Supreme Court Ruling on School Strip Searches – And What It Means

Proposition 8: How Wording Made All the Difference

In an upsetting – but expected ruling – the CA Supreme Court voted to uphold Proposition 8, which reads:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

52% of voters voted for Proposition 8; by NOM’s own admission, only 42% would have voted for it had it been clearly written.  It should have been a resounding failure, not a narrow success.

Plan B for 17 year olds: Risky?

Mike Galanos wrote an opinion piece for the CNN asserting that Plan B is risky for 17 year olds. His argument, however, doesn’t hold water. Let’s take a look at it, bit by bit:

Think of a 17-year-old girl. Most of the time she’s a high school senior, still living at home with Mom and Dad.

Ok, thinking, thinking… got it: A 17 year old girl, terrified to admit to her parents that she not only has sex (gasp!), but had unprotected sex. Will she take the chance at pregnancy to avoid telling her parents? Yeah, probably.

She still needs her parents in the tough times. But they will be cut out of a traumatic situation.

Wait, what’s traumatic here? The sex? That’s not traumatic. Unprotected sex? Not traumatic, as long as it doesn’t result in pregnancy. So, actually, we’re preventing a traumatic situation.

Now keep in mind birth control pills require a doctor’s prescription, but a drug that is more powerful doesn’t?

Ok – so maybe we should make birth control pills over the counter too? And, also, while Plan B is more powerful per pill, but birth control is a much more serious health concern because you’re on it for weeks, months, years. The depression and other things that can result from birth control isn’t really a risk with Plan B.

Some argue that a girl can get an abortion without parental notification in some states, so why not Plan B? But just because those states got it wrong by leaving parents out of the loop doesn’t mean others should follow suit.

Let’s make sure we can follow his argument here (where the “>” means “more serious than”): Abortion > Plan B > Birth control pills. States allow abortion without parental consent, but that doesn’t imply allowing Plan B. But, earlier, he basically used the opposite logic: if states don’t allow birth control, why would they allow a more serious drug? Inconsistent logic.

In most states, minors can’t get a tattoo, body piercings or go to a tanning salon without a parent’s permission, but we are going to leave them alone to take Plan B.

Well, yes, this makes sense because of the consequences of not providing access to Plan B: pregnancy. What’s the consequence of not providing access to tattoos?

Timing is essential to the drug’s effectiveness, Plan B supporters say, so getting parents and doctors involved would unnecessarily delay the teen’s ability to pop the pill the “morning after.” Does it really take that long to get a prescription?

First, it can take a while if it’s on a weekend (and teens do have this tendency to have sex on weekends). Second, it would unnecessarily prevent the teen from telling her parents. Do you not know teenage girls? They don’t really like getting grounded or barred from seeing their boyfriends.

The New York Times reports that since 18-year-olds were allowed to get Plan B without a prescription in 2006, there has been no evidence of it having an effect on the country’s teen pregnancy or abortion rates.

True, but they also showed no increase in risky behaviors. So, 1 point for each side here.

We’re enabling teenagers to act carelessly with an easy way out.

Yeah! Let’s punish them with unplanned pregnancy! Brilliant!

“Teenagers are known for thinking they’re untouchable and here we are saying that they can continue to do that and that there aren’t any consequences.”

Ah, so you admit that teens tend to think that nothing bad could happen to them? So, given that attitude, if they have unprotected sex, will they tell their parents so that they can get Plan B? I didn’t think so.

The boyfriend will talk his girlfriend into unprotected sex with the promise of buying the “morning after pill” the next day.

Please, show me some data stating that this is a concern. Last I checked, boys were also scared of pregnancy – especially since, as you stated, Plan B is only 89% effective. (In fact, boys might be more scared of pregnancy, since they don’t get any say in abortion.)

Yes, this could encourage unprotected sex and that means a greater risk for sexually transmitted diseases.

(A) Studies have shown that it doesn’t increase promiscuity. (B) Isn’t Plan B like $40 a pop? I don’t think people are going to really rely on this as their sole method of birth control.

What about the 17-year-old girl who may get Plan B for her 15-year-old sophomore friend?

What about it? I’m ok with that, since it’s certainly better than the 15 year old not taking it at all.

Yes, teens have sex and difficult situations will arise, but should we open the door for our girls to go through this alone? That is not what is best for our daughters.

See, here’s the thing: Plan B supporters are trying to make sure your daughters don’t have to go through “this” at all (where “this” is an unplanned pregnancy).

