Lowering the Bar

New York to Ban Tiger Selfies

My first thought was, "wow, the human race really is not evolving at all," and then I thought, "you know, it's laws like these that are partly to blame for that."

Back in the day, of course, human beings who thought it would be neat to hug or pet or maybe try to ride on a tiger, or any enormous carnivore, really, were swiftly removed from the gene pool, most likely well before they had a chance to breed more humans of that ilk. I assume, in fact, that scientists have proven that this exact scenario, repeated many thousands of times, is how we got to where we are today in the first place. After a while we sent the remaining dumbasses off to bunk with the Neanderthals, and away we went.

But today, these encounters mostly take place at circuses, county fairs, petting zoos, or as part of some other sort of exhibition in which the animal is somehow restrained or tranquilized in order to make it less likely to, let's say, devour someone who comes near it. These unfortunate restrictions on the animal have encouraged a trend that I have just now learned about (thanks to Tom and to the New York Post), one in which men have pictures taken of themselves snuggling with a tiger so that they can use said pictures in their dating profiles:

Yeah, come give "Kitty" a kiss for the next
picture, dork. I promise you that one'll go viral.

This has become sufficiently common that there's an entire blog (or tumblr, anyway) devoted to it.

Any New York gentlemen wanting to get in on this should do so while they still can, because the legislature is on the verge of passing a bill that would make the practice of tiger selfies illegal. It does not use that term, nor is it limited to tigers, but that's the gist of it: The law would make it illegal for any person required to have a license under the federal Animal Welfare Act "to knowingly allow the public to have direct contact with a big cat."

"Big cat" is defined to mean any species of lion, tiger, leopard (except for clouded leopards), jaguar, mountain lion, or any hybrid of these; "direct contact" means "physical contact or proximity where physical contact is possible, including, but not limited to, allowing a photograph to be taken without a permanent physical barrier" between human and animal. Violating the law would result in a fine of $500 for a first offense or $1000 after that.

This is entirely the wrong approach.

I think we need to do one of two things: (1) make it illegal to cart these mostly rare and once dignified animals around at all; or (2) continue to allow it but only as long as the animals are kept alert, well armed, and slightly underfed.

Think about it. These people are using the pictures in dating profiles. This is exactly the situation in which the individual should either be proven fit by having successfully taken a selfie with a fully alert deadly predator through great strength, speed, and/or cunning; or else prevented from mating entirely by being eaten first. The race can start its slow upward trek again, animals get some of their dignity back, and we'll save tons of money on tiger feed. Also, think of the ratings.

Yes, I suppose women could achieve the same result by simply not mating with anyone who has a tiger selfie for his profile. They could. But I still think legislation is a good idea.

---

Update: as reader Justin points out, these are not technically "selfies"—or at least the one above is not, as a "selfie" is by definition a picture taken of oneself. I should not have aped the NY Post in using that term, especially since, now that I think about it, "New York to Ban Tiger Snuggling" (or "Tiger-Snuggling Portraits") seems better anyway. I'm going to leave it, though, because in fact the law does ban tiger selfies, it just goes beyond that to reach other kinds of man-tiger portrait interactions as well. I just wanted to clarify that detail.

"Doctor."

Posted by Kathleen's son, Conor, along with a touching post about his mom.

UPDATE: "Balloon Boy" Saga Is Now a Musical

You may recall the 2009 non-ordeal of Falcon Heene, the boy whose parents publicly, tearfully, and falsely claimed he was aboard a runaway weather balloon because they hoped to get a reality TV show out of it. See, e.g., "FAA Investigating Balloon Boy Case; Balloon Dad Prepares for Apocalypse," Lowering the Bar (Oct. 21, 2009); "Balloon Boy's Parents Finally Reunited With Balloon," Lowering the Bar (June 3, 2010). If not, BOOM! I just refreshed your recollections. Yep, that just happened.

Falcon, then six years old, was actually safe at home the whole time, although his father later insisted that wasn't true and that he and his wife only pleaded guilty because otherwise the government might have deported her. (Here's a press release from the Heenes' lawyers, making the deportation claim but notably not saying a word about the alleged balloon ride itself.) The fact that Falcon was not actually aboard the balloon when it landed would seem to prove the incident was a hoax, but I guess we can't rule out the possibility of a dramatic in-flight rescue by a superhero who has preferred to remain anonymous.

Also, Falcon spilled the beans while CNN was interviewing the family, but maybe that was part of the hero's cover story.

Anyway, the Denver Post reports (thanks, @davidfeeder) that at long last, that stupid, stupid saga has become a musical.

"It started as very brutal, biting satire with a seventh-grade mentality," said the musical's creator, 16-year-old Billy Reece, "but as it's progressed I've tried to make the characters more human." (Billy, you had me at "seventh-grade mentality.") The show's opener, "Follow Your Dream," recently won a prize for best student-created opening number, giving him the right to participate in a workshop to develop the musical further.

