Tax Day Rant

When people tell me, "taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society," do you mean the society where:

• the President, without even consulting with Congress, much less getting authorization from them, launches 66 Tomahawk cruise missiles and 19 JASSM-ER's at a cost of $119M at a country that does not threaten the national security of the United States?
• the government uses civil asset forfeiture to seize property of people who are never convicted or even charged with a crime?
• the government continues to lock people up for minor drug offenses, then prevents them from getting a job or from voting because they have a felony on their record?
• the government is projected to spend a TRILLION more dollars than it collects just this year?
• unelected bureaucrats in administrative agencies write regulations, enforce those regulations, and then rule on those same regulations?
• the government (through the Federal Reserve) steals from you every day through inflation of the currency--a dollar in 1913 has lost over 96% of its value?

This is the same government that enforced the Fugitive Slave Act until the Civil War. This is the same government that rounded up Japanese American citizens during WW2 and a Supreme Court of the same government who said it was constitutional. A Supreme Court who also legitimized compulsory sterilization with the most infamous of words, "Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

When you tell me taxes pay for a "civilized society," those are the things I think of. What about you? I don't want any part of it. I'm sure you can come up with a list of all the great things government does for you. But if you want to claim those things you also get the baggage of mine.

Rogue One nitpicks

In the beginning of Episode IV, Captain Antilles and Pricess Leia are obviously lying to Vader when they say the Tantive IV is on a diplomatic mission. But it's at least a plausible lie. Now, in the final scene of Rogue One, Vader actually sees the Tantive IV flying away with the Death Star plans aboard. Any plausibility for the diplomatic mission lie is completely obliterated.

The second nitpick is a bit of a continuity problem.: Vader interrogates Captain Antilles: "Where are those transmissions you intercepted?" Later to Leia: "Several transmissions were beamed to this ship by rebel spies." Of course, with the final scene of Rogue One, we learn that the Tantive IV didn't intercept any transmissions--they were physically carried aboard.

Ten post-hoc rationalizations for holding a new EU referendum

1. Since turnout was 70%, the 52% that voted to Leave didn't actually represent a majority of voters. [This is not how this works. This is not how any of this has ever worked.]

2. 52% is in the margin of error. [Polls have margins of error. Elections and referendums count actual votes. There is no margin of error.] See also: people lied to the pollsters.

3. A woman was interviewed on TV and said she had regrets about voting to Leave! [So? Voter regret has never been a valid reason for having a new election or referendum. This is not how this works. This is not how any of this has ever worked.]

4. 106 people on Twitter said something mean or racist! They're no different than Trump voters! [So?]

5. The stock market went down! [Yes, it did. You also noticed, perhaps, that the market was steadily increasing before the vote in the expectation of a Remain win. In fact, the FTSE is 10% higher than it was in February and higher than it was when the referendum was announced.]

6. Old people voted to take away the rights of the younger generation! [Generally, votes are not weighted according to age. Did you know many of those older people were the same ones who voted in 1975 to join the EU? You probably weren't alive then, or if you were, you probably couldn't vote then. If you did, you're one of those old people. Exactly how much should your vote be worth?]

7. 2 million people signed a petition! [Yes, 2 million online people did. Most of those two million people were probably among the many millions who already voted to Remain the first time. Many more of those people weren't eligible to vote anyways, or were trolls. Even so, the petition is worthless and is now being investigated for fraud. Even if 100,000 actual voters sign it, Parliament will debate the EU relationship starting today, which should be plenty to satisfy you.]

8. But Nigel Farage promised money to the NHS! [Yes, he did make a vague promise of returning money pledged to the EU; and yes, the Leave camp took this and ran with it and plastered it on the side of a bus; and yes, Farage later said he couldn't guarantee it. For reference, Farage represents UKIP, which has exactly 1 MP. Either way, if elections and referendums could be invalidated because of broken promises by politicians...]

9. Technically, the referendum wasn't binding! [Yes, you're right. How willingly would you embrace this argument if you were on the other side? If the people had voted to Remain yet Parliament voted to Leave?]

10. The UK government should renegotiate a new deal with the EU and then put it up for another referendum! [Have you been following the news? This was the basis for the first referendum. Anyways, the EU has said it won't deal again.]

Unspoken 11th post-hoc rationalization for holding a new EU referendum: We are enlightened and know better than the (pick one or more of the following:) old/racist/uneducated/ people who voted to Leave. Therefore we will do whatever it takes to undermine the legitimacy of the vote and do whatever it takes to justify overriding the will of the people; see #'s 1 through 10.

On civility in political discourse

Part of the header on my blog says "promoter of civility in political discourse." I take that seriously. It's the standard I set for myself and it's what I expect of the people I associate with. This means forgoing the friendly confines of the echo chamber and engaging with people of all political persuasions. My list of friends and followers reflects that choice. I believe respectful discussion of issues from all different sides, especially sides we don't necessarily agree with, makes us all better because it exposes us to different perspectives and allows us to hone our own arguments. Underlying this exchange, of course, is civility.

