11 Temmuz 2012 Çarşamba
10 Temmuz 2012 Salı
9 Temmuz 2012 Pazartesi
Are outbursts at the airport okay?
To contact us Click HERE
A friend posted the following status to her Facebook profile today:
I am sympathetic to both sides here. Let's face it: flying sucks. Many people are in a rush. They don't want some moron - or someone with a protest agenda - holding them up. Frequent fliers are oftentimes just commuting. They want to get this mundane part of their day over with. Get to the gate or on the plane and get settled in so something productive can be done. Occasional fliers are often flustered by all of the rules. They are aware that they are the hold-up in the line and don't want to inconvenience others, but are also understandably confused by the process.
It's quite obvious that the TSA, at a minimum, exacerbates and, in some cases, even creates these problems. Before I elaborate, I want to relate a story that occurred to my family (my sisters and parents) and posit that something like this may have occurred to the lady making a scene in front of my friend. It will also tie into some issues that the TSA can take the blame for.
All of my family members have flown before, and since 9/11, but they are all infrequent fliers. Between the four of them, there was probably an average of one round-trip air travel a year. They were traveling to a wedding. As many women know, traveling to a wedding under 3-1-1 rules (the really dumb TSA rules where all liquids must fit in 3-oz bottles stuffed into a single Ziploc bag) pretty much eliminates the possibility of traveling with carry-on luggage only (no checked bags). Even under regular circumstances, it's hard to fit all hair products and makeup that have a liquid or gel consistency into a single bag. But you can forego your favorite lip gloss, use hotel shampoo, skip the perfume, use a travel size hair product that is not your usual brand, etc... on a regular trip. When a woman goes to a wedding (or similar event), she will not want to leave her beauty to chance. So the full-size bottles of hair product and all of the make-up required will have to go in checked luggage.
That's a long lead-in to tell you that my older sister had over a hundred dollars worth of hair and makeup products in a suitcase for this trip. The flight was delayed and they all left from my parents' house - a mere 20 minute drive to the airport - with plenty of time to catch the flight. But, when they arrived, they found themselves standing in a very long check-in line. When they got to the counter, they were told it was too late to check the bags. When they got to security, my sister was forced to throw away most of her products (they took pity on her and let her keep some). My sister is mild-mannered, and my family is not one to make a scene. So, I'm certain that there was no yelling and screaming at the security checkpoint or at the gate. But... if my sister had thrown a fit, would you really blame her (knowing this full story)? (By the way, if you knew even more about my sister's life and what a rotten year she had had and what her financial situation was, you may have even started fighting on her behalf!)
So, what does the TSA do to create or worsen all of the problems at the airport? First, checked luggage is screened, increasing the amount of time that the check-in counter must use as a cut-off for letting luggage through. Nevermind that this is a personal security risk that has led to documented and anectdotal instances of theft. Not all airports are equipped with the most efficient screening equipment and flow processes, so it is likely that in certain airports the cut-off for luggage may be much longer than at other airports.
TSA regulations are, generally speaking, stupid. I already described the 3-1-1 rules, which everyone knows do nothing to prevent liquid explosives from getting on the plane, even assuming perfect compliance and enforcement. The shoes off, jackets off, belts off, laptops out of the bag, empty your pockets, etc... make it so that you are practically getting undressed and unpacking, but the pay-off is unclear. This is confusing for occasional travelers, and stressful for all but the most frequent travelers. If you're traveling with children, you also have to do this for your children and heft strollers and car seats onto the conveyer belt. (Children can supposedly keep their shoes on, now, though this was not the case as recently as last summer.)
TSA regulations are not consistently enforced. Case in point is my sister, who was "allowed" to keep some of her products. The lady that my friend is complaining about also states that, in the past, she has been able to get things through security. This is totally believable. I've gotten chapstick, lip gloss, and mascara through even though it wasn't in a ziplock bag. I bet many people have taken cupcakes on board a plane, but just a few weeks ago, one person (that we know of) had theirs confiscated. Many women travel with breast milk, but some get stopped and harassed.
The TSA is adding stress to an already stressful situation, putting rules in place that slow down everyone - to the irritation of frequent fliers, who wrongfully send their ire to the occasional passengers instead of the bloated agency the put the rules in place.
And let's not forget that all of the TSA searches - of checked and carry-on luggage, as well as making people partially undress - are unconstitutional. My friend is a lawyer, so she may quibble with me on how the law is interpreted in 2012. But, I can read English, and the wording in the Constitution is quite clear on this point - lawyers and judges for the last two centuries be damned:
Then my friend told me that he had decided a number of years ago that he was going to intentionally take his time and go slowly through security. Sure, he would wave people through to go around him. But he wasn't going to let the process raise his blood pressure more than necessary. And, he saw it as a form of protest. Everyone wants you to be efficient - the TSA agents as well as the other passengers - but by going slow you are saying, "I won't be put in your mold. I know I must submit to these dumb rules or risk life and liberty, but I don't have to submit so willingly."
I don't know if the lady my friend was complaining about had a really good reason to complain, like my sister, or if maybe she was protesting in her way - "I won't go quietly..." - or perhaps she is just an obnoxious woman who likes attention. But, I'm not so quick to judge anymore, because I know who is always on the wrong side: The TSA. The passengers are always the victim, some more submissive than others, some more irritating than others, and even some more criminal than others. But they are the victims, nonetheless.
Can't believe that some lady just made a HUGE scene and got super, visibly mad that the TSA made her throw out all her liquids over the allowed size. She even admitted that she knew about the rule, but said they had always "let it go" before.She later updated to say the woman was still complaining loudly in the boarding area.I responded in a comment to her, but it led to a rash of ideas that I wanted to elaborate on.
I am sympathetic to both sides here. Let's face it: flying sucks. Many people are in a rush. They don't want some moron - or someone with a protest agenda - holding them up. Frequent fliers are oftentimes just commuting. They want to get this mundane part of their day over with. Get to the gate or on the plane and get settled in so something productive can be done. Occasional fliers are often flustered by all of the rules. They are aware that they are the hold-up in the line and don't want to inconvenience others, but are also understandably confused by the process.
It's quite obvious that the TSA, at a minimum, exacerbates and, in some cases, even creates these problems. Before I elaborate, I want to relate a story that occurred to my family (my sisters and parents) and posit that something like this may have occurred to the lady making a scene in front of my friend. It will also tie into some issues that the TSA can take the blame for.
All of my family members have flown before, and since 9/11, but they are all infrequent fliers. Between the four of them, there was probably an average of one round-trip air travel a year. They were traveling to a wedding. As many women know, traveling to a wedding under 3-1-1 rules (the really dumb TSA rules where all liquids must fit in 3-oz bottles stuffed into a single Ziploc bag) pretty much eliminates the possibility of traveling with carry-on luggage only (no checked bags). Even under regular circumstances, it's hard to fit all hair products and makeup that have a liquid or gel consistency into a single bag. But you can forego your favorite lip gloss, use hotel shampoo, skip the perfume, use a travel size hair product that is not your usual brand, etc... on a regular trip. When a woman goes to a wedding (or similar event), she will not want to leave her beauty to chance. So the full-size bottles of hair product and all of the make-up required will have to go in checked luggage.
That's a long lead-in to tell you that my older sister had over a hundred dollars worth of hair and makeup products in a suitcase for this trip. The flight was delayed and they all left from my parents' house - a mere 20 minute drive to the airport - with plenty of time to catch the flight. But, when they arrived, they found themselves standing in a very long check-in line. When they got to the counter, they were told it was too late to check the bags. When they got to security, my sister was forced to throw away most of her products (they took pity on her and let her keep some). My sister is mild-mannered, and my family is not one to make a scene. So, I'm certain that there was no yelling and screaming at the security checkpoint or at the gate. But... if my sister had thrown a fit, would you really blame her (knowing this full story)? (By the way, if you knew even more about my sister's life and what a rotten year she had had and what her financial situation was, you may have even started fighting on her behalf!)