And, allow me to make a few additional points:

1. The average age in the US for people to lose their virginity is about 17. So to say that parents need to be informed that their 17 year old is having sex is a little extreme. If you have a 17 year old, they’re probably having sex. This is not a crisis that needs to be averted. It’s normal.
2. When a 17 year old girl has to chose between taking Plan B and informing her parents, and not taking it at all, she just wouldn’t take Plan B. So, the parents won’t be informed that their teen is having sex anyway.
3. It’s not that I want parents to be uninformed. It’s that I don’t want unplanned pregnancies. Given that, I’ll take uninformed parents and fewer unplanned pregnancies.
4. In an entire article about why 17 year olds should need a prescription to get Plan B, Galanos never even responds to the core reason why many people disagree. That’s a rather glaring omission.

In Defense of Outsourcing

As I’ve mentioned before, I’ve started outsourcing. A lot. Most of the outsourcing goes to an (awesome) assistant in the Philippines, who does everything from online research to document editing. She’s great, and she’s quite literally changed my approach to working.

Although most people are merely intrigued by my hiring a remote assistant, a surprising number tell me that it’s unethical, supplying one of these reasons:

Exploitation: “You’re only hiring someone from because they’re cheap. You’re not even paying them minimum wage!”

While it’s true that some people I hire are paid well below US minimum wage (you can find assistants for as little as $1.50 per hour, though mine are paid considerably more), it’s hardly exploiting them. I do believe that employees should be paid a livable wage, but that means a livable wage for their country, not for the US.

It’s surprising to me that so many people would complain about this, when we’re all perfectly accustomed to salary adjustments based on cost of living. For example, Microsoft pays California employees 15% more for the same work than they do the Seattle employees. Likewise, they no doubt pay their India employees considerably less. Exploitative? Of course not.

Now, I’m not an expert in economics, but I would guess that, far from being exploitative, outsourcing is quite good for the target areas. You’re providing the people with work. Doesn’t that boost their economy? Isn’t that good?

Protectionism: “What about the US? You should be hiring US workers!”

Most outsourcing-supporting respond with the following:
1) “By outsourcing to India / Philippines / another country, we can expand our company and eventually hire more Americans.” I don’t know in which cases this argument is true, but I can certainly say that it’s been true in my case. The outsourced workers I’ve hired have been the reason that I’ve been able to generate revenue for CareerCup. It simply would not have been possible without them. This revenue, in turn, enables me to hire Americans for things that do need to be done in the US.
2) “Welcome to a global world. If you don’t operate efficiently, your competitors – who may not be American – will simply out perform you.” This is possibly the most compelling argument. A business has an obligation to its shareholders to operate efficiently. If it doesn’t operate efficiently, another company will. And then, if that happens, how have we helped the US?

In addition to those two points, however, I’d like to make a third:
3) Why are Americans so important? Why is hiring an American inherently “better” (ethically speaking) than a hiring someone from India? Are we not all people? In fact, I could very well argue the opposite: supporting a person in a poorer country, whose children may struggle to eat or to get an education, is more ethical than hiring a comparatively wealthy American. (I’m not saying that that’s true; I’m merely arguing that the reverse isn’t necessarily true either.)

Suffice to say… I feel perfectly at easy with my decision to outsource. I’ve employed some extraordinarily talented people and rewarded them well for their work. I understand that there’s an awful lot I don’t understand about globalization, so perhaps someone will open my eyes to some horrible truths. Until that day, though, I will continue to use outsourced workers to build and expand new projects.

Strip Search at School: Was it assault?

I often debate as to whether this blog should be strictly tech-based, but then I read these articles that, well, get to me. To change the statistic that 25% of women are sexually assaulted, people need to start talking about it.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard argument on a case where a 13 year old girl – an honor student who had never been in trouble – was strip searched at school because she was suspected of having ibuprofen. Now, if that doesn’t infuriate you already, listen to the facts of the case:

Redding says she was then asked to strip down to her underwear and stood there while the nurse and secretary inspected her clothes and shoes.

“Then, you know, I thought they were going to let me put my clothes back on, but instead they asked me to pull out my bra and shake it, and the crotch on my underwear, too,” Redding says.

Redding says her whole body was visible to the school administrators. She kept her head down so the nurse and the secretary couldn’t see her fighting back tears.

And all this for what is basically Advil. Ugh.

This was more than a strip search. This was assault:

1. A young girl was forced to show her private parts.
2. The school did not search the girl’s locker or desk, but they did search the girl’s crotch.
3. The harm in traumatizing a girl far outweighs the harm of a couple of students from taking ibuprofen.