The recent tragedy in Orlando has brought this approach into sharp focus. While most have continued to be civil, others have been less so. In particular, I am disappointed with incoherent attempts at arguments based solely in emotion, ignorant of history, circular in reasoning, and accentuated by ad hominem attacks. This does nothing to advance your position; it's quite the opposite. This does nothing to promote civility; it's quite the opposite. This does nothing to promote healing. It encourages the very echo chambers we ought to be avoiding. It does nothing to bring us together; it does everything to push us apart.

I welcome well-reasoned arguments in opposition. But please do so civilly. If you can't, I have no time for you.

The Orlando shooting and the FDA's blood donation policy

I don't like the FDA. I really, really, don't like the FDA (but that's a subject for another day). Nonetheless, the FDA, as advised by the FDA Blood Products Advisory Committee and the HHS Advisory Committee for Blood Safety and Availability (now the HHS Advisory Committee for Blood and Tissue Safety and Availability), determined in December 2015 that it would only accept blood donations from men who have had sex with other men (MSM) if they did not have MSM contact within the last 12 months (the previous policy was an outright lifetime ban on such donations). It's unfortunate that such men who are willing to donate are not permitted to donate blood under the circumstances, but those committees that advise the FDA are made up of practicing doctors who specialize in these issues. They presumably have very good reasons for making these recommendations. Good medical reasons. You know, like science stuff. As much as I really, really, don't like the FDA, I trust the recommendations of these doctors more so than I trust the well-meaning recommendations of random people on social media. If you believe you have compelling reasons why the FDA should change course, I'm sure they've love to hear from you.

Is money the root of all evil?

This is one of those Facebook memes that you read, smile or laugh at, click Like, and move on. It's meant to demonstrate, by referencing something in the Bible, that churches are hypocritical by for asking for money. It may reinforce what you already believe. There's a problem with it, though. The actual verse says: "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." 1 Timothy 6:10. This is part of a larger letter from the Apostle Paul to Timothy, and here he's talking about obsession for money, not money itself. Paul is not demonizing money. This is an important distinction, and leaving these words out of the meme makes a big difference. But maybe that's the point. Whether you believe in the Bible or not is not important here. Instead, it's about the lack of nuance; the loss of understanding that comes with 140-character limits or trying to make a statement with a picture. I'd like to think that if we want to make a point, we should find a more accurate way to do it. I know, too much to ask. I can hope, right?

An open letter to Hillary Clinton supporters

The Internet is filled with "advice" via open letters, like this, primarily to Trump voters, explaining why they are basically batshit crazy for supporting Trump. People love to link to these letters on Facebook and other social media, so that, instead of directly telling your friends that they're batshit crazy, you can use the advice letter as a proxy. You're sure to get lots of "likes" in your echo chamber as you pat each other on the back explaining how you "just don't understand how someone could vote for Trump."

I have similar thoughts about Hillary Clinton. In my opinion, she's a terrible candidate. She served in the Senate for eight years without as much as a single notable accomplishment. Can you name one? I can't. Her subsequent tenure as Secretary of State was marred by the Benghazi fiasco and, yes, those emails. Maybe you don't care about the emails, because "everyone did it" or some other lame excuse. The reality is that anyone who has held a security clearance and has a conscience knows what she did was wrong. They know anyone else would have, at a minimum, lost their job for what she did--and potentially much more. She has a serious problem with telling the truth and rails against hedge fund managers while accepting huge speaking fees from Goldman Sachs. I could go on, but there really is no need for overkill.

These reasons are more than enough for me to categorically state that I could not fathom a scenario in which I could ever consider voting for Hillary Clinton. It's off the table. It's a non-starter. I bet you have a similar laundry list of reasons why you won't vote for Donald Trump, or Ted Cruz, or maybe anyone with an R behind their name. I'm not particularly thrilled with Trump, and haven't committed my vote one way or another should he win the nomination.

The difference between me and many of the writers of these "advice" letters is that I don't think you're batshit crazy for voting for Hillary Clinton. I respect that you and I have differences of opinion, sometimes major differences in opinion, based on our values, circumstances, and what we consider important (or not).

This post isn't about the policy differences between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. It's not about 35% tariffs, or what someone did or said, or Benghazi, or those emails. It's about you and me realizing that we can have honest disagreements about the way forward for our country while maintaining civility and avoiding demonizing our opponents. It's about opening up our echo chambers and re-establishing dialogue so that we can actually accomplish something of value, no matter who wins the election. I know many of you agree with me. I know we're not all as polarizing as we sometimes come across.

If we can meet each other on an even playing field, respecting one another's views without disparaging them, maybe we can get something done. I think that's a good idea. Don't you?

Origins of the Flint water crisis

The Wikipedia page (and similar timelines) for the Flint water crisis indicates that the problem "started in April 2014" when the city's emergency manager sought to "save about $5 million over less than two years" by "switch[ing] from purchasing treated Lake Huron water from Detroit, as it had done for 50 years, to treating water from the Flint River..." until the [under-construction]  Karegnondi system was completed in 2016.