So, what does the TSA do to create or worsen all of the problems at the airport? First, checked luggage is screened, increasing the amount of time that the check-in counter must use as a cut-off for letting luggage through. Nevermind that this is a personal security risk that has led to documented and anectdotal instances of theft. Not all airports are equipped with the most efficient screening equipment and flow processes, so it is likely that in certain airports the cut-off for luggage may be much longer than at other airports.
TSA regulations are, generally speaking, stupid. I already described the 3-1-1 rules, which everyone knows do nothing to prevent liquid explosives from getting on the plane, even assuming perfect compliance and enforcement. The shoes off, jackets off, belts off, laptops out of the bag, empty your pockets, etc... make it so that you are practically getting undressed and unpacking, but the pay-off is unclear. This is confusing for occasional travelers, and stressful for all but the most frequent travelers. If you're traveling with children, you also have to do this for your children and heft strollers and car seats onto the conveyer belt. (Children can supposedly keep their shoes on, now, though this was not the case as recently as last summer.)
TSA regulations are not consistently enforced. Case in point is my sister, who was "allowed" to keep some of her products. The lady that my friend is complaining about also states that, in the past, she has been able to get things through security. This is totally believable. I've gotten chapstick, lip gloss, and mascara through even though it wasn't in a ziplock bag. I bet many people have taken cupcakes on board a plane, but just a few weeks ago, one person (that we know of) had theirs confiscated. Many women travel with breast milk, but some get stopped and harassed.
The TSA is adding stress to an already stressful situation, putting rules in place that slow down everyone - to the irritation of frequent fliers, who wrongfully send their ire to the occasional passengers instead of the bloated agency the put the rules in place.
And let's not forget that all of the TSA searches - of checked and carry-on luggage, as well as making people partially undress - are unconstitutional. My friend is a lawyer, so she may quibble with me on how the law is interpreted in 2012. But, I can read English, and the wording in the Constitution is quite clear on this point - lawyers and judges for the last two centuries be damned:
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 uponprobable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularlydescribing the place to be searched, and the persons or things tobe seized.About a year ago, just after my last flight, a friend let me in on a great idea that I wish I had known about before I quit flying. I was an occasional flier of about 3 round-trips a year and I am a pretty empathic person. I am quite aware of how others around me might feel and I often try to limit my behavior so that others are more comfortable. At the airport, this translated into me being someone who tried to know the rules going in, followed the rules, and did so efficiently. I didn't want to be the person holding up the line. By the time I got to the front of the line, my laptop bag was already unzipped and my jacket was off. I would try to remember to wear slip on shoes. And I always, always, always, found airport security to be extremely stressful.
Then my friend told me that he had decided a number of years ago that he was going to intentionally take his time and go slowly through security. Sure, he would wave people through to go around him. But he wasn't going to let the process raise his blood pressure more than necessary. And, he saw it as a form of protest. Everyone wants you to be efficient - the TSA agents as well as the other passengers - but by going slow you are saying, "I won't be put in your mold. I know I must submit to these dumb rules or risk life and liberty, but I don't have to submit so willingly."
I don't know if the lady my friend was complaining about had a really good reason to complain, like my sister, or if maybe she was protesting in her way - "I won't go quietly..." - or perhaps she is just an obnoxious woman who likes attention. But, I'm not so quick to judge anymore, because I know who is always on the wrong side: The TSA. The passengers are always the victim, some more submissive than others, some more irritating than others, and even some more criminal than others. But they are the victims, nonetheless.
A Senator who stands up
To contact us Click HERE
Rand Paul didn't just stand up for himself. He stood up for all of us. Here's an excerpt from his father's fundraising email about the news today:
UPDATE: Here's Rand Paul explaining his confrontation to CNN...
After an “anomaly” turned up in his body scan as he was trying to board a flight in Nashville,Rand showed that he was clearly no threat and asked to go through the scanner a second time.Ron Paul promises to end the TSA as President. Note that he always gets the pat-down due to a medical issue that triggers it.
Instead of tolerating this common-sense idea, TSA officials demanded he undergo a full body pat-down.
Rand stood up for his rights and refused – and was then detained by the TSA and prevented from getting on his flight.
Though the TSA finally caved after Rand didn't back down for two hours - and allowed him to go through the scanner again- Rand caught a later flight but missed his commitment to speak at the March for Life in Washington, D.C.
UPDATE: Here's Rand Paul explaining his confrontation to CNN...
Egregious violation of safety and privacy at American borders
To contact us Click HERE
Around the time I was warning that unseemly practices of other countries could come to the US if we weren't, Obama's DHS was purchasing the very technology that I was worried about: scanners that were capable of seeing through the metal bodies of cars and trucks. I knew that DHS has been using these for VIPR inspections of trucks, but I did not know that any had been installed at the border. They have and CNET has the story.
Around the time I was warning that unseemly practices of other countries could come to the US if we weren't, Obama's DHS was purchasing the very technology that I was worried about: scanners that were capable of seeing through the metal bodies of cars and trucks. I knew that DHS has been using these for VIPR inspections of trucks, but I did not know that any had been installed at the border. They have and CNET has the story.
TSA budget + $400,000
To contact us Click HERE
Because people carry change in their pocket, and this sets off alarms both in metal detector walk-throughs as well as naked scanners, airline passengers unintentionally forfeit hundreds of thousands of dollars in change each year. And the TSA, bastion of public service that it is, keeps all that loose change. Seems they should return it to the taxpayers via a refund (could just be a line-item on our 1040a, "Taxpayer money acquired at illegal checkpoints due to you") rather than put back into TSA coffers.
Oh - and how many of you think that none of the agents at the checkpoint pocket some change along the way?
Because people carry change in their pocket, and this sets off alarms both in metal detector walk-throughs as well as naked scanners, airline passengers unintentionally forfeit hundreds of thousands of dollars in change each year. And the TSA, bastion of public service that it is, keeps all that loose change. Seems they should return it to the taxpayers via a refund (could just be a line-item on our 1040a, "Taxpayer money acquired at illegal checkpoints due to you") rather than put back into TSA coffers.
Oh - and how many of you think that none of the agents at the checkpoint pocket some change along the way?
This blog's mission
To contact us Click HERE
This post is a bit more personal. For the few readers that I have left, I feel that I owe an explanation of some sort for the sparse postings. In short, things have been happening in my life - both good and bad - that have made posting on a regular basis a challenge. I recruited Bill Fisher last fall to help out, but neither of us intended for him to run the show, and it's not fair to him that I sort of dropped out. I have not found the time to write about the dozens of articles that I've bookmarked or ideas floating in my head. Indeed, I have several unwritten drafts that have not - and likely will not, due to a lack of timeliness - be published.
When I first started this blog, I was feeling cornered by the TSA and I wanted to protest in some way. It was a great outlet for me to feel that I was making an impact. Since then, many other venues have popped up - from Becky Akers' new blogging position at lewrockwell.com to Boycott Flying on Facebook, to the many viral stories of TSA injustices. While this hasn't reduced my passion, it has reduced my feeling of responsibility to get any and all TSA-related news out there.
I have reason to believe that this summer may allow me more time to post on this blog - but no promises! In the meantime, I will continue to reflect on what this blog's purpose is now - only a year and a half after I started it up - and how I can meet that mission while keeping the content interesting. Although I feel that I've shirked some responsibility for the last half year plus, I have been so hopeful by the ever increasing backlash against the federal agency that has significantly changed my life. I don't know what is in store for this blog, but, the dissolution of the TSA and all of its shenanigans remains a fervant wish of mine.
When I first started this blog, I was feeling cornered by the TSA and I wanted to protest in some way. It was a great outlet for me to feel that I was making an impact. Since then, many other venues have popped up - from Becky Akers' new blogging position at lewrockwell.com to Boycott Flying on Facebook, to the many viral stories of TSA injustices. While this hasn't reduced my passion, it has reduced my feeling of responsibility to get any and all TSA-related news out there.
