draggonlaady

From Lowering The Bar, because I can't possibly say it better than Kevin did.

Slight Inconsistency in Airline's Pants Policy Leads Some to Call Bullshit

A few days ago, as you may have heard, a college football player was arrested at San Francisco International Airport for wearing sagging pants. This was already well within my zone of interest because it involves (1) the continuing and stupid controversy over sagging pants and (2) the continuing stupidity and national disgrace that is our air-travel security policy. But now a new fact has emerged in connection with this story that would render it virtually impossible to believe had I not already been conditioned to believe the impossible.

First, the sagging-pants incident. In that case, DeShon Marman was arrested because he was wearing his pants (and for some reason, pajama pants) in that ridiculous style that puts underwear on display. As I have argued before, this is thoroughly stupid-looking and should be mocked, but shouldn't be illegal. But more infuriatingly, this is not really why he was arrested. He was really being charged not with having low pants - he was sitting in his seat prior to being arrested anyway - but for not following orders given by airline and/or security personnel, no matter how stupid and arbitrary any such order may be.

In fact, a spokesperson for the airline involved - US Airways - admitted this week that this is exactly what happened, saying he hadn't been removed because of his pants, but because he didn't do what the pilot told him to do. "The root of the matter," she said, is that "if you don't comply with the captain's requests, the captain has the right to handle the issue because it's one of safety." So, if the captain doesn't like your pants, it's not about the pants but about the fact that disobeying a pants-related order presents a safety issue because of disobedience. Do I have that right?

Marman's lawyer says, and I think the video confirms this, that his client was not being disruptive, but rather just courteously but firmly said he didn't think there was a problem, he had paid his fare and wanted to travel, while the crew was being extremely condescending and unreasonable. Whether that was because of racism or his youth or an overbearing security policy, or some combination, is hard to say.

On the other hand, the racism argument just got a great big boost as a result of today's development. Specifically, it appears that although US Airways got all upset about sagging pants in Marman's case, it was just fine with no pants at all in this guy's case.



The pantless man was a passenger on a US Airways flight from Fort Lauderdale to Phoenix on June 9, and remained a passenger even though others complained. (The picture was taken by another passenger, Jill Tarlow.) A spokesperson said that in that case, the employees had been correct to ignore those complaints because "[w]e don't have a dress-code policy." You don't? "Obviously, if their private parts are exposed, that's not appropriate," she continued. But "if they're not exposing their private parts, they're allowed to fly."

This, by the way, was the same spokesperson quoted above. And again, it appears her position is that you can wear or not wear whatever you want, so long as your private parts are covered, unless an airline employee orders you to do something about your clothes, in which case you must obey (even though the order violates the airline's no-dress-code policy) or else you will be arrested because your disobedience itself presents a "safety issue."

Marman's attorney, who is probably in a very good mood today, was not slow to point out the "hypocrisy" involved and the somewhat disparate treatment of the two pants offenders. "A white man is allowed to fly in underwear without question," he said, "but my client was asked to pull up his pajama pants because they hung below his waist." Again, your client should be asked by everyone to pull up his pants because it looks stupid and nobody wants to see his underwear. But I insist that neither low pants nor mere disobedience should be or can be a crime.

I think Ben Franklin said something like that, but if he didn't, he should have.

Dogs Likely Born with 'Canine Telepathy'

People who write for publications should have some basic idea what the words they are using actually mean.

According to the researchers, "These results suggest that dogs' ability to follow human actions stems from a willingness to accept humans as social companions, combined with conditioning to follow the limbs and actions of humans to acquire reinforcement. The type of attentional cues, the context in which the command is presented, and previous experience are all important."

Telepathy does NOT mean "reading body language". *headdesk*

I'm way behind on news, so ya'll may already have known this, but damn.

Pete DeGraaf, a Republican lawmaker believes that women should be planning for a future in which she is raped.

Of all the stupid shit that falls out of the mouths of our supposed leaders. You'd think people would be smarter than to say things like this. Spare tire indeed.

The FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine is alerting pet owners to use caution with the use of an unapproved animal drug product, Douxo Seborrhea Shampoo (0.1% phytosphingosine), distributed by Sogeval Laboratories, Inc. of Coppell, Texas after recently receiving a report of the death of a woman associated with the use of the product on her dog.

The March adverse event report describes a woman with severe, preexisting asthma who had a sudden, severe asthma attack and died while bathing a dog using the product, Douxo Seborrhea Shampoo. A few days later, another asthmatic family member bathed the dog using the same product and experienced a mild asthma attack but recovered.

FDA is advising consumers with asthma or other respiratory conditions to consider consulting with their physicians prior to use of this product.

FDA is currently investigating this serious issue and will provide additional information as appropriate.

It's not just unpasteurized milk, it's any unpasteurized drink that presents health risks. This pasteurization thing, it has a purpose.

In other news, why the bejeezus are journalists not taught the very very basic basics of evaluating scientific studies before reporting on them?!? UGA study finds salmonella less prevalent in organic chicken: Organic chicken isn't just healthier for you - it's also safer, according to a new University of Georgia study.
Great! Yay! indisputable proof that organic is better in all ways! Except that if you read the article, you may notice that this grand study looked at only seven farms. We are not provided any information on how many chickens were involved. Already I have skepticism--not that small studies are useless, mind you, and this one may provide the impetus for a larger, more comprehensive look at some issues raised, but really? Seven farms, an unknown number of chickens, and you're trumpeting about health and safety differences?

Perhaps it would be pertinent to look at something said by Assistant Professor Walid Alali, who performed this study: "Because chickens spread salmonella horizontally, when there are fewer birds, it spreads less." I would infer from this that the organic farms had fewer hens, though that's not explicitly stated. Perhaps, then, the difference is not whether the hens are allowed to be treated with antibiotics, but instead has to do with population density? Sadly "MORE STUDY NEEDED!" is not once printed in this article.