The Heenes followed their dream to Florida, once the couple served their brief jail sentences in Colorado, that is. Actually, I guess this was a different dream, judging from the fact that they have since been marketing the "Bear Scratch," a piece of wood that mounts on a wall so you can scratch your back on it ($19.99 or two pieces of wood for $29.99), and certain other inventions that at least cannot be less dumb than the balloon hoax was.

Also seeking fame: Falcon himself, apparently now a member of "Heene Boyz," which bills itself as "The World's Youngest Metal Band." Based on the music video for the band's song, "American Chili," they might want to give the balloon plan another try.

Tagger Arrested for Tagging Courtroom While Awaiting Prosecution for Tagging

Is it worth doing jail time to become a legendary tagger at the ripe old age of 18? Francisco Canseco is probably about to find out.

"Tagging" is sometimes used to mean "graffiti" in general, but more specifically refers to a form of graffiti in which the person identifies himself or herself by writing a personal "tag." While a tagger doesn't use a real name, obviously the tag is associated with an individual and so once the association becomes known to authorities, continued use of the tag may be risky.

I suppose if you tag the inside of a courtroom while waiting for a hearing on 31 counts of vandalism based on your prior use of that same tag, you probably don't care much about that risk.

According to the San Diego Union-Tribune, Canseco was at a downtown courthouse on April 24 awaiting just such a hearing when he used a paint pen to tag benches in the hallway and on the backs of chairs in the courtroom itself. A detective was quoted as saying that Canseco "wrote it while he was waiting," and if true then he somehow got through the hearing itself without anyone noticing, or at least without anyone recognizing the tag. The report says that the "fresh graffiti" was only noticed the next day.

Turns out there is a web service called Graffiti Tracker that, according to its website, "provides clients with GPS-enabled digital cameras to use to photograph incidents of graffiti," which are then uploaded and reviewed by "trained analysts." Presumably court records are used to associate tags with particular taggers or groups, though it's not clear from the website. The service says it's primarily used by law enforcement and public-works agencies, and claims to have analyzed over 4 million photos, helped in the arrest of 3,733 people, and helped collect over $8.2 million in restitution (about $2215 per arrestee).

Well, not if it's just a name tag
(Picture by ChAbO93)

I suppose Graffiti Tracker evidence would be admissible, depending on the reliability of the process and assuming there were valid expert testimony supporting that. It was apparently considered good enough to provide probable cause for a warrant to search Canseco's home, where deputies allegedly found Canseco's tag tagged all over the place. They also found "graffiti paraphernalia," though the report wasn't specific. Seems like anything you can write with might qualify as "graffiti paraphernalia."

And, in fact, it is illegal in California just to possess a felt-tip marker "or any other marking substance" (among other things) "with the intent to commit vandalism or graffiti." While the breadth of that might be troubling in other circumstances, here the suspect's tag appeared inside a courtroom in which the tagging suspect is known to have been awaiting a hearing on tagging charges (a hearing to which he brought a paint pen), and said courtroom is almost certainly subject to video surveillance that actually shows the suspect doing the tagging. So this one does not especially trouble me.

While the previous 31 counts were misdemeanors, the five new ones are said to be felonies on the grounds that the damage cost more than $400 to repair. Probably the charging decision was influenced by the fact that he tagged a courtroom, but I'm just guessing.

Canseco pleaded not guilty to the new charges on Monday. Apparently he didn't tag anything else while he was there.

Jargon Users Need to Circle Back and Get All Their Ducks in a Row

Boing Boing linked the other day to use sparingly, a tumblr that is sort of like a "Devil's Dictionary" of modern business jargon. For example:

There's also mockery of terms like "pain points," "mindshare," "ecosystem" (when not used to mean a real ecosystem), "brand agnostic," and "move the needle," among others.

I can vouch for the fact that some of this business-speak is infiltrating the legal world, unfortunately. "Circle back," apparently meaning "to meet/communicate again later," is definitely in use. And what's the difference, if any, between "circle back" and "touch base" (also on the list)? "Circle back" sounds a little like I'm supposed to try to make sure I'm not followed. "Out of pocket," "drill down," "circle the wagons," and "get our ducks in a row" are also creeping in. Maybe most horrible of all is the term "deliverable," which apparently means "what the client will get after we finish the project." Well, hopefully you know when you're doing the project what the end result is supposed to be. Is it a problem to use the actual word for it?

Also, I don't think clients want projects to end with something that's "deliverable." I think they want you to actually deliver it.

