Canine cancer

Beauty the Wonder Dog has cancer.

2013, you've really kicked us in the crotch with this one. Fuck you.

What's that Ben Franklin quote?

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin

I've been scanning the headlines about the shooting at the theatre in Aurora, CO, today and was horrified* when I came across this lady's quote:

“Americans have yet to understand the threats to their safety, and regard security as an intrusion into their privacy,” says Rachel Ehrenfeld, director of the American Center for Democracy, a New York-based research group.

“In Israel,” she says via e-mail, “well-trained security personnel monitor the entrance to every public building, even supermarkets, and public awareness has stopped many terror attacks and saved many lives.”

Here's my response to that:

1. I understand the threats and accept that those threats are part of the risk associated with living in a free country.
2. Security measures are an intrusion into my privacy. The Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, and requires that any warrant has to come from a judge and be supported by probable cause. It's part of due process. We should tread lightly when stomping all over the Constitution under the guise of making us "safer".
3. If I wanted to live in Israel, where every public entrance is monitored, I would move there. 
4. You can obtain public awareness without monitoring the movements of every person entering a public building.†
5. But most importantly, you cannot prevent every tragedy. I do not blame the theatre for this act of violence. I do not blame the crowd for not noticing there was a person wanting to do harm. I do not blame Hollywood for making a Batman film. It was awful. It happened. There will be future tragedies. We must not let our fear override our common sense.

*I was more horrified about the shooting.

†How many well-trained personnel would it take to monitor every public building in the United States?

Tough love

Trending right now is a video of a dad who, after finding a curse-laden filled complaint his daughter tried to post privately on Facebook, videotaped an eight minute rebuttal that ends with him taking out his gun and shooting his daughter's laptop eight (nine?) times. First, it should be noted that the clip is currently being investigated for authenticity. (Did his daughter post this complaint to Facebook? Does this guy even have a daughter? etc.)

As someone who grew up with guns in the house, I don't find this guy's actions threatening. Yes, it is a gun, but he could have just as easily used a sledgehammer or his car to destroy her laptop. Merely having a gun doesn't mean you're capable of killing a family member. If it did, I'm not sure my siblings and I would be here.

The dad in the video wanted to make a statement and I don't feel for a second that the statement was that he'd use his gun against his daughter. From the dad's view, the daughter had been previously warned about such posts. That she did it again on what she thought was the sly proves their initial efforts to reign in the behavior were unsuccessful. Was it a little extreme? Absolutely. But what if the guy is dealing with a hormonal teenager in the midst of a rebellious streak? It sounds to me that he is actually a caring parent. He wants her to understand how hard they work to make her life easy. He is monitoring her Internet activity. He is responsive when he sees behavior he thinks is unacceptable. Aren't these things we want parents to do? I can't say I'd ever shot Hen's computer - it's not the Macbook's fault - but I could certainly see Hen losing his computer privileges if he continued to post objectionable items after being told not to.

What do you think, gentle reader?

I support Planned Parenthood

I am extremely happy the decision by the Komen Foundation to pull funding from Planned Parenthood was reversed. Hopefully, they will think twice before doing something so ridiculously stupid in the future. I think Representative Michael M. Honda said it best, "The fact that the Komen Foundation is using this investigation as the basis for its decision is distressing." Indeed, sir. Thanks to the Internet, I was able to go online and immediately donate to Planned Parenthood to show my support. I'm still snickering over the claim from the Komen folks that the initial reactions they received were positive. Their own staff members were resigning in protest.

Goodbye Paris vacation

In other news, David Beckham is not moving, he's staying! Which means I get to see him (for real, ya'll) when he comes to town to play the Timbers. If I was Barney Stinson I might say "It's goona be legend-...wait for it...and I hope you're not lactose intolerant because the second half of that word is-DAIRY!"

Science and 2012

I love that NASA has a FAQ page that addresses concerns regarding the end of the world in 2012.

Question (Q): Are there any threats to the Earth in 2012? Many Internet websites say the world will end in December 2012.
Answer (A): Nothing bad will happen to the Earth in 2012. Our planet has been getting along just fine for more than 4 billion years, and credible scientists worldwide know of no threat associated with 2012. 

Go, Earth!

Sense of proportion

For me, this pretty much sums up how ridiculous it is to gripe and complain about any mess the protestors allegedly cause. I have many more thoughts on the Occupy movement but no time to blog about 'em now.

Gardasil vaccination for boys

I'm on the fence about this vaccine. I want to be informed but I don't always understand the various numbers thrown out. For instance, the CDC reports that "about 1% of sexually active adults in the U.S. have genital warts at any one time." Presumably, this includes men of ages outside the scope of the vaccination. (As an aside, are nine year old boys actually sexually active?) Merck, the makers of Gardasil, reports that "in boys and young men ages 9 to 26, Gardasil helps protect against 90% of genital warts cases." So, um, aren't we talking about a fairly insignificant number? The 2000 Profile of General Demographic Characteristics from the Census Bureau doesn't completely match up with the age categories but this would mean vaccinating approximately 90,000,000 boys and young men for genital warts. At a cost of $300 per person. That's a lot of money. When only 1% of sexually active males have genital warts.