Similarly, Professor Robert Percival explains that "[t]he Flint tragedy originated with the appointment by Michigan Governor Rick Snyder of Darnell Earley as emergency manager for Flint. To save money Earley decided in April 2014 to shift the source of the city's water supply to the polluted Flint River."

These are both true and accurate statements. But they leave the reader wondering: why did Flint (and Detroit) have an appointed emergency manager in the first place? Because those cities were run into the ground. They were essentially bankrupt. And under the provisions of Michigan law, the governor appointed emergency managers to help those cities clean up their mess. Flint continued to flounder, electing two convicted felons (including one for murder) and two others with bankruptcies to its city council in 2013.

One can argue over the scope of powers given to appointed emergency managers (and the subsequent authority stripped from those local governments in receivership), but there is not any suggestion (at least not that I am aware of) that these emergency managers did anything outside the scope of their mandate. Perhaps the Michigan law needs to be amended so that emergency managers cannot change "policy simply to save costs without considering the impact on public health." But that doesn't address the underlying issue of crime-ridden, debt-laden, corrupt cities that will give birth to more tragedies like the Flint water crisis. This New York Times article about the "anger" over appointed emergency managers likewise fails to even address why such managers were appointed in the first place.

There is plenty of blame to go around here in regards to this individual incident: the city's emergency managers, including Earley, as well as Governor Snyder and Michigan's Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), and quite possibly the EPA. In a larger sense, the deeper blame for Flint's water crisis (and many of the ongoing problems in decaying urban cities) lies elsewhere: corrupt politicians, cronyism, disintegrating schools, and public-sector unions. The root cause for cities like Flint and Detroit is a failure of one-party government.

RateMyProfessors.com data breach: Here's what is known so far

On Monday, the website RateMyProfessors.com sent an email notifying its registered users about a data breach. This is what we have so far:

1. A decommissioned website was still online and vulnerable to some exploit.
2. The passwords were apparently stored in the clear.
3. In addition to the notification email, the front page of the website has a tiny banner in the bottom left corner to notify its users of the breach.

Here's the text of the notification email:

Notice that the language of the notification refers to "passwords." Not encrypted passwords. Not password hashes. Just passwords. In the clear? Really? If true, this is not good for them.

Here's a screenshot of the front page of the website. This is how Rate My Professors is choosing to notify visitors about its data breach:

No red arrow, of course. Just cute cat pictures and a very small red banner notice that could very easily be overlooked.

How many affected users? No numbers yet. All registered users, potentially.

First Impressions and Initial Thoughts from Star Wars: The Force Awakens (spoiler warning!)

Warning: This post contains SPOILERS. DO NOT READ further if you don't want to see them!

 

Seriously, I mean it. Don't read any further if you don't want to see spoilers.

.

.

.

.

I saw "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" last night. It was an awesome experience to see Episode VII the night before it opened! It will take some time (and perhaps another viewing or two) to form a fuller opinion of this new episode, but I wanted to provide some of my initial impressions and post some questions raised by the movie. To be very clear, Some of these questions may be answered in The Visual Guide, which was released today and which I haven't seen yet. Some answers may also be found in other parts of the canon. This post deals exclusively with the characters and plot as revealed in the movie itself. Lastly, these comments represent my first impressions, raw and unvarnished thoughts without having read any additional spoilers or without having talked extensively without anyone else about the movie. This blog post is intentionally critical and shouldn't be seen as a negative view of the movie. I reserve the right to change my opinion based upon further information and discussions.

Finn is a First Order Stormtrooper (FN-2187) who participates in the attack on a village on the planet Jakku. After seeing a fellow trooper (and presumably a friend) killed, he hesitates to continue the attack and refuses to participate in the assassination of the villagers. This is all that it takes for Finn to defect. We learn very little about his background other than that, like other troopers, he was taken away from his parents at birth. Is there a larger motivation for what Finn does?

Finn is also surprisingly good with Luke's lightsaber. There has been some suggestion that this means Finn is a Jedi. I don't think this is the case. The lightsaber aside, Finn appears to show no Force awareness. And besides, non-Jedi have used light sabers before--Han used Luke's in Episode V (The Empire Strikes Back) to cut open the tauntaun. But if Finn night be a Jedi, his lineage might be important. However, we haven't seen any of that yet.

Captain Phasma is Finn's stormtrooper captain. She shows up in a few scenes, and ends up turning off the shields under duress. Why not die for what you believe in?! She is otherwise a non-factor and seems like an add-on (perhaps to add another female to the cast...which seems irrelevant given she's a stormtrooper with a helmet on). What's the point of her character? Assuming she didn't die in the trash compactor, I'd hope that Phasma has a more meaningful role in Episode XIII.