I have reason to believe that this summer may allow me more time to post on this blog - but no promises! In the meantime, I will continue to reflect on what this blog's purpose is now - only a year and a half after I started it up - and how I can meet that mission while keeping the content interesting. Although I feel that I've shirked some responsibility for the last half year plus, I have been so hopeful by the ever increasing backlash against the federal agency that has significantly changed my life. I don't know what is in store for this blog, but, the dissolution of the TSA and all of its shenanigans remains a fervant wish of mine.
8 Temmuz 2012 Pazar
Media Succumbs to TSA Propaganda
To contact us Click HERE
The press that was railing about the intrusive TSA procedures less than a year ago has seemingly taken a softer approach toward TSA in the past month, reporting frequently about improperly checked weapons, empty shotgun shells, dangerous cupcakes and loose change at checkpoints. While many of the recent TSA related mainstream media reports resemble public service announcements for the agency, crimes by TSA workers go unreported or largely ignored by the major news outlets.
In December a TSA screener at La Guardia Airport was arrested for stealing a laptop from a college student as he passed through security. TSA screener, Edwin Rosario, was for taking the computer on Dec. 19, 2011. Rosario was seen on surveillance video taking the laptop and admitted to the theft when a TSA supervisor confronted him about it at his Bronx apartment. Curiously, the incident was not reported until after the busy holiday travel season and then not in any major publication.
In another incident, a Federal Air Marshall, ironically named Adam Marshall, was arrested by the Boston police department on Dec. 10 after he allegedly argued with members of Occupy at 3:00AM, called some of them prostitutes, struck one of the organizers in the face and stole her iPhone. This is especially troubling since Air Marshalls are armed and have the power of arrest. This too went unreported and didn’t make it to internet outlets until nearly a month later.
Incidents like this occur when you have an unaccountable agency whose workers can harass passengers with impunity and come to consider themselves above the law. There were 62 TSA workers arrested in 2011, an average of one every six days and these two add to that number nearly a month after they happened.
Many agencies in Government have as many workers as TSA yet none of these has anywhere near the same level of employee criminal activity. We virtually never read of an IRS, FBI or FAA employee being arrested but this is common for TSA employees and often the crimes are particularly heinous, such as child molestation and even one murder. In many cases, investigations after their arrest reveal that these workers had past criminal records that TSA ignored or failed to discover.
TSA hiring standards state that the worker may not have had a criminal conviction in the past ten years and excludes juvenile convictions when the applicant becomes 18 even if the conviction is less than a year old. Consequently many TSA workers have past criminal histories yet are entrusted with airline security and custody of our belongings.
Now AFGE, the TSA union, is pushing the agency to give TSA screeners the power to arrest travelers whom they determine to be a threat of not complying with TSA regulations. If the union is successful in gaining more authority for already unaccountable workers, it is simply a matter of time before law-abiding travelers are being arrested by TSA screeners for failure to show proper deference to power tripping ex-convicts with a grudge against society.
In December a TSA screener at La Guardia Airport was arrested for stealing a laptop from a college student as he passed through security. TSA screener, Edwin Rosario, was for taking the computer on Dec. 19, 2011. Rosario was seen on surveillance video taking the laptop and admitted to the theft when a TSA supervisor confronted him about it at his Bronx apartment. Curiously, the incident was not reported until after the busy holiday travel season and then not in any major publication.
In another incident, a Federal Air Marshall, ironically named Adam Marshall, was arrested by the Boston police department on Dec. 10 after he allegedly argued with members of Occupy at 3:00AM, called some of them prostitutes, struck one of the organizers in the face and stole her iPhone. This is especially troubling since Air Marshalls are armed and have the power of arrest. This too went unreported and didn’t make it to internet outlets until nearly a month later.
Incidents like this occur when you have an unaccountable agency whose workers can harass passengers with impunity and come to consider themselves above the law. There were 62 TSA workers arrested in 2011, an average of one every six days and these two add to that number nearly a month after they happened.
Many agencies in Government have as many workers as TSA yet none of these has anywhere near the same level of employee criminal activity. We virtually never read of an IRS, FBI or FAA employee being arrested but this is common for TSA employees and often the crimes are particularly heinous, such as child molestation and even one murder. In many cases, investigations after their arrest reveal that these workers had past criminal records that TSA ignored or failed to discover.
TSA hiring standards state that the worker may not have had a criminal conviction in the past ten years and excludes juvenile convictions when the applicant becomes 18 even if the conviction is less than a year old. Consequently many TSA workers have past criminal histories yet are entrusted with airline security and custody of our belongings.
Now AFGE, the TSA union, is pushing the agency to give TSA screeners the power to arrest travelers whom they determine to be a threat of not complying with TSA regulations. If the union is successful in gaining more authority for already unaccountable workers, it is simply a matter of time before law-abiding travelers are being arrested by TSA screeners for failure to show proper deference to power tripping ex-convicts with a grudge against society.
Underbomber witness statement
To contact us Click HERE
Please read this heroic statement by underbomber would-be victim, Kurt Haskell. An excerpt:
In closing I will just say that regardless of how the media and government try to shape the public perception of this case, I am convinced that Umar was given an intentionally defective bomb by a U.S. Government agent and placed on our flight without showing a passport or going through security, to stage a false terrorist attack to be used to implement various government policies.
The effect this matter has had on my life has been astounding and due to this case, I will never trust the government in any matter, ever.
In regards to sentencing, nothing I’ve said excuses the fact that Umar tried to kill me.
Security at the Superbowl
To contact us Click HERE
Before the Superbowl, there were confirmed reports of a DHS presence, including bag searches and x-ray ray scanners for bags and trucks. As if that wasn't bad enough, there were also rumors that naked scanners would be employed.
When I read this, I though "Welcome to your police state."
So what actually happened? It was arguably much worse in some ways. The night before, we got this report:
Why are so many okay with the feds interfering with a nominally private event? (And when will truckers stand up to the cargo scanners that are quite dangerous?)
Before the Superbowl, there were confirmed reports of a DHS presence, including bag searches and x-ray ray scanners for bags and trucks. As if that wasn't bad enough, there were also rumors that naked scanners would be employed.
When I read this, I though "Welcome to your police state."
So what actually happened? It was arguably much worse in some ways. The night before, we got this report:
Helicopters and planes equipped with special monitors for radiation and biological agents constantly hover and scan high above Super Bowl village...
In addition to air patrol, on the ground police use giant x-ray machines to scan every vehicle arriving at the stadium, and surveillance cameras, which allow officers to monitor both the interior and exterior of the stadium. The videos are streamed into command centers set up throughout the area nearby. Hidden monitors test the air for toxins and biological weapons, and police patrol with portable radiation detectors.Although vehicles were subjected to x-ray scanning, there does not appear to have been naked scanners for people. But, everyone go a pat-down! And, if you watch this video, at least some football fans didn't care about this gross violation of their rights as long as it didn't take too long (which it didn't):
Why are so many okay with the feds interfering with a nominally private event? (And when will truckers stand up to the cargo scanners that are quite dangerous?)
This blog's mission
To contact us Click HERE
This post is a bit more personal. For the few readers that I have left, I feel that I owe an explanation of some sort for the sparse postings. In short, things have been happening in my life - both good and bad - that have made posting on a regular basis a challenge. I recruited Bill Fisher last fall to help out, but neither of us intended for him to run the show, and it's not fair to him that I sort of dropped out. I have not found the time to write about the dozens of articles that I've bookmarked or ideas floating in my head. Indeed, I have several unwritten drafts that have not - and likely will not, due to a lack of timeliness - be published.
When I first started this blog, I was feeling cornered by the TSA and I wanted to protest in some way. It was a great outlet for me to feel that I was making an impact. Since then, many other venues have popped up - from Becky Akers' new blogging position at lewrockwell.com to Boycott Flying on Facebook, to the many viral stories of TSA injustices. While this hasn't reduced my passion, it has reduced my feeling of responsibility to get any and all TSA-related news out there.