Tax graph

They make more but pay less. Methinks it should be if you make more, you pay more.

Hat tip: Krugman

Banning female genital mutliation

Finally, Islamic scholars and national figures in Mauritania signed a fatwa to ban female genital mutilation.
"There's no doubt that the fatwa will substantially curb [FGM], since it removes the religious mask such practices were hiding behind."

Thank goodness for some sense. It may have taken them a long time to get there, but they did. I'm not familiar with how far-reaching fatwas are. This was done in Mauritania, does it mean all Muslims will follow it?

Hat tip: Religion Clause

The drivers of Minis

Me to Hen, after another Mini driver gave me the "hey, we're both Mini drivers" wave: When you see another Mini you have to wave.

Hen: She is driving that Mini because she is white.

Me, thinking I misheard him: What?

Hen: She is white and so she drives the Mini like Sophie*.

Me, curious: Do only white people drive Minis?

Hen: No.

Me: Do brown people drive Minis?

Hen: Yes.

Me: Orange people?

Hen: Yes.

Me: Green people?

Hen: Yes.

Me: Purple people?

Hen: Yes.

Me: Yellow people?

Hen: Yes.

Me: Red people?

Hen: Yes.

Me: Maroon people?

Hen: No.

There you have it. Maroon people do not drive Minis.

We name our cars, computers, and the like. Sophie is our British green Mini Cooper. We love her.

Sometimes Canada just makes sense

Regarding same-sex marriages and the ability of government marriage commissioners to decline officiating at the ceremonies of gay and lesbian couples.

... [T]he Court held that accommodating the religious beliefs of marriage commissioners could not justify discrimination against gay and lesbian couples.... [M]arriage commissioners act as government officials, not private individuals, when they perform marriage ceremonies.... [T]he obligation to solemnize same-sex marriages does not affect or interfere with the core elements of a commissioner’s religious freedom: the freedom to hold beliefs and the freedom to worship.... [A]llowing marriage commissioners to withhold their services because of personal religious convictions would undercut the fundamental principle that government services must be provided to all members of the public on an impartial and non-discriminatory basis.

For an example of Canada's nonsensicalness, click here and scroll down to the part on Howard Stern.

Sometimes I can't let things go

I had a conversation with a friend yesterday about airport scanners. If I understand her position, she isn't really bothered by the scanners and doesn't have issues that would prevent her from using them. I do have a problem with the scanners. Yes, the amount of radiation is reportedly an extremely small, insignificant amount. It's less than you get from the actual flight. And unless you're traveling all the time, it would probably never amount to anything. BUT. (Because you know there had to be one.) But that's not the only argument against them. (I'll get to these in a second.) Here's what I read:

Rez agrees the odds of getting cancer from the scanners may be low. But he calculates it's about the same as the chance of being on a plane blown up by terrorists. And he says that makes mass scanning not worth the effort.

The government says independent testing proved the airport scanners are safe. Johns Hopkins University's Applied Physics Laboratory did independent tests — but only to determine how much radiation the devices emit, not to examine safety, said Helen Worth, a lab spokeswoman.

The amount of radiation the devices emit in a lab setting versus real-world use may be different, and a group of scientists from the University of California at San Francisco argues that tougher safety testing is needed.

The four scientists expressed their concerns in an April 6 letter to Holdren, the White House adviser. It took him six months to respond.

Though the scanner images do not reveal what's beneath the skin's surface, the radiation they emit could potentially affect breast tissue, sex organs and eyes, said David Agard, an imaging expert at the University of California at San Francisco.

The response "is just a regurgitation of what the industry people have been saying," said John Sedat, a UCSF professor emeritus in biochemistry and biophysics.

He faulted the government for not doing safety testing in animals to see if the scanners caused any worrisome biochemical changes. Kassiday said the university scientists have not justified why that kind of testing on such low-dose devices would be necessary. --excerpt from Star Tribune

My takeaways from the above is that testing was done but it wasn't necessarily the right kind of testing. I have seen a lot of statements that say things like: "As long as they are operating as designed, the amount should be..." Is there some expectation they won't operate as designed? How much radiation are you hit with if it isn't operating correctly? What does all of that radiation directed at your skin do? If the likelihood of getting cancer is the same as getting blown up, why have the machine?

The scanners ability to detect and thereby thwart a planned attack is unproven. (I realize it can't be proved until it is used but at $150K+ per machine we should ask ourselves if we are getting a good return on our investment or if there is a better way to use that money to make us more secure.) One criticism is that the machines are unable to detect "low-density materials such as powders, liquids, thin pieces of plastic or anything that resembles skin. Nor can they detect any explosives concealed internally." We should remember that the Christmas bomber's attempt failed because of vigilant passengers who intervened, and a faulty trigger, not because security found anything on his person. In one of the Time articles I perused, a man mentioned prisons. Prisons have some of the most secure procedures in place. And yet contraband is still smuggled in. For traveling, we put up these theatre-security obstacles and eventually a focused and motivated terrorist is going to find a way around them. What works? Apparently the system used at Israeli airports. (I don't know enough about this to comment on it but I will be reading up on it for a follow-up post later. It does sound as if they use intelligence mixed with a bit of racial profiling.)

