According to a report, one of the most dangerous places on the face of the planet--at least when it comes to running the risk of robbery--is your friendly neighborhood Starbucks. New York City police lieutenant Dan Hollywood (!!!) explains that, since the crime rate in New York has decreased so much, people have to a certain extent let their guard down. When in a Starbucks, people often leave their laptops and purses unattended while they run for a refill. When they return, their possessions are gone.

We sympathize with these victims. There is something about a Starbucks that inspires a sense of security. Probably all the earth tones. And when you're sitting at a table, working on your laptop, and you have to go to the bathroom, you don't want to have to carry everything with you, right? You run the numbers and decide that you can make it to the bathroom and back fast enough to prevent anything from happening. And then you get to the bathroom and there's a line and a combination and no toilet paper and. . . . Well, long story short, you end up on the phone to Best Buy listening to an explanation of how the extended warranty doesn't cover stupidity-aggravated grand larceny.

We wonder, though, if anyone has investigated the executives at Starbucks. They were suspiciously reluctant to go on the record about the rash of thefts. We've heard the company's been having some financial difficulties. Seems an expansion into the slightly-used, no-questions-asked merchandise business would be just the thing to amp up revenue.

Solipsistography
"As the Careless Order a Latte, Thieves Grab Something to Go"
Image from portfolio.com

This Magic Moment

We realize that all our followers are eagerly waiting for us to say something about the royal wedding. We hereby have said something about the royal wedding.

Solipsistography

TheStar.com

Death 'Dillas

As if we didn't have enough to worry about, this just in from the World of Science: Armadillos can give you leprosy.

Federal researchers (your tax dollars at work) have established that one of the major causes of leprosy is contact with armadillos.

OK, admit it: You've always kind of suspected as much.

Seriously, though, this research does raise some serious questions, not the least of which is, "Why?" Did a bunch of bored scientists just decide one day to test the hypothesis? Or is this just one study of many exploring the prevalence of zoonotic diseases? We worry that, somewhere, a medical researcher is rubbing turkeys on people to see if they--the people, not the turkeys--will contract gout.

The second and far more disturbing question is, What are these people doing with the armadillos to contract leprosy from them in the first place? Despite its biblical reputation, leprosy is actually rather difficult to catch. If you're in the same room with a leper, even if you shake his hand (or what's left of it--sorry), you are highly unlikely to contract the disease. Casual contact will not lead to infection. Which suggests that people are engaging in, um, more-than-casual contact with armadillos.

Hey, draw your own conclusions.

The good news for people is that leprosy is quite curable, as long as its caught in its early stages (once you've lost more than 20% of your extremities, it may be too late). Should you find yourself, then, breaking out in unusual lesions after a fun wrestling match with your armor-plated friend, just do the walk of shame over to the emergency room as soon as possible.

The good news for armadillos is that today's report sends them soaring up the list of adorable-things-that-could-potentially-kill-you, right past machete-wielding Japanese babies. They do, however, still trail suicide kittens.

And no, WOS, you can't have one!

Solipsistography

"Armadillos Can Transmit Leprosy to Humans, Federal Researchers Confirm"

Pay No Attention to That Elephant

This week, the Times has been running front-page articles about leaked documents from Guantanamo Bay. The stories have detailed various aspects of the ongoing confinement of those swept up in the American "war on terror."

As is known by anyone paying any attention to news since the September 11 attacks, the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay has become something of an albatross for American policy makers. Many of those housed there seem to have little (if any) connection to Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups. Others may or may not have links to terrorists. So little is known for sure, though, that officials in both the Bush and Obama administrations have decided that, while there is not evidence to prosecute them, these detainees are too dangerous to release--or even to transfer to jails on the US mainland.

Lawyers for the detainees have struggled, often in vain, to present evidence on their clients' behalf. Because of national security concerns, much evidence has remained off limits. One would think, then, that the lawyers would be thrilled to comb through this treasure-trove of newly available information. Presumably, they are. The trouble is, they can't use it.

In the latest example of governmental logic at its best, the Justice Department has declared that the Guantanamo documents, although available to anyone with an internet connection or a dollar for the paper, technically remain classified and thus cannot be used by defense attorneys. National security, you know. Which would presumably be more endangered by trained lawyers applying their skills to analyzing these documents than it is by, y'know, just the general public looking at the documents and shaking their heads over the corruption of American ideals they represent.

Your tax dollars at work, folks! Or, in the case of the detainees' lawyers, not at work. All in the name of security.