Kylo Ren is the movie's black mask-wearing, light saber-wielding primary villain. He's also, to me, the movie's oddest character. Soon enough, we learn that Ren is actually Ben Solo, the son of Han Solo and Leia Organa Solo. Why he wears a mask is not clear. In one scene, he is shown speaking to his "grandfather," which is revealed to be the burnt-out mask of Darth Vader. Is Ren trying to emulate Vader? It seems this is the case, right down to the modified voice. When I first heard Ren speak, I actually thought there might be something wrong with the sound. It just seemed odd, and sometimes difficult to make out certain words. It's almost as if Ren's voice modification was trying to emulate Vader's, but poorly (and intentionally poor?). When Ren takes his mask off, there is nothing surprising about his face (other than that he is very young, and that we know it's not Luke). Why does he need a mask in the first place? Was Ren just a Vader-fanboy?

Ren obviously has some powers--he has mind control, he can throw people and objects, and he stops the laser from a blaster in mid-air. But he's also surprisingly weak: Rey (before she even knows who she is) is able to resist his mind control (maybe this is another sign of his emotional weakness), Finn does an admirable job fighting him with a lightsaber, and he is later wounded. But perhaps oddest of all, no one really seems scared of Ren. In an early scene, Ren confronts the captured resistance pilot Poe Dameron. After a few seconds of awkward silence, Poe makes a joke about who is going to speak first. Poe is obviously a cocky pilot (a parallel to a young Han Solo, perhaps). And perhaps his humor is a false bravado to hide his fear. But he just doesn't fear Ren. Really, no one does. Lastly, Ren has a few incidents of what I can only think of as ragequit-style temper tantrums with his lightsaber. By the second time he does this, the audience is laughing at him. Maybe I'm missing something here (and I assume Episode VIII will add some clarification). And Maybe Ren's apparent weakness is intentional. I do think his character was intentionally made to be emotionally vulnerable. But this plays against his villainous streak. So far, without further character development, Kylo Ren appears to be the least formidable villain in the entire Star Wars universe.

Snoke originally appears a dark, shadowy figure who appears to be gigantic in size. We later see that Snoke is just a hologram. So why does the hologram need to be so large? I wonder if Snoke is, in reality, a small character and the large hologram is made to compensate. Remember the Wizard of Oz? Like Ren, I didn't get the sense that Snoke was really that evil. But only time will tell how he turns out. 

In Episode IV, Han Solo was a skeptic of the rebellion who didn't believe in "hokey religions and ancient weapons." He was the human element. In this movie, he's come full circle: "It's all true." The role of his character has been taken over in parts by Poe and Finn. I didn't like to see him go, but his screen time was his swan song.

Luke Skywalker. Luke's absence from the movie poster and the trailers (except for a voice-over in the second trailer which didn't even appear in the movie) led to some speculation that Luke might be Kylo Ren (or some similar villian). We know now he was not. There was also speculation that Luke might play a minor role. Indeed, we know now this is true. While the plot centered on finding Luke, Mark Hamill only appears briefly in the final scene and does not say a word. Will Luke return to the resistance? Or will he turn his back on them? Could it still be possible that Luke is a villain (perhaps even Snoke)? Plausible, but only future episodes will tell. Luke's story is for another movie.

Humor and Prior Movie References. The plot is littered with humor, often in reference to the previous movies and sometimes using the same or similar quotes from those movies. In some places, these references are clearly appropriate. In other scenes, they seem out of place. Ren's confrontational silence with Poe is broken by a Poe joke; humor just seems odd here. The wookie Chewbacca has more than a few funny "lines" which seem out of place. And the scene where the resistance plans the attack on Starkiller Base seems like one long joke recalling the original Death Star attack plans. As if it wasn't even a serious attempt. I get the humor and the references to the original movies. In many scenes they are well-placed and totally appropriate. In other places, they seem like too much. C-3PO shows up in only a couple of scenes, but his typically fatalistic humor ("We're doomed!") gets lost among all of the other "funny" lines.

Plot Parallels. There are obvious plot parallels which link us back to the original movies. Just a few off the top of my head:

• An idealistic young person left without their parents on a desert planet turns out to be a Jedi.
• An unlikely droid serves as both the comedic element and holds the key to the entire plot.
• The plot centers around a father-son struggle.
• A thousand-year old wise elder provides guidance.
• The bad guys build a planet-size space station as their primary weapon.
• Cocky pilot helps save the day.

I'm sure there are more. But are these too much? Is this just the same story told again with different characters? I wonder if there was a struggle to satisfy the original fans while still bringing some freshness to a younger generation. I just don't know.

Chain of Command. What exactly is the chain of command in the First Order? Both Kylo Ren and General Hux speak to Snoke on various occasions, and appear to be more-or-less equals (minus the Force, of course). After Ren's plan to capture BB-8 fails, Snoke seems to rely on Hux's plan and abandons Ren's advice. After Snoke, who was really in charge?

Starkiller Base. What happens after Starkiller Base drains all of the energy from the nearby sun? If the base is truly a planet, it can't exactly move like the Death Star did. So what does it do then? Also: Starkiller, of course, was Luke's last name in George Lucas's early drafts.

