Nitpick of the Day: Ferrets are Not Rodents

Austin’s KVUE News reported yesterday on a man, possibly in Brazil, who made a shocking discovery about his two pet poodles. Specifically, he learned that they are not poodles at all, but rather ferrets jacked up on steroids.

The unsourced story is certainly good for a shocked guffaw, except that it set off my NCD (Nerd Compulsive Disorder, which I hope to lobby for inclusion in the DSM-VI) when it described the two beasts as “giant rodents pumped with steroids to look like dogs.” Bad KVUE, bad!

The domesticated ferret, known to zoologists and geeks as Mustela putorius furo, is a placental mammal in the order Carnivora. Other well-known members of Carnivora includes dogs, cats, raccoons, meerkats, wolverines, honey badgers, lions, tigers, and bears (shut up.) Continue reading

Share

My 15 Minutes of Animal Law Fame

I was part of a panel at the State Bar of Texas 2013 Animal Law Institute at South Texas College of Law on March 22, 2013. It is very similar to the presentation I did in Austin in September 2011, if you have been following my CLE presentation career. Anyway, here it is:

Share

Let Freedom Ring All Throughout North Dakota

A bunch of libertarians ranked the fifty states based on “freedom.” Fox Nation reported on the results under the headline “Report: Americans Are Migrating to More Free Republican States.” The article contains gems like:

Americans are migrating from less-free liberal states to more-free conservative states, where they are doing better economically, according to a new study published Thursday by the George Mason University’s Mercatus Center.

The “Freedom in the 50 States” study measured economic and personal freedom using a wide range of criteria, including tax rates, government spending and debt, regulatory burdens, and state laws covering land use, union organizing, gun control, education choice and more.

So, if Fox Nation is to be believed, people are departing oppressive states for places where they can stockpile weapons, miseducate their children, and do with their employees as they please. What magical wonderland is this, I wonder…

The freest state overall, the researchers concluded, was North Dakota, followed by South Dakota, Tennessee, New Hampshire and Oklahoma. The least free state by far was New York, followed by California, New Jersey, Hawaii and Rhode Island.

Oh, I see…

Look, no disrespect to North Dakota, but what. The. F*********.

People are leaving California, New York, and New Jersey for the Dakotas? Does Fox Nation think we’re stupid? Does Fox Nation think at all?

I could link to evidence showing that Californians are not doing a reverse-Steinbeck in droves back to Oklahoma, but honestly, what’s the point?

Share

Is North Korea Targeting……Austin?

Okay, this scene was pretty scary. (via alternatehistory.com)

Okay, this scene was pretty scary. (via alternatehistory.com)

I’ve heard some rumblings this morning that North Korea has a list of targets in the U.S. for the missiles it may or may not have, and that this list includes my current abode of Austin, Texas. Let me first note that, according to KEYE, the source for this list is the Drudge Report, so take the news with a multi-kiloton grain of salt. Second, why Austin?

See, I grew up in San Antonio in the 1980’s, when nuclear war was the disaster du jour, much like the zombie apocalypse today. Because San Antonio had four Air Force bases and a major Army base, we pretty much all figured that we would be among the first to go if the Russians ever decided to bomb us. By the age of ten or eleven, I had an oddly fatalistic view of nuclear war, and movies like The Day After didn’t scare me all that much, because I didn’t think I’d be around for my hair to fall out in the first place. A native San Antonio author, Whitley Strieber, even co-wrote a post-apocalyptic travelogue of a post-nuclear America called Warday, in which San Antonio was one of only a few cities directly destroyed by nukes.

It sort of makes sense for San Antonio, in the 1980’s to be a target (did I mention all the Air Force bases?). Austin was supposedly even on the primary target list back then, because of Bergstrom Air Force Base. Bergstrom has been a commercial airport for over a decade, though, so what’s the deal, Kim? Do you not like live music?

Share

Today in Good Lawyering

A school shooter faced sentencing this week for a 2012 shooting in Chardon, Ohio. He received a life sentence. It probably did not help that he wore a t-shirt with the word “killer” written on the front in black marker. The point I want to make is the heroic effort apparently shown by his lawyer to keep the kid from further damaging his own case.

Going against the recommendation of his counsel, Lane addressed the courtroom before learning his fate. He smiled periodically and showed little remorse for his actions.

“F— all of you,” he said, before raising his middle finger at the victims’ families, according to the Plain Dealer. (Emphasis added)

One of the first lessons I learned as a lawyer was “You can’t save your clients from themselves.” I salute this kid’s lawyer for trying.

This kid probably has some pretty serious psychiatric issues, and I hope that they get addressed. I’m not holding my breath for that.

(h/t TEGS, Samuel Warde)

Share

The Problem with Private-Sector “Free” Services (or, WTF Happened to Google Reader?)

