So What?

Reading the coverage on the tazing of Andrew Meyer, I noted that a number of the stories pointed out that Mr. Meyer is a "known prankster" or has "a history of practical jokes."

Are practical jokers exempted from the right to free speech? Or was the point that this was just another of his "pranks"? How is the contents of his website relevant to the story?


Trying to read your T-shirt

Men are stereotypically accused of looking at women's breasts. This conversation floated through my head earlier today and seemed funny...

Attractive woman wearing T-shirt: "What are you looking at, jerk?"

Me: "Um... I was trying to read your T-shirt."

Attractive woman: "Nice try."

Me: "It's true. Your breasts kind of get in the way. Sorry. Never mind."

Woman: "It says, 'Yanni Live'."

Me (looking away): "Thanks"


The System is Broken: Giving away national secrets is okay as long as you do it anonymously

"An embassy official provided no information about Iraqi casualties
but said no State Department personnel were wounded or killed. He
spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to
speak to media."

So what was he doing speaking to media?! How is this system supposed
to work?

Giving away secrets is against the law, but "officials" do it, and
get away with it, all the time. Sometimes, as in the case of Valerie
Plame, it seems to be the people in charge who *want* information
leaked inappropriately.


The System is Broken: Contradictions

Why are some registered dietitians overweight?

Why do some nurses and doctors smoke? Wouldn't you think that health professionals would exemplify good health? But many of them are overweight and have poor health practices, like smoking and failing to get enough sleep. Why is that?

Why do religious leaders and organizations get involved in lawsuits? Aren't they supposed to be the experts at getting along with others?

Why is a nation ostensibly devoted to individual freedom and choice trying to force its system on other nations?


The Devil in Your Details

Want your privacy invaded? Just take a trip abroad. Despite criticisms, the DHS is standing by most of the measures of their "Automated Targeting System." Even if they decide you're innocent, they'll store your personal information for 15 years.

What really caught my eye was the name of DHS' chief privacy officer. Here's a quote from the AP article:

'"ATS does not replace human decision-making," said Hugo Teufel III, the department's chief privacy officer.'

The guy's name is German for "devil". How ironic is that?