Not to suggest the jargon only flows one way. For example, "utilize" is on the list (correctly defined as "a three-syllable version of 'use'"), and I'd call that classic legalese. My sense, though, is that it's probably easier for business-speak to get into the law than for legalese to go the other way. Legal language tends to be more archaic, probably because lawyers think in terms of precedent so they tend to preserve old Latin terms and outdated forms like "hereinafter." Business-speak, on the other hand, can be more forward-looking, which is why you get terms like "mindshare." Lawyers also have an interest in giving the impression they have come up with something new and super-great, so we might pick up stuff like that. But legalese wouldn't seem to help businesspeople much.

Don't get me wrong, one is not better than the other. That'd be like arguing about which invasive species is worse, kudzu or the sea lamprey. Both are disgusting, they just thrive in different environments.

Okay, this sort of language is irritating, but does it really matter? Hell yes it matters. It matters because for the most part it doesn't mean anything, and so it doesn't communicate anything. Worse, it often prevents communication.

Not necessarily endorsing the conclusion of the report itself (which I haven't read yet), but news reports about the General Motors ignition-switch investigation, like this one in the Washington Post, have said that "corporate speak" may have played a role:

[A]s the Valukas report shows, these idioms and corporate cliches are more than just buzzwords that threaten our linguistic sanity. At GM they stood to mask real meaning, obscured leaders' responsibilities, and created labels that hindered the critical thinking needed to keep real problems from getting worse. 

Instead of putting someone "in charge" of finding the "cause" of the problem, apparently, they asked the executive to "champion" the investigation into the "non-deployment." Turns out the "champion" didn't actually understand what "champion" meant, or what the person who asked him—a lawyer, by the way—meant by it. So he claimed, at least, that he would have acted differently if he understood the urgency of the issue and that his team was expected to find the actual cause.

I don't, by the way, agree with the reports (like this one) that blame PowerPoint for communication problems like this. Slides don't make themselves. If you put jargon on one, or cram it full of text (which is not what it's for), that's your fault, in my view.

The foregoing conclusions were not influenced by the fact that my firm doesn't represent GM but does represent Microsoft. I'm brand agnostic on this. If that's what that means.

Federal Court Limits Defendants' Access to the Internet

The clerk for the District of South Carolina has reportedly issued the following message:

In the interest of safety and security in the federal courthouses throughout the District of South Carolina, the United States Marshal requests that attorneys and/or their staffs not allow prisoners, defendants, and/or their families to have unmonitored access to laptop computers, iPads, or similar devices. These items may be used as weapons against those present in court. Additionally, allowing unmonitored use of these devices provides in-custody prisoners unsupervised access to the internet and an opportunity to plan escapes and assaults.

This seems a little questionable to me.

This guy here

First, it would of course be entirely possible for a prisoner or defendant (or even a family member) to whack someone with an iPad. I don't think the edges are sharp enough to do any real damage, but I wouldn't want some Oddjob emulator to sail one across the room at me, either. The problem, though, is that there are all kinds of other things in a courtroom that you could also use to whack somebody. Chairs, for example. Or heavy law books, or microphones, or a lawyer's briefcase, or (depending on the circumstances) a lawyer. But none of those things are banned.

For that matter, it is entirely possible for a defendant to assault someone with a writing implement. Or multiple someones. See, e.g., "Man Who Stabbed His First Two Lawyers With a Pencil Stabs Another Lawyer With a Pencil," Lowering the Bar (Nov. 2, 2011). But nobody proposes banning those. So I'm not really sure the security rationale works here.

The second rationale is that if allowed unmonitored use of the internet, a prisoner might be able to plan an escape. (Or an "assault," but see above.) Really? I can't say I've done exhaustive research on this, but I haven't found any examples of an escape or attempted escape from a courthouse or prison that was planned with the help of the internet. If they mean email, I guess that could make communication easier. And it's not like the government can read their email! Ha ha! No. But would restricting access to the internet for prisoners, or defendants, "and/or their families" (!) actually make a difference in terms of planning an escape?

I don't know. I took a quick shot at it, using this diagram of a typical courtroom. See what you think. I did find the diagram using the internet, but I'm not sure how much additional help this would provide to someone who's planning to flee a courtroom. (Nor did this guy, for example, need any technology more advanced than a suit to do that.) And if they're worried about prison escapes, I'm thinking the thing to do is fix the prison, not worry about internet access.

This is not to make light of courtroom security concerns overall—those are very real and very justified—but I'm just not sure that restricting internet access or devices is really going to address those concerns.

I would support banning bowler hats, or hats of any kind, really, but for entirely different reasons.

The Emergency Sasquatch Talk

The Kansas City Public Library has posted a few photos from my book talk/signing event there on May 6th. This one shows me talking about the Delaware law banning "punt guns."

Photo: Steve Wieberg, KCPL

I didn't crop out the audience heads at the bottom so you could tell there actually was an audience. If you are upset about the back of your head being shown without permission, all I can say is you didn't read the fine print on the back of those cocktail napkins.

