are regions and cultures in the US where it's rude NOT to say hello to passersby, and neighborhoods where a compliment on a street corner is a perfectly normal way to flirt. In my opinion, many of the interactions in this video don't rise beyond that level.
Besides, it is simply a fact of life that men and women evolved differently, one as pursuers and one pursued. One result of millennia of conditioning is that in the mating game, guys are expected to make the first move and may end up without partners if they don't.
Again, Error Management Theory in action. Perhaps the earnest feminists hoping to criminalize men's speech (a lovely companion to the removal of due process from men on campus) could just go back a few million years and see that every man throughout history was provided with all the really sexy concubines they had energy for -- thus eliminating the evolutionary adaptation that causes men to say, "Hey, sexy mama" and such on the street.
Problem solved!
RELATED (via Sullivan): "Stop Street Charassment!"
And on the timelessness of catcalls, "American Girl In Italy," a 1951 photo by Ruth Orkin.
And also from Sullivan, the long-shot approach works for some:
A few years ago, a friend of mine was walking past a construction site in NYC. A worker squeezes through the orange plastic netting and darts in front of her with his arms stretched wide and says "Hey, beautiful, why in such a hurry?" She tries to side-step around him but he moves aside, blocking her path again. "Come on, just say hi." She says "Hi" and he doffs his hard hat and bows and she walks past.She intentionally walks by there a couple of days later at the same time and is "greeted" again. They strike up a conversation and have been dating for 6 years now.
She is an early 30s lawyer, Ivy educated, and attractive. (She has since discovered he's married, by the way.) I think it would be fair to say that his methods verged on assault. But, apparently, sometimes that approach works, it seems. Go figure.
My dad told me to worry when they stop thinking you're hot. I think I'll follow that advice.
Linkle
If you sprinkle when you linkle, please be neat and wipe the seat.
UK Going Soviet On Free Speech
John Bingham at the Telegraph/UK reports on yet another government plan to squash free speech:
Anyone who criticises Sharia law or gay marriage could be branded an "extremist" under sweeping new powers planned by the Conservatives to combat terrorism, an alliance of leading atheists and Christians fear.Theresa May, the Home Secretary, unveiled plans last month for so-called Extremism Disruption Orders, which would allow judges to ban people deemed extremists from broadcasting, protesting in certain places or even posting messages on Facebook or Twitter without permission.
...But George Osborne, the Chancellor, has made clear in a letter to constituents that the aim of the orders would be to "eliminate extremism in all its forms" and that they would be used to curtail the activities of those who "spread hate but do not break laws".
He explained that that the new orders, which will be in the Conservative election manifesto, would extend to any activities that "justify hatred" against people on the grounds of religion, sexual orientation, gender or disability.
This "hatred" won't go away; it'll just go underground, which is the most unhealthy place for it to be. There it will just fester instead of being discussed -- which is how you argue against something and how other people are able to hear and maybe be persuaded by your arguments.
Third Generation Kennedy Fears Pot Would Lead To People Making Piles Of Money
Rich, huh? Considering the family fortune came from booze.
Anthony L. Fisher writes at reason:
Former Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) has just published an op-ed in Ozy titled, "What No One is Saying about Marijuana," where he sounds the alarm that "Addiction is big business, and with legal marijuana it's only getting bigger."A recidivist drug and alcohol abuser (who has miraculously avoided jail time despite committing crimes while under the influence that would send lesser mortals to prison on felony convictions) arguing for the continued imprisonment of adults choosing to responsibly consume a substance is rich in its own right. But for a third-generation Kennedy to argue against ending marijuana prohibition because major profits will be made off of it is head-exploding irony and hypocrisy.
Perhaps the ex-Congressman missed the just-concluded final season of Boardwalk Empire, which included a major subplot depicting his grandfather, Joseph P. Kennedy, shrewdly anticipating the end of alcohol prohibition and getting in on the ground floor of legally importing liquor into the United States. With that one move, the politically connected and ruthlessly ambitious Kennedy patriarch built the fortune which to this day affords the Kennedy scion the ability to avoid both work and prison.
...Essentially, a man who owes his money, power, and freedom to profits made off of selling the most toxic and deadly drug in existence, wants people to continue to be locked up for recreational drug use, lest other rich people make money off of selling drugs.
Gluey
Sticky links.
Advice Goddess Free Swim
It's Saturday night, and we flew across the country today and just got back from an event, and my brain informs me that it is now off duty. So, you pick the topics -- post in the comments below. I hope to post more on Sunday!
P.S. One link per comment or my spam filter will eat your post.
Didn't Get Sexually Assaulted By A Government Worker At The Airport This Morning
Gregg and I are flying and he's Pre-check as a frequent flyer, and they let me in a Delta Premium line (no taking off your shoes, taking out your computer, taking out the bag of three-ounce items) -- though I had to get my hands swabbed before putting my items on the belt. Idiotic, since there's no probable cause to think I'm a terrorist. The charade that is "security" was palpable. Do terrorists planning to blow up the plane really dip their hands in fertilizer before going to the airport?
What's Keeping Women Out Of Math-Intensive Fields?
There's this notion of the "sexist academy," write researchers Wendy M. Williams and Stephen J. Ceci in The New York Times. However...
Our analysis reveals that the experiences of young and midcareer women in math-intensive fields are, for the most part, similar to those of their male counterparts: They are more likely to receive hiring offers, are paid roughly the same (in 14 of 16 comparisons across the eight fields), are generally tenured and promoted at the same rate (except in economics), remain in their fields at roughly the same rate, have their grants funded and articles accepted as often and are about as satisfied with their jobs. Articles published by women are cited as often as those by men. In sum, with a few exceptions, the world of academic science in math-based fields today reflects gender fairness, rather than gender bias.Moreover, in contrast to frequent claims that outright bias pushes more women out of math-intensive fields, we actually found a greater exodus of women from non-math-intensive fields in which they are already well represented as professors (like psychology and biology, where 45 to 65 percent of new professors are women) than from fields in which they are underrepresented (like engineering, computer science and physics, where only 25 to 30 percent of new professors are women). Our analyses show that women can and do prosper in math-based fields of science, if they choose to enter these fields in the first place.
So if alleged hiring and promotion biases don't explain the underrepresentation of women in math-intensive fields, what does? According to our research, the biggest culprits are rooted in women's earlier educational choices, and in women's occupational and lifestyle preferences.
As children, girls tend to show more interest in living things (such as people and animals), while boys tend to prefer playing with machines and building things. As adolescents, girls express less interest in careers like engineering and computer science. Despite earning higher grades throughout schooling in all subjects -- including math and science -- girls are less likely to take math-intensive advanced-placement courses like calculus and physics.
Women are also less likely to declare college majors in math-intensive science fields. However, if they do take introductory science courses early in their college education, they are actually more likely than men to switch into majors in math-intensive fields of science -- especially if their instructors are women. This shows that women's interest in math-based fields can be cultivated, but that majoring in these fields requires exposure to enough math and science early on.
In contrast to math-based fields, women prefer veterinary medicine, where they now constitute 80 percent of graduates, and life sciences, in which they earn over half of all doctoral degrees; women are also half of all newly minted M.D.s and 70 percent of psychology Ph.D.s. However, those college women who do choose math-intensive majors like engineering persist in them through graduate school and into the academy at the same rate as their male counterparts -- again showing that women can and do succeed in math-based fields if they develop interest in them and commit to them.
Stinky
Smelly links.
