It’s been a while…

…relatively speaking, that is. I mean, in Internet Years, I haven’t posted in centuries.

But I promise I have a good reason for not posting, which is that life got in the way. I had a presentation for my International Intellectual Property class last week that I worked on for the previous weekend and then I had Thanksgiving break at the end of last week.

And exams start this week. As in Thursday. I’m in mini-panic mode. Thankfully I don’t have class tomorrow or Wednesday, so I at least have two class-free days to study before exams start.

I know that a lot of stuff has been going on in the past 10 days—Climategate, WH Party Crashers, New Moon—I just haven’t had the time (or the will) to write about them all.

So yeah, sorry guys. I’ll try to post more often after exams. I’m working on a posting plan/schedule so that I can post at least twice a week or so, though, and that should start sometime in January.

Still no word about delaying those Prostate exams…

…but pap tests? Who needs ‘em!

From the NYT: Guidelines Push Back Age for Cervical Cancer Tests

Arriving on the heels of hotly disputed guidelines calling for less use of mammography, the new recommendations might seem like part of a larger plan to slash cancer screening for women.

Gee, you think so?

The reason is that young women are especially prone to develop abnormalities in the cervix that appear to be precancerous, but that will go away if left alone.

Don’t worry, college Sophomore—that precancerous abnormality will go away eventually! *eyeroll*

The doctors’ group also felt it was safe to test women less often because cervical cancer grows slowly, so there is time to catch precancerous growths. Cervical cancer is caused by a sexually transmitted virus, human papillomavirus, or HPV, that is practically ubiquitous.

So HPV, which causes cervical cancer, is everywhere, but it’s okay not to screen because cervical cancer grows slowly? Wait—what?

Maybe things have changed, but when I was in high school we were told that you should go to a gynecologist at age 18 or after becoming sexually active, whichever came first. As far as I know, nobody is saying that all young teens should be having these tests, so I don’t really see where Dr. Holcomb’s comment that “I know the chances of an adolescent getting cervical cancer are really low” really comes into play. Unless that adolescent is sexually active, she won’t be seeing a gynecologist.

We’re already seeing a recommended delays in mammograms and pap tests, so what’s next? No ultrasounds or checkups for pregnant women until the second trimester? Or maybe we can just go back to the days when all female medical problems were written off as hysteria and promptly ignored. That would be awesome.

Hillary’s Time Cover

This is what a respectful magazine cover looks like:

Newsweek might want to take some notes.

Newsweek: Like Joe Quesada, in a way.

“Finally, as for the issue of whether the image is sexist, a source at Newsweek relays that the art and photo directors responsible for the cover (which was decided upon last Thursday) are both women.”

Dear Newsweek:
Just because the people responsible for your cover are women doesn’t mean it’s not sexist. Women are not immune to being sexist toward other women (or men), and that excuse is the equivalent of qualifying a racist statement by saying “Some of my best friends are black!” Should I really be surprised that you’ve stooped to one of the most ridiculous and most overused excuses ever? Probably not, but I am completely disgusted. What’s next—a statement whining about censorship? Or maybe, “If you don’t like it, shut up and write your own!”

You see, in 2006, Marvel had a comic book called Heroes for Hire. It featured Misty Knight and Colleen Wing as leaders of a team of superhero mercenaries. The team was co-ed, and the book was known for its cheesecake-style art, especially for characters like Black Cat from Spiderman.

When Marvel released the cover for HFH #13, it upset some readers, particularly female ones. They complained that it looked like tentacle porn and that the women looked defeated and submissive, and they wondered why none of the male characters were included except for one guy’s hand. (After all, the team was co-ed.) And well, they were pretty much right. For reference, this is what the cover looked like:

Not all that pretty, right? Kinda gross, maybe? Not according to Marvel Moron Editor-in-Chief Joe Quesada. He commented on the complaints, saying that he didn’t see how it could be offensive to women because a woman drew the cover.

You see what he did there, Newsweek? He made the same argument that you did—that there’s no way a woman could create something offensive to other women because… well, we all have ovaries or something. And that argument was as full of as much BS when he said it as it does when you say it.

It’s no surprise that you and the vast majority of your colleagues hate Sarah Palin—the text on the cover, “How do you solve a problem like Sarah?” spells it out for readers even without the picture. But that’s not the real issue here. The real issue is that you deliberately printed something tacky and degrading and then made ridiculous excuses about it after someone called you out for what you were doing.

Compositions like that aren’t accidental—your photo directors didn’t accidentally pick that photo, just as your copy editors didn’t just stumble upon that headline. If you’re going to be blatantly sexist—and you are—at least have the balls to own up to it instead of hiding behind your photo directors’ skirts, pointing fingers and blaming them for something that the Editor himself could have easily changed. (Fun Fact: the editors in charge of both publications—Quesada and Jon Meacham—are both male!)