Solipsistography
"Detainees' Lawyers Can't Click on Leaked Documents"

Tweaking Title IX

Title IX is a piece of federal legislation designed to promote gender equality in education. Since its passage in 1972, the law has had a major impact on women in higher education; indeed, the fact that female students comprise a majority of the undergraduate population of American colleges and universities suggests that Title IX has been a success. Few people today complain about the law's intentions or its effects. One area where there have been some complaints, though, is in the area of college athletics.

Since Title IX bans gender discrimination in any educational institution that receives federal funding (which is pretty much all of them), colleges must ensure that women are proportionally represented in all aspects of campus life. What this means in practice for college athletics is that, if the student body is, say, 50% female, then females should make up about 50% of the participants in athletic programs. Many colleges, though, have difficulty reaching this level.

In the past, colleges have often eliminated smaller men's athletic programs in order to get closer to the Title IX ideal, eliminating programs being considerably cheaper than increasing the number of women's sports. Lately, though, some colleges have gotten creative. Some "double count" atheletes; for example, a cross-country runner ma7y be listed as a member of both the track and field and cross-country teams, thus earning the college double credit for one athlete. Some offer roster spots to underqualified athletes, who may never actually appear in competitions. And at Cornell, they count members of the women's fencing team's practice squad--which doesn't sound all that egregious until you find out that some of these practice-squad members are, um, men.

We suppose that's one way to meet women.

Now, seriously, we have absolutely no problem with the idea of gender equity in higher education in general or in college athletics in particular. If women want to participate in sports, more power to 'em. But if, in order to comply with federal regulations, Cornell and other colleges have to offer spots on the practice squads of women's teams to men, doesn't this suggest that there are just not that many women interested in that particular sport at that particular college?
Does it make sense essentially to force a school to undertake statistical tomfoolery simply to comply with a federal mandate that, in this case at least, is only being "violated" due to lack of interest among the people the law is intended to protect?

Solipsistography
"College Teams, Relying on Deception, Undermine Gender Equity" . . . Hmmm, that's a rather loaded headline, no?

Peak Blood

Scientists debate when the world will pass the point of "peak oil"--if that has not already occurred. Peak oil refers to the point at which the majority of the world's oil has been discovered, after which we begin the slow (or not so slow) process that will end with the earth running out of oil completely.

Whether or not peak oil has been reached, most everyone agrees that most of the world's easily accessible oil has already been found. From this point on, oil companies will have to look harder, dig deeper, and squeeze rocks harder to find the fuel to power the world economy. The problem has been exacerbated by the steady rise of countries like India and China: As previously "backward" countries join the 21st-century economy, their need for steady energy supplies increases and their need for oil grows, as well. Ultimately, the supply of oil is finite, and as more and more people thirst for it, the supply will necessarily dwindle.

We watched a fascinating movie about peak oil last night. Instead of "oil," though, think "blood." And instead of oil-hungry nations, think "vampires."

The concept of "Daybreakers" is that a plague of vampirism has infected the vast majority of the world's population. As more and more people become vampires, though, the food supply--humans--decreases. What is to be done? Synthetic blood is one possibility (ethanol, anyone?), but development is tricky. What about animal blood? No good. If modern vampire doesn't get his fix of human hemoglobin, he quickly deteriorates to a savage state. Turns out, in fact, that (SPOILER ALERT) the one thing that can cure the vampires' oil--uh, blood--addiction is a healthy dose of sunlight (followed immediately by intense fire-extinguishing). Solar energy! Renewables!

We hear that Al Gore is working on a "re-visioning" of "An Inconvenient Truth." With zombies.

Happy (Re)Birthday Jesus

Easter confuses us. Of course, our knowledge of Christianity comes primarily from Andrew Lloyd Weber musicals. We've never understood why Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount from the balcony of the Argentine presidential palace. Or why he was wearing a cat costume.

Anyway.

As for Easter, we don't understand why it always comes on a different date. Everybody knows that Jesus was born on December 25. . . 0? Or would it be 12/25/01? And what do you suppose people thought when they all of a sudden had to start giving the years a number? "Hey, why is it the year '10, anyway?"

"Oh, you know, when Mr. and Mrs. Christ's baby was born, they declared it the year one."

"And, why did we all go along with that?"

"Uhh. . . ."

Anyway, shouldn't Easter happen on the same date every year, like all the other major holidays: July 4th, Halloween, Thanksgiving?

We're just saying.