"The organic feed rarely contains salmonella, while conventional feed is full of it, Alali said." That's interesting, and probably quite pertinent to the topic, so why aren't we given ANY more information about it at any point? What, exactly, does "full of it" mean here? I want numbers! Quantitative and qualitative analyses of feed used on all 7 farms, and the actual difference in rates and degree of salmonella contamination would be sterling, but given that this is just a small article, I'd settle for x% of organic and y% of non-organic feeds cultured positive for salmonella". I am denied even this cursory summary, however, and left to take Alali's word for it that non-organic chicken feed is "full of it".

Well. Okay, how about the title claim that organically raised birds are healthier? Not a single tidbit of information is offered in this article as to any nutritional difference in the meat or eggs of chickens raised in different situations. Not a single word, let alone a phrase or complete sentence. I begin to doubt the accuracy of the "Organic chicken isn't just healthier for you - it's also safer, according to a new University of Georgia study" statement. Did this study even frelling look at potential health effects of eating chicken from different sources? Ah, here we go: "Alali collected the chickens' feces, feed and water samples from each of the seven farms." Nope. No study whatsoever of nutritional value of meat or eggs. This headline has no bloody relevance to the study the article is supposed to be reporting! Son, I am disappoint.
I am especially disappointed as this totally unsupported claim is reinforced by the article illustration, which shows chicken legs in a frying pan, with the caption "UGA study finds salmonella less prevalent in chicken". Could you get more misleading about what the study actually studied if you tried?

But maybe I'm just being nitpicky and mean. Maybe what they really meant was that the chickens themselves are healthier, and it was just really (really) poor sentence structure? "Chickens themselves don't suffer from the infection - they're just carriers, Alali said." Oh. Well. Guess not then.

Speaking of misleading and meaningless statements, try this on for size: "The organic chickens also are fed organically grown food like corn and soybeans that is free of animal byproduct."
Are we to take from this statement that animal products are not organic? Boy, is Dr S gonna be confused by that when he goes to sell his organically raised calves this year! Then again, what does that mean in an article touting the benefits of organic chicken? Is chicken not an animal? Does this author even know what "organically grown food" means? Or what chickens are normally fed?
From the USDA's information page: "Organic meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy products come from animals that are given no antibiotics or growth hormones. Organic food is produced without using most conventional pesticides..." Well, I guess that means that "organic" and "animal byproduct" are not mutually exclusive. So how about those soybeans, then? Oh, the main difference is that they don't use "most conventional pesticides". Right. Right. Because one would absolutely expect the use of insecticides and/or herbicides to make a significant difference in potential bacterial content of food. Very logical. If these chicken farmers choose not to use animal products in their feed, that is their choice and may have points in its favor on several levels, but being "organic" ain't one of them, honey.

In summary: A small study of potential interest, which raises questions for further study. Follow-ups may include whether these findings are consistent across a larger population of farms and/or farms in different areas. Whether size of farm/chicken population density is strongly correlated with incidence of salmonella. Whether a meat-free diet would be better for chickens. Whether there is a significant difference in bacterial contamination of chicken feeds from different sources, and whether organically grown ingredients processed into chicken food do or do not produce a chicken feed with lower bacterial contamination than chicken feed made from "conventional" ingredients. And whether journalists can be trained to write articles which actually pertain to and accurately relate the findings of scientific studies.

ETA: And why the bloody bejeezus is there no link to source material?! Yeah, the majority of readers are not going to bother reading the actual study results, but some of us would, and if you're reporting accurately, it can only help prove your point.

Don't fall if you're preggers. You may get arrested for attempted feticide, despite promptly requesting medical care and stating that you intend to keep the baby.

At least my tax moneys are going to fund stupidity that isn't this.

I'm in agreement with Judy Dalglish, in thinking that this is "just flat-out unconstitutional, not to mention stupid."

A week-old Pike County, Illinois girl is in the hospital after a pet raccoon attacked her face.

You can read the whole story yourself, but I'd just like to point out that 1: raccoons do not make good pets for the vast majority of people or raccoons, and 2: I don't give a flying bloody fuck through a rolling doughnut how nice your animal of any species is, why the FUCK did you leave it unsupervised with a 4 day old baby? Even a 1/2 pound pet fucking RAT could kill or maim an infant if left alone with it! Babies CANNOT defend themselves. Do not DO THIS very stupid thing!

Raccoon's owners of course say it wasn't vicious. Well, to blatantly steal a line from Scott Weese of Worms and Germs, "wounds caused by accidents heal at the same rates as those caused my malice." Personally, I have a hard time qualifying this as an "accident" since it was absolutely foreseeable and easily avoidable, but whatever.

Sucks for the 'coon that it had to die for the gross negligence and stupidity of this kid's mother and grandparents. Also, I'm not entirely sure about Illinois, but it is illegal to keep wild animals as pets in this state. And the bit about having vaccinated the 'coon for rabies? It's not (in this state, but apparently in California, it IS) illegal to vaccinate "off label" species, but it also provides little or no legal standing, because the vaccine has not been tested or shown to have efficacy in those species. So, as shown in this case, the courts will typically treat a vaccinated exotic as an un-vaccinated animal. Please note that dog/wolf and dog/coyote hybrids count as non-dog species for legal purposes of rabies vaccination, so if you vaccinate a wolf-hybrid you get no legal protection, sorry.

(Also, I found this comment quite amusing and valid: Wounds caused by accidents heal at the same rates as those caused my malice.

that Tennessee passed this thing. However, this article does no better job of explaining what the hell exactly it was that they passed that the previous one did.