Good Reason to Kill # 49: Second Incorrect Burger

I wanted to put the word "second" right in the headline so I wouldn't give the impression that this woman just flew off the handle and opened fire because McDonald's got her first burger order wrong. That would have been misleading.

The first bad burger did result in a complaint to the proprietor of the relevant McDonald's in Grand Rapids, Michigan (this happened in February—thanks, Elizabeth, for the reminder), but that dispute was resolved peacefully after the woman and her companion were told that they would receive a free meal at the time of their next visit.

That next visit, perhaps unwisely, took place at 3 a.m. the following morning after a night at the clubs. The same two women returned to the same restaurant, ordered the same burger from the drive-through window, and received the very same erroneous result as before. (The nature of this defect was not reported, but I assume it was something more serious than unwanted pickles, which you always seem to get but can just take off the burger, for Christ's sake). [Update: it was missing bacon, which, to be honest, does seem a lot worse.]

Never forget the victims of bacon-related violence

The woman in the passenger seat leaned over and delivered into the drive-through window first a verbal reprimand, and then one (1) 9mm bullet. The bullet traveled through the window, across the restaurant and out through the opposite wall, but luckily did not pass through any people on the way. The two women then fled.

But the shooter's previous demand for a free meal was her undoing. Turns out she had given her name and cell phone number to the restaurant the day before, apparently to verify her identity for free-meal purposes. Presumably she had forgotten about that at the time she opened fire.

So while the second bad burger triggered the violence, the first one ended up solving the crime.

The shooter was charged with three felonies and faced up to seven years in prison. The driver was not charged; police said they believed she had no idea her friend would try to shoot the drive-through worker, which seems like a reasonable assumption. And that was indeed the driver's story, as another report confirmed: "The driver of the car told 24 Hour News 8 Monday that she had no idea [her friend] had a gun. She also said she was having a difficult time hearing because her ears were ringing." 

See also GRTK #23 (Canceled Taco Order) and #31 (Refused Second Pretzel Dip); also see also, e.g., "Man Demands Hot Sauce at Gunpoint" (Sept. 22, 2011), "'Burrito-Triggered Spree' Ends Peacefully After Three-Hour Standoff" (Mar. 24, 2011), and "Miami Shooting Reopens Debate Over Condiment Control" (May 29, 2007).

Assorted Stupidity #63

• Mindy Kaling gave the commencement speech at Harvard Law. It's really good.

• The BBC says three men convicted of stealing some bread trays from a bakery will serve at least three years each for the crime. That probably seems like a heavy sentence, so I should clarify that the baker is Warburtons, the largest in Britain, and "some bread trays" means at least 90,000 bread trays weighing well over 200 tons in total and valued at over £500,000. The men diverted 60-70 truckloads of trays for "recycling" over a six-month period. Maybe they thought Warburtons was too big to notice a mere 90,000 missing bread trays. Turns out it's not.

• Speaking of things that are missing, if you lost a fingertip at the fair last week you might try the lost-and-found department of the Wellington, Ontario, police department. Police there said they had no reason to suspect foul play at the moment, but haven't ruled it out. "The priority" right now, said a sergeant, "is to identify who lost a fingertip and who it belongs to." My guess is they will answer both those questions at the same time, if they get any answers at all.

• Hm. Car sitting there with its engine running, but I don't see anybody inside. The windows are tinted, though. Hard to tell. Could be a free car, or some good stuff inside for the taking. I'll just try the door and take a quick look.... Or there could be an undercover police officer inside who now has a gun pointed at me, and some difficult questions for which, frankly, I had not prepared. Wow, I certainly did not see that coming, although with hindsight, perhaps I should have. Well, lesson learned.

• Also stupid: the Northeast Independent School District in San Antonio, which has reportedly banned students from bringing sunscreen to school without a doctor's note. The district claims sunscreen is a "medication," which it isn't, and also that it is "typically a toxic substance," which it also isn't and which contradicts the first stupid argument. The district said that if parents are concerned that their children may be outdoors, "they should come to school fully covered in sunscreen," but they can't bring their own.
  

The Emergency Sasquatch Ordinance Is Now E-Available

At long last, you can now download The Emergency Sasquatch Ordinance—here's the link to the Amazon page. They claim you can have it on your device in less than a minute, so good news if you just sat down on the toilet with your iPad and realize you don't have anything new to read.

As far as I can tell, it's only available for Kindle at the moment. I was told there will be a version available for other e-readers, and hopefully that'll be out soon, but your guess is as good as mine. And how should I know? I just wrote the goddamn thing.

Thanks again!

Update: it's also available via iBooks, although for some reason it's slightly more expensive there. But if it's worth $2 to you to not buy from Amazon, you do have that alternative.