Republic, Resistance, and the First Order. The Republic controls the galaxy, but the Resistance fights the First Order. Why isn't the Republic defending themselves? Perhaps because it makes the Resistance look like underdogs, and people root for underdogs.

Best of the Movie. A few things that stood above the rest:

•  I thought Daisy Ridley was fantastic as Rey. She is the new Luke and she has a bright future in the rest of the franchise and beyond. Is she Luke's daughter? I think that's the general consensus belief so far.
• The new cast. There's a lot of potential chemistry between Finn and Rey; and the scenes with Finn and Poe reminded me of Luke and Han.
• For an older fan like me, the best scenes were those with Han and Leia. Totally took me back 30 years. I felt as if I could see their relationship in their eyes.

Summary. Episode VII was the first of a new trilogy. It left a lot of threads untangled, as any good movie would do, wanting to bring us back for the next edition.The movie was obviously not going to answer every question it raised. But it also had some odd elements that don't necessarily lend themselves to later answers. As I said above, it will take some time for me to form a fuller opinion of The Force Awakens. For now: It was not the best movie I've ever seen. But it was a very good movie and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I suspect my overall opinion of the movie will change as the subsequent episodes are released. I will surely go back again to see the many things I likely missed in this episode. I'm looking forward to see how the story progresses in Episode VIII.

Is this man a terrorist?

Many people across my Facebook feed are quick to call Christian pastor Josh Feuerstein a terrorist for a video he posted to his Facebook page back in July:

In case the video gets taken down, here's what Feuerstein said:

Planned Parenthood has hunted down millions and millions of little innocent babies, stuck a knife into the uterus, cut them, pulled them out, crushed their skull with forceps, ripped their body apart, sold their tissue, and threw them bleeding into a trash bin.

I say, tonight, we punish Planned Parenthood. I think it’s time that abortion doctors should have to run and hide and be afraid for their life.

This is pretty detestable stuff. But I don't think Feuerstein is a terrorist. In fact, I think his speech is probably protected. Let's review a little history...

In 1966, the NAACP ran meetings in Mississippi to organize protests and boycotts against white-owned businesses. The NAACP "store watchers" wrote down names of blacks who violated these boycotts. Names of boycott violators were read aloud at meetings and published in a local black newspaper. At one meeting, Charles Evers, the Field Secretary of the NAACP, stated: "If we catch any of you going in any of them racist stores, we're gonna break your damn neck."

This was a direct threat aimed by an NAACP official toward specific blacks who had been named, listed, and published as boycott violators. This is a much more direct threat than Feuerstein's video posted above. Yet the Supreme Court found that the store watchers' actions, and Evers' speech, was protected.

Unless speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action, it's protected by the First Amendment. It would be very difficult to argue that a Facebook video (posted last July) meets this standard. The mere advocacy of violence is not enough. No, in my opinion, this is not terrorism. Rather, it's very possible that this is protected speech. And yes, I'd stand up for his right to say these abhorrent things. That doesn't mean I agree with him.

A few thoughts on the law school's absurd and bizarre reaction to an offensive word

Recently, a law student from the University of Maryland made a Facebook post that included an allegedly offensive word. At some point the student realized the post might be offensive. She took it down and apologized.

At some point (whether before or after the apology is unclear), the administration of the law school became aware of the post and the Dean sent the following email:

Dear Members of the Community: 

It has come to my attention that a racially offensive term appeared on one of our student’s Facebook page. Among the features that most attracted me to this law school was the community’s longstanding commitment to diversity and to the highest levels of professionalism as part of its core values. https://www.umaryland.edu/about-umb/strategic-plan/about/core-values/.  Racially offensive remarks have no place in the discourse of those who aspire to become guardians of the legal profession. This student is now aware of the offending nature of the post, and is appropriately contrite. In consultation with members of the administration, the student is taking appropriate affirmative steps to convey apologies, and the student has recognized the gravity of the offense. 

Being a part of the profession of law is a great privilege, and it carries with it considerable responsibility. This includes sensitivity to the manner in which each of us comports himself or herself privately and in public. In addition, posts on social media remain there indefinitely and can continue to harm others. I cannot emphasize strongly enough the importance of giving great thought to anything you intend to post, e-mail, or tweet. In the era of social media, this is part of professional responsibility. 

Donald B. Tobin
Dean and Professor of Law

The exact text of the post has not been made public, but the student apologized to the law school community in a mass email:

...I posted about my new access to Wi-Fi, flippantly mentioning an old neighbor and their inappropriate choice for a network name. I later realized how offensive it was, so I deleted it and posted an apology....

The offensive word this student used in her Facebook post was the WiFi network name of an old neighbor. According to this student, the context of her post was to point out that the network name was inappropriate. Maybe it wasn't smart for this student to use an offensive word in her Facebook post. In that case, the student's apology to her Facebook friends certainly seems like enough. A lecture by the Dean and a school-wide apology seems a bit much, no? Context matters here, doesn't it?!