When you look at these facts, you see that the school’s search was not conducted in a way to find the ibuprofen (since they didn’t search the girl’s locker or desk), nor did they balance the harm of an invasive search against the risks of mild pain killers. Thus, it seems that the administrators were on a powertrip that ended in assaulting a girl.

I hope that the Supreme Court makes the right decision. While there is a time and place to do strip searches (eg, in jail), school officials are not trained to do so. If you think a student poses that much of a danger that an invasive search is required, then call the cops. Strip searches should never be conducted by school officials.

"Gayle" is Not Hate Speech

I’m banned for hate speech on WyldRyde. Yup. My name, you see, has the word “gay” in it, and thus “gayle” is hate speech.

This happens fairly often as it turns out. I’ve hit this issue on AOL, Microsoft’s theSpoke.com, planes with games on their lcd screens, etc.

I have to wonder though. Suppose my last name were “Straighth”, would I be banned as often? Why is “gay” considered hate speech?

(PS: I would check if WyldRyde banned “Straighth”, but it’s banned my computer completely. Anyone want to check any find out?)

A Googly Peek into Racism

Racism is rampant. Maybe this election has made people less racist, maybe it hasn’t. At the very least, I hope that it has made people realize that, yes, racism is still very much alive. As a quick illustration, check out the top 10 Google search suggestions for Obama: 30% are race-related issues: “birth certificate”, “muslim” and “antichrist”.

The most frustrating part is that people don’t even see the racism and sexism. A Google coworker who had a “Hillary Nutcracker” displayed in his office window – he probably didn’t think about how that’s dripping with sexism. Nor did the Republican friend who asked online for one good thing that “Barack HUSSEIN Obama” has ever done. Nor does the other friend who asserts that Colin Powell only endorsed Barack Obama because he’s black.

We don’t see these things because we see them all too often. We’ve become immune to it. It’s time that we wake up and call these things out for the racist, sexist acts that they are.

Drink for the Cure / Bid for the Cure – Charity Auction

I usually don’t cross-post Seattle Anti-Freeze events, but this one’s for a good cause…

Drink for the Cure / Bid for the Cure – Charity Auction
Oct 1, 2008 at 8pm (Location TBD – Belltown / Downtown)

Every three minutes, a woman in the United States is diagnosed with breast cancer. One out of every eight American women will be diagnosed with breast cancer at some point in their lives. Seattle Anti-Freeze invites you to make a difference.

On Oct 1st, please join Seattle Anti-Freeze members for a silent auction to benefit Susan G. Komen foundation. Mix & mingle – drink & bid.

There is no cost for this event, but donations at the event for the Susan G. Komen foundation are, of course, appreciated.

DONATING ITEMS
Got something cool, funky, unique or useful that you’d be willing to part with? It doesn’t have to be anything fancy – all donations are appreciated! In return, you receive good karma, and two free tickets to a Seattle Anti-Freeze event of your choosing.

If you have something you could donate, I’d really appreciate it . Click here (or just shoot me an email).

Want to come? Join the Seattle Anti-Freeze list.

Skip School – Get an Ankle Bracelet

Creepy. From the New York Times:

The authorities will be able to track San Antonio students with a history of skipping school using ankle bracelets with Global Positioning System monitoring. Linda Penn, a justice of the peace, said she expected that some 50 students would wear the devices in a six-month pilot program. The American Civil Liberties Union criticized the plan, but Ms. Penn linked truancy with later criminal activity. “We can teach them now or run the risk of possible incarceration later on life,” she said. “I don’t want to see the latter.”

You’re going to give kids ankle bracelets? To do what, exactly? It’s not like you don’t know if they skip school – the morning roll call already does that. It will, however, ensure that they’re treated like criminals.

Time Calls Rape Case "Sexy and Surreal"

McKinney, charged with kidnapping and rape over thirty years ago, has recently emerged. Time Magazine tells us that in the winter of 1977, McKinney and a friend kidnapped a Mormon missionary by the name of Anderson, whom McKinney had been stalking since their relationship ended in 1975. Anderson was chained to a bed for three days and raped repeatedly by McKinney.

In an odd – if not shocking – choice of words, Time Magazine describes the details as “sexy and surreal”. Instead of calling it rape, Time calls it “forcibly having sex.” It’s also called a “sex scandal.”

So how could Time possibly describe an abduction and rape this way? The rapist was a woman and the victim was a man.

Rape is not sex and it is never, ever, sexy.