I have reason to believe that this summer may allow me more time to post on this blog - but no promises! In the meantime, I will continue to reflect on what this blog's purpose is now - only a year and a half after I started it up - and how I can meet that mission while keeping the content interesting. Although I feel that I've shirked some responsibility for the last half year plus, I have been so hopeful by the ever increasing backlash against the federal agency that has significantly changed my life. I don't know what is in store for this blog, but, the dissolution of the TSA and all of its shenanigans remains a fervant wish of mine.
When I first started this blog, I was feeling cornered by the TSA and I wanted to protest in some way. It was a great outlet for me to feel that I was making an impact. Since then, many other venues have popped up - from Becky Akers' new blogging position at lewrockwell.com to Boycott Flying on Facebook, to the many viral stories of TSA injustices. While this hasn't reduced my passion, it has reduced my feeling of responsibility to get any and all TSA-related news out there.
I have reason to believe that this summer may allow me more time to post on this blog - but no promises! In the meantime, I will continue to reflect on what this blog's purpose is now - only a year and a half after I started it up - and how I can meet that mission while keeping the content interesting. Although I feel that I've shirked some responsibility for the last half year plus, I have been so hopeful by the ever increasing backlash against the federal agency that has significantly changed my life. I don't know what is in store for this blog, but, the dissolution of the TSA and all of its shenanigans remains a fervant wish of mine.
The LA Times and the scanners-are-safe interpretation
To contact us Click HERE
As soon as I read the LA Times' take on a new scientific article on naked scanner radiation study, I knew they had misrepresented the findings. I have now read the original research article in full, and my hunch holds.
The article, by Hoppe and Schmidt in the Biomedical Engineering Department at Marquette University, seems solid to me. The introduction nicely summarizes what studies have been done at this point. Two that were done in conjunction with the TSA (by the FDA and by Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab -- which is functionally a government research lab doing a lot of work requiring security clearances) had access to some form of naked scanner technology, although not necessarily the exact models used in airports. They both were assigned the task of determining whether the scanners met radiation guidelines specified by an ANSI, which is suspect. So this is where Hoppe and Schmidt take off. They note the shortcomings of these earlier studies, and also reference the "scanners aren't safe" articles from 2010.
Nonetheless, as the scanners have not been made available to anyone outside of the TSA for testing, Hoppe and Schmidt were left to use TSA-provided data for their analysis. They created a computational model for measuring radiation doses in various organs of the body. They replicated the radiation from the x-ray scanner by correlating it with the TSA-provided data first, then running the simulation on their human organ models. It is true, as the LA Times reports, that they find that the effective dose of radiation that passengers receive is below the ANSI standard, as has been claimed by the TSA.
They do not claim the scanners are, therefore, safe. Indeed, they make no judgement on this at all. They note the caveats that they did not have access to an actual machine several times throughout the paper, which means that they can not independently verify the radiation levels coming from the scanner. They also had to make some assumptions and simplifications with their computational model. Although I can't find fault with their methods, it is not the same as testing the real thing, or even a physical model, with an actual scanner, as the authors are well-aware.
The other really significant conclusion from this paper is that their calculations show that the radiation penetrates below the skin. This is independent confirmation of the Kaufmann and Carlson paper which also showed, by analyzing publicly available scanner images, that radiation penetrates the skin. Hoppe and Schmidt go further by estimating the dose of radiation that each organ in the body absorbs. Thyroid, testes, and eyes receive higher doses, children have higher doses - particularly in their bones - than adults, and all of the organs examined get some radiation exposure.
The authors also stress that their goal was to estimate the order of magnitude of the effective dose. In layman's terms, they want to know whether the exposure is about the same as the ANSI limit, 10 times higher or lower, 100 times higher or lower, etc... In doing estimates, scientists often rely on this factor of 10 to see if things are "close." Their results are similar to the two TSA studies - no more than twice as high. And they are less than the ANSI standard.
I am unaware of an ANSI standard for organ dose, but it may not be equivalent for a so-called "safe" effective dose for the whole body to also be safe for reproductive organs or a child's quickly growing bone. Indeed, in referencing the line that this is less than the radiation received during two minutes of air travel, the authors state, "However, it may be difficult to draw conclusions from this comparison, as the type and distribution (i.e., organ dose) differ between the two types of exposure." They do make a much better comparison - to a mammogram - and their estimates show exposure to be at least 10 times (and up to 100,000) lower, depending on the organ. My own editorial comment here is that mammograms are a medical procedure, and are not tossed around willy-nilly. The recent changes over mammogram recommendations highlight this crucial difference.
Furthermore, what strikes me, is a factor of two can be irrelevant for certain measurements. And, for a child, the effective dose calculated by Hoppe and Schmidt is 50% of the ANSI recommendations. What if the estimates here are off by a factor of two from the actual exposures? Then it could no longer be said that the scanners are irradiating at a level below the ANSI standard. Also, the younger the child, the higher the dose. If the 6-year-old phantom in the study is receiving half the recommended maximum dose, what about a toddler or infant? What is the effective dose to the fetus in a pregnant woman? These are not shortcomings of the present study, they are just questions that remain unanswered and will remain unanswered until the scanners are made publicly available for testing or are withdrawn from use.
I would like to let the authors' conclusion speak for itself, which the LA Times failed to do (emphasis mine):
The article, by Hoppe and Schmidt in the Biomedical Engineering Department at Marquette University, seems solid to me. The introduction nicely summarizes what studies have been done at this point. Two that were done in conjunction with the TSA (by the FDA and by Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab -- which is functionally a government research lab doing a lot of work requiring security clearances) had access to some form of naked scanner technology, although not necessarily the exact models used in airports. They both were assigned the task of determining whether the scanners met radiation guidelines specified by an ANSI, which is suspect. So this is where Hoppe and Schmidt take off. They note the shortcomings of these earlier studies, and also reference the "scanners aren't safe" articles from 2010.
Nonetheless, as the scanners have not been made available to anyone outside of the TSA for testing, Hoppe and Schmidt were left to use TSA-provided data for their analysis. They created a computational model for measuring radiation doses in various organs of the body. They replicated the radiation from the x-ray scanner by correlating it with the TSA-provided data first, then running the simulation on their human organ models. It is true, as the LA Times reports, that they find that the effective dose of radiation that passengers receive is below the ANSI standard, as has been claimed by the TSA.
They do not claim the scanners are, therefore, safe. Indeed, they make no judgement on this at all. They note the caveats that they did not have access to an actual machine several times throughout the paper, which means that they can not independently verify the radiation levels coming from the scanner. They also had to make some assumptions and simplifications with their computational model. Although I can't find fault with their methods, it is not the same as testing the real thing, or even a physical model, with an actual scanner, as the authors are well-aware.
The other really significant conclusion from this paper is that their calculations show that the radiation penetrates below the skin. This is independent confirmation of the Kaufmann and Carlson paper which also showed, by analyzing publicly available scanner images, that radiation penetrates the skin. Hoppe and Schmidt go further by estimating the dose of radiation that each organ in the body absorbs. Thyroid, testes, and eyes receive higher doses, children have higher doses - particularly in their bones - than adults, and all of the organs examined get some radiation exposure.
The authors also stress that their goal was to estimate the order of magnitude of the effective dose. In layman's terms, they want to know whether the exposure is about the same as the ANSI limit, 10 times higher or lower, 100 times higher or lower, etc... In doing estimates, scientists often rely on this factor of 10 to see if things are "close." Their results are similar to the two TSA studies - no more than twice as high. And they are less than the ANSI standard.
I am unaware of an ANSI standard for organ dose, but it may not be equivalent for a so-called "safe" effective dose for the whole body to also be safe for reproductive organs or a child's quickly growing bone. Indeed, in referencing the line that this is less than the radiation received during two minutes of air travel, the authors state, "However, it may be difficult to draw conclusions from this comparison, as the type and distribution (i.e., organ dose) differ between the two types of exposure." They do make a much better comparison - to a mammogram - and their estimates show exposure to be at least 10 times (and up to 100,000) lower, depending on the organ. My own editorial comment here is that mammograms are a medical procedure, and are not tossed around willy-nilly. The recent changes over mammogram recommendations highlight this crucial difference.