Nonetheless, the Student Bar Association sent a follow-up email strongly condemning any use of "certain words, phrases, and symbols carry with them an abhorrent history of a violence, discrimination, and oppression...These words are INHERENTLY wrong, in and of themselves...." More: "these words...directly represent a system of unfathomable injustice whose dregs continue to linger in the lives of every single American." The SBA explains how we should be offended: "Terms categorically saturated with racial animus should offend each and every one of us." I suppose it's not appropriate for me to determine what's offensive to me.

We are in the age of the Offending of America, where every week comes a new thing to be outraged about. Even so, this situation is absurd and the reactions by the Dean and the Student Bar Association are bizarre. This reaction ignores the reality and context of the situation to push a heavy-handed message that, in my opinion, chills the discussion of anything that might be considered offensive. Steer clear of any words that might be offensive because your career depends on it. Got it.

Martin Shkreli might be an asshole, but he's just the symptom of a larger problem

Last month, a company called Turing Pharmaceuticals purchased the marketing rights to a drug named Daraprim from Impax Laboratories. According to Wikipedia, Daraprim (Pyrimethamine) "is a medication used for protozoal infections. It is commonly used as an antimalarial drug (for both treatment and prevention of malaria), and to treat Toxoplasma gondii infections, particularly when combined with the sulfonamide antibiotic sulfadiazine when treating HIV-positive individuals."

Turing promptly raised the price of Daraprim from $13.50 to $750 per tablet, and general outraged ensued.  Twitter-happy CEO Martin Shkreli became the asshole of the week. "Big Pharma CEO as a capitalist asshole" may make for good headlines, but in my view it's a simplistic approach that focuses on the symptom and not the root cause of the problem.

I'm not yet a lawyer, and I'm not an intellectual property expert or economist either. But I think I can explain this situation in a way that most reporting has generally missed the mark. Of course, I'm open to correction or clarification.

First, let's be clear what happened here. Turing bought the exclusive marketing rights to the name Daraprim. Turing does not have an exclusive right to manufacture the drug and the drug's patents has 

long expired. Any other company could manufacture and market a generic version of Pyrimethamine. A generic version is the same drug--identical (bio-equivalent) to the brand name drug.

The catch here is that no other manufacturer has done so. It's impossible to know precisely why someone does not enter a market, but a few ideas seem clear. The market for Pyrimethamine is very small. Other companies probably believe that the barrier to entry (costly research and development and lengthy FDA approval process) into this small market is higher than the expected return they would receive for their efforts. This may have been the case when the tablets were $13.50 each. By raising the cost to $750, Turing has made the market more enticing for a generic manufacturer to step in. Still, they may avoid to do so if the barrier to entry is prohibitive.

It's also simplistic to treat Turing's price hike as  "free market" exploitation. To be sure, the market and its participants can be ruthless. But the pharmaceutical industry is highly regulated with (as previously noted) high barriers to entry. This process makes it more difficult for generic alternative to Daraprim to hit the shelves in a timely manner.

Whether this is a problem that needs to be "solved" is another matter altogether. But even if both sides agree it's a problem, the approaches are likely to be significantly apart. For example, an interventionist approach would seek to set price controls or attempts to limit exclusivity periods. On the other hand, a different approach might be to continue to relax the regulatory burden on manufacturers so that generic alternatives are easier to bring to the market. Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages, but we haven't really had that debate yet in the scope of these types of price hikes. For the most part, we're stuck on the "asshole CEO" and we haven't yet gotten past that.

Martin Shkreli might be an asshole, but he's just the symptom of a larger problem. Understanding the roots of that problem will help us move on to a more important debate about how to approach that problem.

We're all human: How I got scammed and how you can avoid it

It's not just naive grandparents getting scammed. It happened to me, and it can happen to you. It's embarrassing to me, but not too embarrassing to share it with you.

After I complained to PayPal on Twitter about an issue with my account, a PayPal representative (or, someone I thought to be a PayPal representative; more on this later) contacted me to help resolve the problem. Many companies are very conscious of their online brand and will take to social media to resolve problems. I've done this dozens of times with other companies so it wasn't at all surprising to me for them to contact me (in fact, just hours after this occurred, the legitimate PayPal help account contacted me for the same reason).

As you can already anticipate, the Twitter user who contacted me was not legitimate. Here's how it went down.

1. The "PayPal" representative asked for the email address associated with my account.

2. The "PayPal" representative "verified" my account by sending a code to my cell phone (you can already see how this is going down, can't you?!). It came from the same number that previous PayPal text messages have come so it must be legit, right? Of course it was legit...

3. I confirmed the code back to him. (Oh, wait. No I didn't. He has my email, he clicked a link to reset my password, and now he has my password reset code!)

Of course, I was suspicious about what happened, especially because he stopped communicating with me, but I hadn't thought the process through entirely. I'm not stupid enough to give someone my password, but I willingly gave away the password reset code because (without realizing it was a password reset code at the time) I felt assured that I was being verified with the code to my phone. So I asked my wife to keep an eye on the account just in case. In hindsight, though, it seems so obvious.