970189_79303244Google is shutting down its Google Reader service on July 1, 2013, I recently learned. I have used Google Reader for all my RSS feeds for over a year, and have liked it far more than any other similar service that I have used. It works particularly well with an iPad app called Flipboard, which arranges posts in a style reminiscent of a newspaper. Apparently, Flipboard will allow its users to transfer Google Reader subscriptions directly to its service, to the gratitude of many users. I’m pretty sure Flipboard did not have to do that, just like Google does not have any obligation to keep Reader going. The reason for that is that I, and as far as I know everyone else in the world, do not pay for the Reader service, or for Flipboard.

As my friend Kevin said (or quoted), if you are not paying for a service that you are receiving, you are not the customer. You are the product.

Google has no obligation to continue offering a service that does not make it money, even if everyone loves it. Google makes money from its online services by selling advertising, just like nearly every other internet service that does not charge a fee directly to users. You, the user, are the recipient of that advertising. Google’s revenue is based on how it can monetize your online behavior. The company has an interest in keeping users happy, because it needs us to keep coming back to the site, or any other site plugged into Google (which is probably most of the world’s websites by now.) Its bigger concern, though, is keeping those advertising bucks coming in and keeping costs low. If a service costs enough that it impacts the acceptable profit margin, it goes. If you are not a Google shareholder or an actual customer, you ultimately have zero clout in influencing the decision to discontinue a service.

Google Reader is not an essential service for me, but rather a convenience. My life will not suffer for a lack of centralized RSS feeds in a handy newspaper-style format. At worst, I’ll have to get used to a different way of reading the news/blogs. The convenience offered by Google Reader/Flipboard is not something so important that I think it should be a public service. I do think that other services that benefit the public much more directly need to remain public, for the very reason that public service, not profit, should be the primary motivator. Prisons come to mind. So do roads and sewer mains.

I would consider paying something for a service like Google Reader. Maybe no one else would anymore. Maybe that is the problem.

Photo credit: svilen001 on stock.xchng.

Share

Gender Equality is Not a Zero-Sum Game (or, Why I Call Out Prison Rape Jokes, Because They’re Not Funny)

The following is a comment that I left on a post at The Good Men Project, in a comment thread I have returned to multiple times over the past month. I stopped participating after it pretty much devolved into typical whiny zero-sum thinking, i.e. that addressing inequalities affecting women by definition means neglecting the issues that affect men. What I am finding is that, while there are undoubtedly issues that disproportionately affect men, they generally result from prejudices and attitudes intended to favor men. For example, it is probably true that courts favor women when making orders for child custody and child support in divorce cases—but then, men are the breadwinners and women are the ones who stay home and care for the children. Men have fought hard for generations to maintain that order, and this inequality we see now is really just one tiny advantage women have found amid the oppression. Furthermore, by raising these issues in the context of criticisms of feminism, men are essentially trying to put the burden of improving men’s lot onto women. “Please ignore your own inequalities for now,” the argument seems to go, “while we address these issues that affect men.” Dudes, we can do better than that. Anyway, here’s the comment I left, with a few embedded links added in:

You raise a good point, and one that, due respect, is not so good. In regards to the point that is not good, I feel like I am banging my head against a wall, so I won’t dwell on it for long.

The good point you raise involves the issue of gendering and rape. Yes, most of the public discourse around rape focuses on women. You seem to be assuming, though, that it is women who are keeping the issue of rape against men suppressed in public discourse. I respectfully disagree. The gendering of rape defines it as something that happens to women. So if a man is raped, he is demeaned by the entire concept that rape is something feminine. That is something that we men have done to ourselves–the concept holds that a man who is raped is somehow less of a man, because only women get raped. Men have the power to change that concept.

Yes, men get raped. Quite a bit. They get raped in prison, but “prison rape” continues to be a topic of humor. Where are the men standing up to that, challenging the idea that prison rape is not funny, the way that feminists have been challenging sexist humor for at least two generations? Those men, and the women who support them, exist, but they are few in number. (The same can be said for female-on-male rape, which much of popular culture still does not view as a crime, cf. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RapeIsFunnyWhenItsFemaleOnMale)

Also, what organizations or people are standing up for male victims of rape? If you look closely at most major organizations that support victims of sexual violence, they actually don’t discriminate based on sex. It’s just that men don’t come forward. Why don’t they? Again, because they are unlikely to get any support from other men.

If men are serious about fighting male-victim rape, they need to start fighting male-victim rape, not just complaining about it to feminists.

As if to illustrate my point, a quick Google search for “male rape victim support” turned up a front page of results for organizations in the UK. American men need to get on this. Even if all you do is refuse to laugh at prison rape jokes, it is something. Here are a few resources to get you started:
http://www.mencanstoprape.org/Resources/resources-for-male-survivors.html
http://www.malesurvivor.org
http://www.aftersilence.org/male-survivors.php
http://www.pandys.org/malesurvivors.html

The only other point I will address, even though I’ve heard it so many times and it such a ridiculous argument that it will take a miracle to talk sense to anyone, is the issue of the selective service. If selective service registration is the best example you can come up with for discrimination against men in favor of women, then we guys are doing pretty damn swell. See, there are two problems with the argument:
1. (Assuming you live in the U.S.) we have not had a military draft since the early 1970’s, and there is less than zero political will to reinstate it. I can’t speak for countries that do have mandatory military service, but many of them require service of both men and women.
2. Regarding combat roles being reserved exclusively for men, that is no longer true in the United States, and many men (and some women) fought tooth and nail to keep women out of combat. Many women fought tooth and nail to be allowed in combat units. It strikes me as daft to claim women are privileged because they are, until recently, excluded from something some of them want to do.