Furthermore, what strikes me, is a factor of two can be irrelevant for certain measurements. And, for a child, the effective dose calculated by Hoppe and Schmidt is 50% of the ANSI recommendations. What if the estimates here are off by a factor of two from the actual exposures? Then it could no longer be said that the scanners are irradiating at a level below the ANSI standard. Also, the younger the child, the higher the dose. If the 6-year-old phantom in the study is receiving half the recommended maximum dose, what about a toddler or infant? What is the effective dose to the fetus in a pregnant woman? These are not shortcomings of the present study, they are just questions that remain unanswered and will remain unanswered until the scanners are made publicly available for testing or are withdrawn from use.
I would like to let the authors' conclusion speak for itself, which the LA Times failed to do (emphasis mine):
Overall, this paper presents radiation dose estimates from backscatter security scanners for a range of subjects, which may be used for risk estimates and for understanding the impact of backscatter scanners on the average annual effective dose. The estimated doses comply with standards set by ANSI/HPS in N43.14-2009 for radiation safety for personnel security screening systems using x-ray or gamma radiation assuming an exposure of approximately 4.6 μR at 30 cm, as previously measured according to the ANSI standard. A maximum total effective dose of 0.0529 μSv due to a frontal scan and a maximum total effective dose of 0.0730 μSv due to a full screening are below the 0.1 and 0.25 μSv limits. However, as with all imaging modalities using ionizing radiation, the risk must be weighed against the benefit, both of which must be quantified for backscatter security scans.
7 Temmuz 2012 Cumartesi
Wanted: 2 Girls Who Like Soccer & Creepers from San Diego
To contact us Click HERE
OK boys fess up. Which one of you wannabe ballers from SD posted this on Craigslist?
I know whoever placed this ad has high hopes that the respondents to his offer will resemble the Beckhamistas above in more than one way but trust me my dude, you are only setting yourself up for disappointment. This is Craigslist, not Jacques (NSFW); you will count yourself lucky if your dates are not "pros"/con artists and have all of their teeth.
[H/T to @TheDenimKit]
OK boys fess up. Which one of you wannabe ballers from SD posted this on Craigslist?
Galaxy MLS Cup 2011 - $20 (home depot)
WELL, THE GALAXY MADE IT TO THE FINAL FOR THE MLS CUP.. I BOUGHT MY TICKETS LIKE 2 WEEKS AGO.. THESE ARE SECTION 231.. THEY ARE LIKE MIDDLE SECTION... MORE THAN SELLING THEM... I RATHER TAKE TWO GIRLS FOR FREE TO THIS GAME.. IM COMING FROM SAN DIEGO TO SEE THE GALAXY BE CHAMPIONS... SO WHICH TWO GIRLS WANT TO GO? EMAIL ME AND WE CAN EXCHANGE EMAILS AND PICS...
I know whoever placed this ad has high hopes that the respondents to his offer will resemble the Beckhamistas above in more than one way but trust me my dude, you are only setting yourself up for disappointment. This is Craigslist, not Jacques (NSFW); you will count yourself lucky if your dates are not "pros"/con artists and have all of their teeth.
[H/T to @TheDenimKit]
Josh Gatt is Ready for His Closeup
To contact us Click HERE
Here’s the glorified-public access profile on Detroit-bred Molde striker Josh Gatt that we’ve all been asking for. All jokes aside, I know precious little about this kid other than what I read in random yet seemingly regular tweets when scores so I, for one, could use the education.
Also please try to make it to the end of this clip if you can because the sign off is absolutely classic.
Here’s the glorified-public access profile on Detroit-bred Molde striker Josh Gatt that we’ve all been asking for. All jokes aside, I know precious little about this kid other than what I read in random yet seemingly regular tweets when scores so I, for one, could use the education.
Also please try to make it to the end of this clip if you can because the sign off is absolutely classic.
Marsch's Montreal Have Anelka on the Brain
To contact us Click HERE
How’s your French? Merde? Better ask for Rosetta Stone for Christmas then because if you really want to know what’s what with the Impact you’re going to need to read and listen to a lot of it. But if you are like me and only speak French after a bottle & a half of Bordeaux (and poorly even then) you can check out the latest episode of the SoccerPlus podcast because it features an English-language interview with Montreal coach Jessie Marsch.
The headline here is that he says the club are still batting around the idea of making a play for Nicolas Anelka. I repeat, Nicolas “Not Claude” Anelka. Marsch says “it’s still a possibility” and they “haven’t closed the door on it.” It would be one hell of a get, much better than that raft of aged Italians that’s been bandied about as possible DPs. Plus with him being French he could actually understand what the local socceratti are writing about him.
On second thought maybe that’s not the best move for a player as, erm, emotional as Nico.
How’s your French? Merde? Better ask for Rosetta Stone for Christmas then because if you really want to know what’s what with the Impact you’re going to need to read and listen to a lot of it. But if you are like me and only speak French after a bottle & a half of Bordeaux (and poorly even then) you can check out the latest episode of the SoccerPlus podcast because it features an English-language interview with Montreal coach Jessie Marsch.
The headline here is that he says the club are still batting around the idea of making a play for Nicolas Anelka. I repeat, Nicolas “Not Claude” Anelka. Marsch says “it’s still a possibility” and they “haven’t closed the door on it.” It would be one hell of a get, much better than that raft of aged Italians that’s been bandied about as possible DPs. Plus with him being French he could actually understand what the local socceratti are writing about him.
On second thought maybe that’s not the best move for a player as, erm, emotional as Nico.
Seven Minutes in (Timbers) Heaven
To contact us Click HERE
Portland’s debut MLS season may have come to a halt but the misty-eyed memories and goosebump-inducing flashbacks live on in Portland Timbers, We Adore You. A no-narration documentary chronicling JELD-WEN Field’s inaugural MLS match, the seven-minute film drips with both tasteful camerawork and nostalgia for the recent past. There is also a little bit of odd timing as well as opening day was 8 months ago but that is of little consequence when the finished product to so damn pretty to look at.
Add in a handful of highly-stylized Adrian Healy soundbites and the end result is something any reasonable fan of American soccer would deem worthy of watching*. Twice.
BONUS TRACK: Alaska Airlines recently did their own JELD-WEN Field opening flashback video. Watch it.
*Reasonable fan ≠ a closed-minded Sounders fan who blindly hates anything associated with Portland.
Portland’s debut MLS season may have come to a halt but the misty-eyed memories and goosebump-inducing flashbacks live on in Portland Timbers, We Adore You. A no-narration documentary chronicling JELD-WEN Field’s inaugural MLS match, the seven-minute film drips with both tasteful camerawork and nostalgia for the recent past. There is also a little bit of odd timing as well as opening day was 8 months ago but that is of little consequence when the finished product to so damn pretty to look at.
Add in a handful of highly-stylized Adrian Healy soundbites and the end result is something any reasonable fan of American soccer would deem worthy of watching*. Twice.
BONUS TRACK: Alaska Airlines recently did their own JELD-WEN Field opening flashback video. Watch it.
*Reasonable fan ≠ a closed-minded Sounders fan who blindly hates anything associated with Portland.
Hello Cargo
To contact us Click HERE
TheOffsideRules.blogspot.com is over. As of today TOR will move exclusively to TheOffsideRules.com. I'll keep this address as an archive of good times-past and as a parachute in case both you and I agree that the new look is whack in the long run.
Pretty much the only thing that is changing is the layout/user experience, which is kind of a big deal but not really. Also, this is the official divorce decree between TOR and Helvetica Bold. Sorry kids but it's for the best that we split; the thrill was gone.