In fact, today we found an unauthorized transaction (fortunately, only one; which is being investigated and will hopefully be reversed). Account details and password have been reset. PayPal is aware of the scammer; his Twitter account has been suspended. 

But many more people will continue to fall victim to these scams. I know some of you are reading this and thinking "I'm smart! That could never happen to me!" If I was reading it, I'd probably think that too. But it can happen to you. It's hard to be vigilant 24/7. We're all human and sometimes we do stupid things. I didn't take the simple step of verifying the "PayPal" account (in hindsight, even I have a difficult time imagining how I simply took this for granted). The best I can do is own up to it so someone else can learn from my mistake.

You can be outraged over the shooting, but your flag drama is meh

Reactive politics is easy. It's very popular now to call for the removal of the Confederate flag from flying over South Carolina's state house. Why wouldn't it be? It came in reaction to the terrible church shooting last week. But the Confederate flag is no more or lessoffensive now than it was last week, depending upon your point of view. The shooting doesn't somehow make it worse; unless you're willing to admit that you were OK with the flag last week.

If you didn't really spend any time prior to this week really caring about whether the Confederate flag flew over South Carolina's state house, then you're a participant in reactive politics. Great job standing up now. What about last week, last month, or last year (or before)?

Mississippi fans in stands with Confederate flags during a sporting event in 1993.Photo by Patrick Murphy-Racey/Sports Illustrated/Getty Images

Reactive politics takes no courage. It's the mob mentality. This doesn't mean the act itself is worthless. If you want to get rid of the Confederate flag over South Carolina, go for it (although I hope you agree that legislators in South Carolina should make that decision). But don't delude yourself as if you're doing something brave by standing up against the flag.  Courage means perseverance despite difficulty and pain. Chances are you're not putting yourself in any danger by opposing the Confederate flag, especially from the confines of your desk chair.

Much the same is this Internet rant about a man and his neighbor's Confederate flag. He starts off:

While I was out jogging this morning, I passed a neighbor’s house that I have passed every day for almost three years. Usually I stroll right on by without giving it a second thought. Today, though… today was different. I stopped in my tracks and blankly stared until a car honked at me to move out of the way....This house flies a Confederate flag.

Of course. A man who claims to study culture admits that the flag didn't matter to him last week or any other time during the last three years. But it matters now. Reactive politics. How easy to rant. But really, this paragraph captures it for me:

And what about my neighbor? In a perfect world, I would ring his doorbell and have a reasonable discussion with him about how what he’s doing is offensive and ahistoric and I’d love to correct his understanding of the entire mess. But the sad fact is, he’s not alone, either.

So instead of trying to make the world a better place and engaging his neighbor in conversation, he turns to the Internet and calls the man (and presumably anyone else who flies the flag) a racist and a traitor. How courageous, friend! Great job standing up for...what? And way to go on wanting to "correct his understanding of the entire mess." As if the flag has only one exact, factual, historic meaning that he needs explained to him. And you're the one to do it! How convenient. How pompous. And the idea that you can label another man without actually talking to him about his views (when you admit that talking to him is the right thing to do) is not only weak, but it's anathema to constructive dialog.

I know what you might be thinking. Even though you might not have voiced your opinion on the Confederate flag before, you've always thought it was offensive. And the shooting gave you reason to voice your opinion. Fine, I have no problem with that. Whether you want to oppose the Confederate flag now is not my issue. I take aim at those who attach some magical self-importance to their view now that's newsworthy and convenient, as if they're doing something bold. Sorry, you're just not.

Bold are those who stand up for causes when they're not newsworthy or convenient. When it wasn't the outrage of the week. When it was a proactive position, not a reactive one.

By the way, have you ever read the words to Maryland's official state song? You wouldn't be the first one to raise an eyebrow at that one.

What will next week's faux outrage be?

The OPM breach was really, really bad. The OPM response is really, really bad.

The breach was apparently discovered sometime last year (!) when a vendor was doing a product demo on the production network. The idea that a vendor was doing a sales presentation on their production network is terrifying. Nothing to see here!

So far, we're hearing that at least 4 million (but potentially as many as 14 million?!) government employees were affected. Also, not much mention of government contractors, although the second link above speculates on that (OPM says: "No contractors were affected unless they previously held Federal civilian positions."). I'm not comfortable with their confidence, so still waiting for that shoe to drop. I personally haven't heard a peep from Booz Allen. I expect we'll hear more about this soon.

After the breach, OPM contracted with an identity theft company called CSID to provide ID theft protection for all affected government employees. Then, CSID sent the employees a shady looking email from csid.com and as of today, many people still think the email is a phishing attempt. Users were told to delete any email claiming to notify them of the breach. At the same time, OPM published on its website for employees to expect the email from csid.com, and the FTC claims the emails are legit. You can't make this shit up.

Here is Teri Centner's blog post which nicely summarizes the issue.