Share

Senator Ted Cruz, Green Party Double Agent?

Cruz-Headshot

More than meets the eye?

Ted Cruz, the Republican freshman senator from Texas, has, to put it lightly, been a colossal embarrassment for our state. I won’t even bother listing his accomplishments in his barely two months in office, but if his goal was to keep himself in the headlines making all Texans look bad, then he is doing a bang-up job.

A recent vote on a seemingly uncontroversial resolution, however, has made me wonder if there is something deeper at work here:

In an unusual move, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) objected last week to a routine Senate resolution commemorating Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Week.

Congress passes hundreds of resolutions, meant to commemorate everything from a special awareness week or Little League champions. The resolutions lack any real power of law and are predominantly ceremonial. For example, earlier this month the Senate passed resolutions to mark “World Plumbing Day” and commemorating the three-year anniversary of the Haiti earthquake.

In order to keep business moving and not clog the Senate floor, they are normally passed in bulk through a  “unanimous consent agreement,” meaning a vote isn’t tallied since both sides agree to it.

But last week, Cruz objected to including the MS Awareness resolution. He was unhappy with a clause in the resolution describing the purpose of the Multiple Sclerosis Coalition, according to a Democratic staffer.

Now, I suppose we should take anything a “Democratic staffer” says with a grain of salt, as it could be anybody from a 16 year-old Senate page to Vice President Joe Biden. Either way, it is unlikely to be someone with first-hand knowledge of the contents of Ted Cruz’s head (that joke is too easy.) We don’t know, based on Politico‘s reporting, what clause the senator found objectionable. I am going to assume that it reads “WHEREAS, kittens are adorable…” Continue reading

Share

The Feral Men and Boys of Steubenville, Ohio

road_warrior2, via dangerousuniverse.com

Look, Steubenville, even the character named “the Feral Child” managed to keep it together (via dangerousuniverse.com)

This is pretty much the only conclusion I can reasonably reach, given all the talk about how the real lesson of the Steubenville rape case is the dangers of drinking too much. I’m not going to link to some of the more ridiculous commentaries, but the line of thinking amounts to: a girl got so drunk that she couldn’t control herself, and she got raped (see the Public Shaming Blog for a collection of tweets and other social media updates: 1, 2, 3.) Missing from this analysis is the moral agency of anyone else in town. All I can think is that the men and boys in this town are so lacking in self-control that they actually register below most members of the animal kingdom, because most animals have at least some concept of consequences for their actions.

Even the people who say that the boys are at fault, but so is the girl for getting drunk miss the point so much that it is doubtful they even know the point exists. All the girl is guilty of doing is getting drunk while underage. That barely registers on the scale of criminality next to the crime of rape. If you do not understand that, maybe you should not be allowed in public near drunk people.

This is such a ridiculously defamatory notion, that men cannot control themselves around a drunk/sexy/scantily-clad/female woman, and that the onus is entirely on the woman to protect herself. It has served as cover for men for a very, very long time, though, and it may only be recently that it occurred to men that this idea actually makes us look like idiots. I assume women have known this all along, and that privilege blinded the guys from seeing it. Some guys seem determined not to get it. Some women and girls go along with it, too.

Guys, we can do better than this. Have a little damn pride in yourselves, because if you really have such a serious problem with self-control, maybe we need to be the ones covering up all the time.

Share

Social Science, Intolerance, and Redheads (Oh My?)

The social sciences are, in general, easier to ignore than the harder sciences if you don’t like their conclusions (not that this stops people from ignoring inconvenient aspects of physics, chemistry, or biology.) Where social issues are concerned, our abilities to convince ourselves of whatever we already believe are rather magnificent in their scope and brazenness. Anyway, George Will apparently doesn’t like to pay attention to what social science has to say about the lack of negative impact gay people have on society. It’s not that he discounts the research that has occurred. He apparently prefers to ignore it or pretend it does not exist at all.

Nathaniel Frank at Slate offers a good analogy for Will’s basic refusal to engage on the issue:

Suppose a group of people claim that redheads can’t enter the town square because they’ll drive away commerce, badly harming the economy—and then this group gets a law passed barring redheads from public spaces. To reverse the discriminatory law, they then argue, redheads must spend however long it takes to amass definitive proof that entering the town square won’t cause harm (which is impossible since you can’t conduct research on scenarios you won’t permit). When redheads nevertheless begin to produce a growing body of research that points conclusively to the fact that their presence does not harm commerce, the law’s defenders consistently reply, “It still might; more research is needed.” Continue reading

Share