TheOffsideRules.blogspot.com is over. As of today TOR will move exclusively to TheOffsideRules.com. I'll keep this address as an archive of good times-past and as a parachute in case both you and I agree that the new look is whack in the long run.
Pretty much the only thing that is changing is the layout/user experience, which is kind of a big deal but not really. Also, this is the official divorce decree between TOR and Helvetica Bold. Sorry kids but it's for the best that we split; the thrill was gone.
5 Temmuz 2012 Perşembe
Physics Before Coffee
To contact us Click HERE
There is absolutely no way that I'm going to comment on theoretical physics before coffee (and after last nite). I will say this tho...they should name it something different, something cooler. Wouldn't the atheist particle be more awesome.
Congrats super smart scientists (if this is indeed what it is you claim it to be).
* Sf Gate
* File under possible the most awesome shit that will happen in our lifetimes.
There is absolutely no way that I'm going to comment on theoretical physics before coffee (and after last nite). I will say this tho...they should name it something different, something cooler. Wouldn't the atheist particle be more awesome.Congrats super smart scientists (if this is indeed what it is you claim it to be).
* Sf Gate
* File under possible the most awesome shit that will happen in our lifetimes.
Liars For Barton
To contact us Click HERE
David Bryne "Even facts have a point of view."
Give credit where credit is due. This must be the first article by this Prothero that I have liked. In fact I'm inspired. Thanks bro.
The article Our Least Christian President at first looksie is about that Jefferson Bible that our team keeps talking about and a new(ish) book from the pseudo-historian of "truthy-ness" David "I don't even have a degree in history, but the GOP treats me like I'm a Phd. historian" Barton called The Jefferson Lies. I think I already wrote about it and how there is already a book by real scholars (and they are even Christian) of truth-n-facts to counter Barton's "truthy-ness." Anyhoo....back to the article.
We are living in uber polarized times, yo. Seemingly there is no middle way and if you are on the fence about an issue, fuck man, there must be something wrong with you. We have the libs v. the dems, the religious v. Team Atheist and those that understand and accept science and those who do not. Just look at congress and politics. We are so polarized that the reason there is no cooperation in Washington right now is because one side doesn't want the other side to pass a bill that will, gee I dunno, succeed. It's quite pathetic.
When I have said over and over again that the battle for secular society is for everyone and I believe in my heart that it is a fair path to choose...for everyone, the David Barton's of the world are creating groups called Wall Builders. I'm not shitting you. His group is called Wall Builders. They don't want a fair public square for everyone, they want to separate and divide. How's and why's.
Very much like professional Christian debater, the infamous, W.L. Craig will bombard you with so many factoids that it is impossible to refute them all and just as hard to process it all, Barton does the same with his brand and interpretation of American history. He will pull out documents that confirm his belief (and that is what it is, a belief, not fact) and Joe and Jane average have no way of knowing any better. The book Liars For Jesus exposes many, if not, all of Barton's lies, but guess who gets more press, guess who gets the ear of politicians (really this book will take the so called proof of Barton and destroy it with, you know, real history and facts.).
When this saturation technique happens then we have home schooled kids growing up believing that the founding fathers absolutely intended for American to be a Christian nation and that (as Chuck Norris and his wife claim) the founding fathers totally wanted the bible to be taught in public schools. All Barton's fans believe this and his fans are politicians, lawmakers, the movers and the shakers. WTF.
What's up with Barton and the Christian President Thomas Jefferson. Tommy J famously cut out all the supernatural stuffs outta the bible and what remained is know as the Jefferson Bible.
"Jefferson called the biblical book of Revelation the "ravings of a maniac." He rejected the divinity of Jesus and the virgin birth. He characterized the Trinity as "hocus-pocus phantasm." And in Bibles on display at the Smithsonian, he cut out the resurrection. To call Jefferson a Christian is to demonstrate disdain for either history or Christianity (or both)."
What does Barton say...Thomas Jefferson was an Orthodox Christian. Really, really really. The Barton's of the world want to divide it up into two sections...us and them. On one side is Team Jesus (that is if you pick the correct one) and on the other side is everyone else. Normal and sane interpretations of Jefferson and history give him credit for church state separation, but ask Barton and he will say this, he will fucking say this...historians have misinterpreted Thomas Jefferson and he never intended all that church state separation stuffs, sorry. What does Tommy J halfta say about that...
"Let us then, fellow citizens, unite with one heart and one mind. Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty, and even life itself, are but dreary things. … Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans; we are all federalists."
This was after an epic election process, much like what is going on right now. So do you believe the majority of accredited historians that look at history in an unbiased, dare I say scientific, way with no agenda...or the liar for Jesus that is building physical and metaphorical walls to divide and separate this great nation that is trying to tell you his opinion of a fact. Think about it...a point of view on a fact. Fuckin' ridicules. Kind gentle and very good looking readers (and I'll add today that your hair smells nice)...who do you believe?
Give credit where credit is due. This must be the first article by this Prothero that I have liked. In fact I'm inspired. Thanks bro.
The article Our Least Christian President at first looksie is about that Jefferson Bible that our team keeps talking about and a new(ish) book from the pseudo-historian of "truthy-ness" David "I don't even have a degree in history, but the GOP treats me like I'm a Phd. historian" Barton called The Jefferson Lies. I think I already wrote about it and how there is already a book by real scholars (and they are even Christian) of truth-n-facts to counter Barton's "truthy-ness." Anyhoo....back to the article.
We are living in uber polarized times, yo. Seemingly there is no middle way and if you are on the fence about an issue, fuck man, there must be something wrong with you. We have the libs v. the dems, the religious v. Team Atheist and those that understand and accept science and those who do not. Just look at congress and politics. We are so polarized that the reason there is no cooperation in Washington right now is because one side doesn't want the other side to pass a bill that will, gee I dunno, succeed. It's quite pathetic.When I have said over and over again that the battle for secular society is for everyone and I believe in my heart that it is a fair path to choose...for everyone, the David Barton's of the world are creating groups called Wall Builders. I'm not shitting you. His group is called Wall Builders. They don't want a fair public square for everyone, they want to separate and divide. How's and why's.
 |
| This is not a photo of a historian (that's my attempt at an artsy joke. Purddy funny, right). |
When this saturation technique happens then we have home schooled kids growing up believing that the founding fathers absolutely intended for American to be a Christian nation and that (as Chuck Norris and his wife claim) the founding fathers totally wanted the bible to be taught in public schools. All Barton's fans believe this and his fans are politicians, lawmakers, the movers and the shakers. WTF.
What's up with Barton and the Christian President Thomas Jefferson. Tommy J famously cut out all the supernatural stuffs outta the bible and what remained is know as the Jefferson Bible.
"Jefferson called the biblical book of Revelation the "ravings of a maniac." He rejected the divinity of Jesus and the virgin birth. He characterized the Trinity as "hocus-pocus phantasm." And in Bibles on display at the Smithsonian, he cut out the resurrection. To call Jefferson a Christian is to demonstrate disdain for either history or Christianity (or both)."
What does Barton say...Thomas Jefferson was an Orthodox Christian. Really, really really. The Barton's of the world want to divide it up into two sections...us and them. On one side is Team Jesus (that is if you pick the correct one) and on the other side is everyone else. Normal and sane interpretations of Jefferson and history give him credit for church state separation, but ask Barton and he will say this, he will fucking say this...historians have misinterpreted Thomas Jefferson and he never intended all that church state separation stuffs, sorry. What does Tommy J halfta say about that...
"Let us then, fellow citizens, unite with one heart and one mind. Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty, and even life itself, are but dreary things. … Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans; we are all federalists."
This was after an epic election process, much like what is going on right now. So do you believe the majority of accredited historians that look at history in an unbiased, dare I say scientific, way with no agenda...or the liar for Jesus that is building physical and metaphorical walls to divide and separate this great nation that is trying to tell you his opinion of a fact. Think about it...a point of view on a fact. Fuckin' ridicules. Kind gentle and very good looking readers (and I'll add today that your hair smells nice)...who do you believe?