Here is the announcement from OPM telling users to expect an email from opmcio@csid.com.

Here is the FTC page authenticating the CSID emails.

Who will think of the children? Drones and bounce houses edition

On Monday during a Memorial Day parade in Marblehead, Massachusetts, a small drone (likely a DJI Phantom) crashed into two spectators. There were only minor injuries and the injured refused treatment. Here's an image from before the crash:

According to the article, "No charges will be filed. Police Chief Bob Picariello told WBZ no permits are required to fly the drone." This is the right call from the police department's perspective. However, the pilot could be subject to a fine from the FAA for flying in a dangerous manner. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.

On the same day, a waterspout came ashore on a Fort Lauderdale Beach and lifted a bounce house off the beach. The video is pretty remarkable. The bounce house was lifted "at least 50 feet into the air." Four children were hurt.

These incidents were unrelated, but the drone crash will likely be used as further evidence to regulate hobby flying of drones. I would be surprised, however, if we see a strong push to further regulate bounce houses. Just a thought.

Deconstructing a misleading tweet, one photo at a time

I found this tweet today:

Over 6,000 RTs! Except there's one problem. The two bottom pictures, which purport to show "white people in Baltimore looting"? The first was published on sfgate.com last November:

And the second was taken from reddit in January (and was also published on sfgate.com). Both pictures are apparently from an unrelated event in Oakland.

When confronted by this, the tweeter resorted to old faithful: "the narrative:" Where have we heard this before?

On Bruce Jenner and Bravery

I suppose I'm in the minority by saying that I don't believe that Bruce Jenner did anything particularly brave. Bruce Jenner has made millions of dollars from reality TV shows and has a strong support structure to back him up. He made his announcement in a scripted television interview. In my opinion, there is very little chance that Bruce Jenner will suffer any real negative consequences from his announcement.

What is brave to me, on the other hand, are the many people who go forward without a strong support structure. Without the backing of millions of dollars in appearance fees. Without the family support structure. For these folks, there is a very real possibility that their lives will become worse before they get better. Yet, they still press forward. That's bravery to me.

Garrett Epps is Right (and Wrong) on Indiana's RFRA

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence

In his latest article at the Atlantic, Professor Garrett Epps highlights two key differences between Indiana's recently-passed state RFRA law and the federal RFRA law. The first distinction is that Indiana's law provides explicit protection for for-profit businesses. The second distinction is that Indiana's RFRA provides a defense for claims against private lawsuits where the government isn't a party. Professor Epps is right that these two differences do not exist within the text of the federal RFRA law (or most state RFRA laws). But a cursory examination of these two issues shows that Professor Epps is wrong when he asserts that these differences are significant.

First, whatever one may think of RFRA protection for for-profit businesses prior to Hobby Lobby, that case is now the "law of the land" and its protection is effectively written into law. Epps suggest that, pre-Hobby Lobby, many believe this idea was "outlandish," but that's beside the point post-Hobby Lobby (I think it was perfectly reasonable, but we can agree to disagree here). So while the federal RFRA law does not contain the same language as Indiana's RFRA law, the end result is precisely the same. Any federal court ruling on a RFRA claim today would rule with the understanding that for-profit businesses are protected by RFRA. It is disingenuous to suggest that this provision is a significant difference from the federal law since Hobby Lobby. As to the states, Epps can point to only two (Louisiana and Pennsylvania) that specifically exclude for-profit businesses. It is not unreasonable to believe that other states may fall in line with the the federal interpretation, especially since some states, like Arkansas's recently passed RFRA, look to the federal courts for interpretation. Absent court decisions (beyond the singular Elane Photography) that specifically exclude for-profit businesses, it is a difficult leap to suggest this distinction is significantly different. 

Second, Epps focuses on the language in Indiana's RFRA which provides RFRA protection "regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding." He then claims that "[n]either the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language." Again, this is a true statement, but it excludes important context. As Josh Blackman has pointed out, of the six federal Circuits that have ruled on the issue, four of them have held that the federal RFRA law may be used as a defense in a private lawsuit. Within these four Circuits (the Second, Eighth, Ninth, and D.C. Circuit), RFRA is a defense in a private lawsuit, just as it would be under Indiana's state RFRA. To be sure, the Supreme Court has not ruled on whether the federal RFRA extends to private party lawsuits. Blackman also points out that the Justice Department under Attorney General Eric Holder wrote that it believed Wheaton College (a private party) could use RFRA as a defense to a lawsuit by one of it's employees (another private party). Given that the majority of circuits that have ruled on the issue have ruled this way, consistent with the Justice Department's apparent position on the issue, it is puzzling for Professor Epps to exclude this information in his article. Based on the lack of state RFRA cases regarding private parties, this distinction (as it applies to state RFRAs) is most generously described as undetermined rather than significantly different.

Professor Epps points to two reasons why Indiana's RFRA law is significantly different from the federal RFRA, but these distinctions start to fade away once you take a closer look.