The fourth amendment states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I do not give up these rights merely because I choose to fly, regardless of what tragic events have occurred. I definitely take issue with the fact that politicians and other elites (Lawdy, lawd, I hate to use that word), are able to bypass the enhanced screening techniques. (Remember the last time we heard about "enhanced" things by the government? Yeah, it was with torture.) There is no reason to suspect me of being a terrorist so why should I be subjected to either a potentially hazardous scan or a pat-down that reaches the level of sexual harassment. If a warrant has not been issued because there is no probable cause, I should not be searched.

What's lacking in all of this is common sense. We do not empower our airport security folks to make reasonable decisions so they have to process the 87-year old blind invalid as if she is a threat and have her remove her shoes and her coat and her wallet and confiscate her nail clippers and her bottled water and ...

Argh. It's late and my head is spinning.

Corruption and foreclosure processing in the courts

"When you meet people who are losing their homes in this foreclosure crisis, they almost all have the same look of deep shame and anguish. Nowhere else on the planet is it such a crime to be down on your luck, even if you were put there by some of the world's richest banks, which continue to rake in record profits purely because they got a big fat handout from the government. That's why one banker CEO after another keeps going on TV to explain that despite their own deceptive loans and fraudulent paperwork, the real problem is these deadbeat homeowners who won't pay their fucking bills. And that's why most people in this country are so ready to buy that explanation. Because in America, it's far more shameful to owe money than it is to steal it."

An excerpt from one extremely long but really great article about the foreclosure crisis and how the courts are rigged to help the big guys and screw the little man. You can read it here.

Might want to try that apology again, Rick

I was just reading online because, you know, it's almost 2 a.m. and that's what I should be doing. And I came across this news story that's a couple days old about former CNN's Rick Sanchez, who recently called Jon Steward a "bigot" and implied that Jews control the media. He was fired. And, as folks who make such a gaffe are wont to do, he has publicly apologized. Here's what he had to say:

"I had a very good conversation with Jon Stewart, and I had the opportunity to apologize for my inartful comments from last week. I sincerely extend this apology to anyone else whom I may have offended." 

Inartful? Hmmm...<insert Google search here> Turns out it wasn't much of an apology:

"... and I had the opportunity to apologize for my awkwardly expressed but not necessarily untrue comments from last week."

Artwork hat tip: NY Times (when doing its own piece on this word

177,536 years to pay that debt

I heard about Jerome Kerviel on NPR this morning. This guy got into all sorts of trouble while working at Societe Generale as a futures index trader. He lost A LOT of money. The actual prison term isn't that lengthy, five years with two years suspended, but the fine. Boy howdy, it's a doozy - $6.7 billion. Ouch. That smarts. At his current wage of $3,150 a month from the computer consultant job he currently has, it'd take him 177,536 years to pay back. On the one hand, thank goodness someone has been held accountable. On the other, like heck the upper management folks didn't know what was going on. It has been reported that Kerviel's activities raised red flags 74 times but nothing was ever done. Not once or twice or maybe even half a dozen times - 74 TIMES. You know what this says to me? That his bosses were complicit, which makes them accessories to the crime. Apparently there are many in France who feel the same way. There isn't one person I heard interviewed that didn't think Kerviel was a scapegoat.

In the news

I was going to blog about this article from the NY Times about parents and how they assess risk, more specifically how we overreact to some risks and underreact to to others, but I found this Krugman piece to be far more entertaining.

OMG, he said what?!

Tea Party candidates are all over the place. I tend to not agree with their platform but I also don't believe in censorship. Still, I'm often flabbergasted when I hear some of the vitriol they spew (and, yes, I know you can find inappropriate crazy talk like this from almost anyone). I suppose it's possible that the latest from Delaware's Glen Urquhart* is taken out of context but I can't imagine what context it could be in to make this statement okay, and it still doesn't change the fact that it is utterly false:

"Do you know, where does this phrase 'separation of church and state' come from? It was not in Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists. ... The exact phrase 'separation of Church and state' came out of Adolf Hitler's mouth, that's where it comes from. So the next time your liberal friends talk about the separation of Church and State ask them why they're Nazis."

Admittedly, my history is a bit rusty but here's the wording I found from Jefferson's letter:

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law regarding an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

And just to nail home the point, Thomas Jefferson lived from April 13, 1743 to July 4, 1826 and Adolf Hitler lived from April 20, 1889 to April 30, 1945. You tell me who coined the phrase.

*Oh, yeah, this guy just won the primary. Wtf?

Hat tip: Religion Clause

News I'd pay to watch

Really, France, really?

There are Jews in France who are trying to reclaim the names they changed in order to avoid persecution during World War II. And because French has these weird rules regarding name changes, folks like Olivier Raimbaud, who changed his name from Rubenstein during the war, are unable to do so. This guy has been filing requests for 25 years. And he's been denied every time. Really, France, really? Change the frickin' law already and let these folks get their names back. It's the least you can do.

Hat tip: Religion Clause