Learning How To Tell Time
To contact us Click HERE
I do believe that every person in the world knows how to whistle this song. This reminds of early 70's San Francisco and watching reruns with my grandma on my dads side (yes, I was scared of her also). The Andy Griffith show ended in 68 (the year I was born) and watching reruns in the afternoon was how i learned how to tell time. The little kid shows came on in the morning, stuffs like the Andy Griffith show and The Little Rascals came on in the afternoon (I had the hots for Darla and knew that I could defeat Alfalfa in combat, but I didn't know why I would even do such a thing...I just knew in my heart that I could).
RIP my man. Thanks for the mammary's.
I do believe that every person in the world knows how to whistle this song. This reminds of early 70's San Francisco and watching reruns with my grandma on my dads side (yes, I was scared of her also). The Andy Griffith show ended in 68 (the year I was born) and watching reruns in the afternoon was how i learned how to tell time. The little kid shows came on in the morning, stuffs like the Andy Griffith show and The Little Rascals came on in the afternoon (I had the hots for Darla and knew that I could defeat Alfalfa in combat, but I didn't know why I would even do such a thing...I just knew in my heart that I could).
RIP my man. Thanks for the mammary's.
How Tomatoes Started The Zombie Apocalypse
To contact us Click HERE
Two things here folks, one good and one bad. First up, a mystery (to me) has been solved. Just like when I don't brag about my awesome long black silky rope-like hair, or my naturally low body fat percentage, I'm not bragging when I tell ya that I had the opportunity, while growing up and growing vegiez in our (to a kid) too huge garden, to eat ripe tomatoes off the vine. That's it.
Tomatoes are fuckin' good right off the vine...because you are a kid and you are watering the mutha fuckin' rows and rows of tomatoes (besides all the other shit, err, food) under the fuckin' hot arse sun, while you hear the lucky white kids at the dirt bike track, like, 50 yards from our house screaming and crashing and luvin' it.) The second thing is that the latest tomato research will start that zombie apocalypse. That is all. Anyhoo...
As a full grown and mature adult male species here in 2012, I do try (a little, very little. I just look like this. Really) to eat right soz ya noz a guy hasta have some tomatoes in his diet, right. Wrong this time. The tomatoes at the supermarket might as well be tasteless apples, or tasteless rice flavor or something (I'm trying to combine something sorta plain tasting and, and...and tasteless). They suck...well, compared to young Kriss tasting tomatoes in the garden (1). But why (insert evil laugh here that echos and echos, and then ends in a coughing fit)?
This genius article that is named Why tomatoes taste bad: Science bla bla bla. It should be called Why ARE NOT Supermarket Tomatoes Just Are Like The Rest Of The Freekin' World Or Local Farmer's Market. Still, great article with all that science-y stuffs that Team Awesome (atheist, skeptic, LGBT, feminist, baddass, baddass twice) likes so much.
I'll cut right to it. Tomatoes are picked early so when they get to the store they are ripe, one of the indicators is the greenness while on the vine, that tells the farmer it's time, but a something something happens because the "master switch" has not been activated, and in reality after examining the science, the indicator of green really means stop and don't do that because because the master switch has not been turned on so chloroplasts can't happen therefore sugar can't happen and that is what makes the fruit taste good in the first place, therefore, you tomatoes sucks.
"The genes that SIGLK2 controls regulate the formation of chloroplasts, components of cells that control photosynthesis. A heavy concentration of chloroplasts in a tomato leads to a heavy shading of green, which is the quality plant breeders look to avoid. The problem is, chloroplasts also increase sugar levels in the tomato, and sugars play a key role in creating flavor. (Thanks Time Mag)."
OK that was the first part of the movie, now Zombie Apocalypsessssseesesssss'es.
The end of the article says...
"Ironically, the investigators in the current study never got to taste the tomato and enjoy the results of their work. Safety regulations forbid researchers from sampling genetically modified foods until they are certified safe. That may happen in the future, but until then, plant scientists, like the rest of us, will be left to get by on supermarket tomatoes that may look a lot lovelier than the box they came in, but alas, taste pretty much the same."
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2118455,00.html#ixzz1zcIJVgPU
If that is not the start of that zombie apocalypse, then I dunno what is.
(1) I tasted everything. Ya know, you can eat little tiny baby corn like one inch and one millimeter round, off the vine, just pick it, unwrap the baby corn husk and then you grub on a tiny sweet baby corn. nice.) while he shoulda been watering the garden (and deff. not chasing the geese with the water hose).
* Click the links it goes to the Time Magazine article. Good stuffs Maynard.
* What I'm hinting at is that wouldn't you try it if you were a scientist or spike someone's drinki with it, err, no, that's bad, mmmmm...I do wonder who would try it (evil laughter ensues and fades out....)...
* Toe-may-toe v. ve-get-able
 |
| I Googled "tomatoes and zombies" for this one. Nice. |
Tomatoes are fuckin' good right off the vine...because you are a kid and you are watering the mutha fuckin' rows and rows of tomatoes (besides all the other shit, err, food) under the fuckin' hot arse sun, while you hear the lucky white kids at the dirt bike track, like, 50 yards from our house screaming and crashing and luvin' it.) The second thing is that the latest tomato research will start that zombie apocalypse. That is all. Anyhoo...
 |
| I'm not kidding, sum-o-tha gardens I worked in were, like, 1/4 acre. Some. |
 |
| Represent Asian brother. We can be just as zombie as a white person. There I said it.. |
I'll cut right to it. Tomatoes are picked early so when they get to the store they are ripe, one of the indicators is the greenness while on the vine, that tells the farmer it's time, but a something something happens because the "master switch" has not been activated, and in reality after examining the science, the indicator of green really means stop and don't do that because because the master switch has not been turned on so chloroplasts can't happen therefore sugar can't happen and that is what makes the fruit taste good in the first place, therefore, you tomatoes sucks.
"The genes that SIGLK2 controls regulate the formation of chloroplasts, components of cells that control photosynthesis. A heavy concentration of chloroplasts in a tomato leads to a heavy shading of green, which is the quality plant breeders look to avoid. The problem is, chloroplasts also increase sugar levels in the tomato, and sugars play a key role in creating flavor. (Thanks Time Mag)."
OK that was the first part of the movie, now Zombie Apocalypsessssseesesssss'es.
The end of the article says...
"Ironically, the investigators in the current study never got to taste the tomato and enjoy the results of their work. Safety regulations forbid researchers from sampling genetically modified foods until they are certified safe. That may happen in the future, but until then, plant scientists, like the rest of us, will be left to get by on supermarket tomatoes that may look a lot lovelier than the box they came in, but alas, taste pretty much the same."
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2118455,00.html#ixzz1zcIJVgPU
If that is not the start of that zombie apocalypse, then I dunno what is.
 |
| You can burn it as fuel for something or you can thro it in the garden as fertilizer then your slave child will break a little up everyday so the soil will be rich, while not damaging the plants at the same time. |
* Click the links it goes to the Time Magazine article. Good stuffs Maynard.
* What I'm hinting at is that wouldn't you try it if you were a scientist or spike someone's drinki with it, err, no, that's bad, mmmmm...I do wonder who would try it (evil laughter ensues and fades out....)...
* Toe-may-toe v. ve-get-able
Excuse me...Higgs Bozon I Presume
To contact us Click HERE
Apparently it's the end of the search. Houston we have ourselves some Bow-zon (Higgs Boson). I'm not going to even try and pretend that I know more than I know about this (I know you guys do) then I do, but what do you halfta know: some super smart peeps made a prediction, there was testing and testing, and searching and searching in that peer-y unbiased kinda way, and guess what, the prediction turned out to be true (science, it works, beothces).
So many things are going thru my mind right now. Is this the most epic discovery of my lifetime (perhaps), shouldn't they have called it call it the atheist particle, will this mean that the flying jet packs they promised us when we were kids will now come to fruition, and this will open those doors to hella discoveries-n-shit and in addition to that 10, 20, a million years in the future (perhaps) we will look back at this as the thingy that changed everything (because it is so epic). Or not.
We now have mass, or rather we know now why there is mass rather than not. This is a cute-sie explanation of why this is the coolest discovery since sliced bread, best explanation of Higgs Boson. This is the explanation of why there is mass, rather than not. I guess the layperson's (me) term would be glue. It is the sticky stickiness that holds everything together. So instead of atoms and molecules flying around, they can chill and congregate in one place and stick together in this thing called mass.
Just like all the other great, and even not great, scientific discoveries, this answer only leads to more questions. As it should be. Now that we have matter, as opposed to not matter and because matter is only, like, 4% of the universe, we can now look to solving the other mysteries like that matter and dark matter thing the cool kids keep talking about. Ok before I get in way way way over my head (I'am already), I'll stop the science-science stuffs and address what I really wanted to address. The God of the Gaps.
So here we are again, another scientific discovery has been made, thus the God of the Gaps gets smaller and smaller. Right, err, sometimes, apparently you halfta be sane to acknowledge this. In Camp Believer faith is cherished over reason. In this camp the claim to have the answer (singular) and that always and forever has been and will be the answer, to them it is is awesome sauce. Can't get any better than that. Right. Wrong.
On the other better looking, conscious and reasonable side, in that camp it is acknowledged that one can never know everything, much less claim the correct answer for everything is the singular answer of God (naive on my part and fo sho belief can, not always, entail more than that. But room, space and time buddies. Anyhoo...). The very truth that when one mystery/question is solved then that opens the door to more unsolved mysteries and questions. The difference between the two camps is this 1) one side thinks that to (incorrectly claim) declare that all answers to all questions, forever and evah, is the singular answer of "God did it, now shut up your mouth, atheists."
The other better looking and fashionable side (that probably uses Mac's. Just sayin'.) acknowledges that it is impossible to know everything and that is OK. There is nothing wrong with that. It seems to me that there is a choice. You can be negative that the univers has no plan for us, we are not special and when you die, then you just fuckin' die. That is it because that doesn't necessarily mean that is a negative event and because of that now life sucks. Life can still be good even tho God is not the answer to all questions, there is no plan and you are not special (1). We can choose to acknowledge that and be positive or negative.
The same goes for scientific inquiry and admitting that mere humans cannot and will not ever ever know everything. Who fuckin' cares. Just because mere humans do not know everything does not necessarily that that is a negative event. Big deal-eo, mere humans do not know everything so I guess life sucks, automatically...not. If you believe the religionist, then it is a crime/sin to not know and/or acknowledge what they call the truth is. I really do believe that this is one of the significant thingies between the two camps: on one side it is a crime/sin to not believe that the one truth (answer) or every question ever ever is "God did it." The other tanner and cuter side believes that is not necessarily negative that a mere human does not know something, or everything, at a certain time.
To us it is a chance to spread your wings and work that evolved human brain the Nu Atheists keep talking about. The truest and most honest truth, is scientific truth. Sure sometimes science gets it wrong, but science is self correcting and that is the beauty of science (as opposed to unchanging religion). If something is shown to be incorrect, then we will dump it like (insert something that obviously there is no shame in dumping, here). But before that, if independent test are conducted by game peers, independently and the same conclusions come up over and over again, then WTF. I guess there is the truth and there is truithiness.
Who do you believe.
* Article Reuters
* BBC
(1) How is it that YOU are special in the universe and in God's grace, because that automatically means others are not special. Mysterious ways...fuck you, I'm smarter than that. Way smarter.
SHIT I HALFTA GO TO WORK, NO EDIT UNTILL LATERRRRRRRRR
 |
| I don't know exactly what this is (besides CERN, dugh), but I do know that it is baddass. |
So many things are going thru my mind right now. Is this the most epic discovery of my lifetime (perhaps), shouldn't they have called it call it the atheist particle, will this mean that the flying jet packs they promised us when we were kids will now come to fruition, and this will open those doors to hella discoveries-n-shit and in addition to that 10, 20, a million years in the future (perhaps) we will look back at this as the thingy that changed everything (because it is so epic). Or not.
We now have mass, or rather we know now why there is mass rather than not. This is a cute-sie explanation of why this is the coolest discovery since sliced bread, best explanation of Higgs Boson. This is the explanation of why there is mass, rather than not. I guess the layperson's (me) term would be glue. It is the sticky stickiness that holds everything together. So instead of atoms and molecules flying around, they can chill and congregate in one place and stick together in this thing called mass.
Just like all the other great, and even not great, scientific discoveries, this answer only leads to more questions. As it should be. Now that we have matter, as opposed to not matter and because matter is only, like, 4% of the universe, we can now look to solving the other mysteries like that matter and dark matter thing the cool kids keep talking about. Ok before I get in way way way over my head (I'am already), I'll stop the science-science stuffs and address what I really wanted to address. The God of the Gaps.
So here we are again, another scientific discovery has been made, thus the God of the Gaps gets smaller and smaller. Right, err, sometimes, apparently you halfta be sane to acknowledge this. In Camp Believer faith is cherished over reason. In this camp the claim to have the answer (singular) and that always and forever has been and will be the answer, to them it is is awesome sauce. Can't get any better than that. Right. Wrong.
 |
| I Googled "hot scientists" and dude came up. Was' shackin' Bacon. |
The other better looking and fashionable side (that probably uses Mac's. Just sayin'.) acknowledges that it is impossible to know everything and that is OK. There is nothing wrong with that. It seems to me that there is a choice. You can be negative that the univers has no plan for us, we are not special and when you die, then you just fuckin' die. That is it because that doesn't necessarily mean that is a negative event and because of that now life sucks. Life can still be good even tho God is not the answer to all questions, there is no plan and you are not special (1). We can choose to acknowledge that and be positive or negative.The same goes for scientific inquiry and admitting that mere humans cannot and will not ever ever know everything. Who fuckin' cares. Just because mere humans do not know everything does not necessarily that that is a negative event. Big deal-eo, mere humans do not know everything so I guess life sucks, automatically...not. If you believe the religionist, then it is a crime/sin to not know and/or acknowledge what they call the truth is. I really do believe that this is one of the significant thingies between the two camps: on one side it is a crime/sin to not believe that the one truth (answer) or every question ever ever is "God did it." The other tanner and cuter side believes that is not necessarily negative that a mere human does not know something, or everything, at a certain time.
To us it is a chance to spread your wings and work that evolved human brain the Nu Atheists keep talking about. The truest and most honest truth, is scientific truth. Sure sometimes science gets it wrong, but science is self correcting and that is the beauty of science (as opposed to unchanging religion). If something is shown to be incorrect, then we will dump it like (insert something that obviously there is no shame in dumping, here). But before that, if independent test are conducted by game peers, independently and the same conclusions come up over and over again, then WTF. I guess there is the truth and there is truithiness.
Who do you believe.
* Article Reuters
* BBC
(1) How is it that YOU are special in the universe and in God's grace, because that automatically means others are not special. Mysterious ways...fuck you, I'm smarter than that. Way smarter.
SHIT I HALFTA GO TO WORK, NO EDIT UNTILL LATERRRRRRRRR
4 Temmuz 2012 Çarşamba
Looking At the New Marriage and Funeral Rites For The Anglican Ordinariates
To contact us Click HERE
The Vatican released the first new approved rites for the Anglican Ordinariates. Anglo Catholic has a post up on it here.
The marriage rite is located here and the funeral rite is located here.
I do like this part:
I require and charge you both, as you will answer at the dreadful day
of judgment when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed, that if
either of you know of any impediment, why you may not be lawfully
joined together in Matrimony, do you now confess it. For be you well
assured, that so many as are coupled together otherwise than God's
Holy Church doth allow are not joined together by God; neither is
their Matrimony lawful in the sight of God.
Fun stuff.
I also think the funeral rite will be a big hit.
Kaydol:
Yorumlar (Atom)