But it’s too late for that, I guess. Congrats, Newsweek—you’re now the mainstream media-equivalent of Joe Quesada, the tentacle-rape peddling, marrige-ending, totally clueless Editor-in-Chief at Marvel. Enjoy!

Edit: Doctor Zero has a less nerdier take on this (and the larger issue of the upcoming election cycle) over at HA.

New Mammogram Policy

Althouse wonders, “What is this benefit to women here? It is not going through the anxiety of a test that may produce a false positive and require additional tests!”

One of the most frightening parts about this new proposal is that is advises doctors to stop teaching women to examine their breasts on a regular basis. Don’t believe me? Read it in the NYT.

Honestly, what is it going to hurt to teach a woman how to perform a self-exam? If saving money is the primary goal here, shouldn’t self-exams be encouraged because it will save them the money they would have spent going to the doctor’s office? If I didn’t know better, I’d say that they want us to stop monitoring our health to prevent us from seeking medical attention in the first place. Ignorance is bliss, and all that. *eyeroll*

This new mammogram policy makes me angry beyond belief, and for good reason. In 2007, I had a lump in one of my breasts. My OB/GYN felt it during my yearly exam, and she sent me to a specialist to get it checked out. The specialist presented me with three options: leave it alone and monitor it, undergo an ultrasound-guided biopsy, or have surgery to remove it completely. I received the biopsy that same day, and luckily it was a fibroadenoma—benign and, actually, not uncommon. I still have to monitor what’s left (the biopsy didn’t remove everything), and I’m not entirely sure how this will affect my chances of breast cancer, but I sure as hell ought to be able to get a mammogram at 40 if I want to. Or, you know, perform a self-exam. (My body, my choice after all. )

Where’s the data on prostate exams? Why is it just mammograms for women? It’s an interesting coincidence that this report is coming out around the time that the government is planning on taking over the health care industry—”You don’t need a mammogram! You’re fine! Stop worrying, you hysterical woman, this is saving money!” The administration took fire from pro-choicers and feminists who were upset over the Stupak Amendment, and this report will likely pile onto an accusation that the administration hates women (or, to put it nicely, worries about the health issue of men over those of women.) And the argument that false positives upset women and stress them out and harm our fragile little sensibilities doesn’t help, either.

Stop using stereotypes about women to push your economically-motivated policies. We aren’t stupid—we see exactly what you’re doing, and we don’t like it.

Clever Resume

Character Sheet Resume says, “Hire Me, I’m a geek!”

Basically, an animator made his resume look like an RPG Character Sheet, and it’s pretty awesome. It makes me wish that I could do something clever like this for my legal resume… although, honestly, I imagine that some places I might apply to would be more receptive of this than other places. ^_^

Pictures from the Watertown Veteran’s Day Re-enactment

My friend Ivan recently started doing WWII re-enactments, and last weekend he went to Watertown, TN for their Veteran’s Day Re-enactment. My friend Derek went too, and took 1100 pictures. You can read his report and see his pictures at his blog.

Morning Links: Legal Edition

- Original Patent for Lego Mini-figure
- Facebook Status Update Clears Teen from Criminal Charges (Gizmodo)
- Social Networking and the New Workplace (Law.com)
- 50 Great Blogs for and by Law Professors
- Fantasy SCOTUS (This is just awesome.)
- Intel to pay AMD $1.25 billion in antitrust settlement Also, they’ll have a five-year cross-license agreement to get patent rights.

And just because I’m sick of people freaking out about it:
The Truth about Wireless Phones and the National Do-Not-Call List (FCC.gov)

A Disturbing Subpoena…

Justice Dept. Asked for News Site’s Visitor Lists (CBS News)

…but maybe—hopefully—not a disturbing precedent.

Yes, it’s troubling to think about why the DOJ wanted those visitor logs, but it’s even more disturbing to consider the precedent that would have been set had this subpoena (1) been complied with, and (2) remained secret. The Justice Department had an obvious reason for wanting to keep the subpoena secret even after it had been withdrawn—to prevent future web admins from having something to refer to.

This is an occurrence that would, no doubt, receive widespread attention on the internet if Indymedia or the EFF were allowed to mention it, and the DOJ knew it. Even if it didn’t get widespread media attention, it would still be all over websites like Digg, Reddit, and BoingBoing, where people who care about these issues (and might be subject to a similar subpoena someday) would read about it and learn what their rights would be in the same situation. Thankfully, Indymedia’s EFF lawyer challenged the unofficial gag order and this story became public. It might not prevent the DOJ from attempting to subpoena websites in the future, but now at least site admins have a precedent to rely on.

On a more fun, law school-related note, the EFF attorney objected to procedural defects in his reply to the DOJ, including improper service and the need for a judge-issued court order to obtain the logs. What a great lesson in how the rules of procedure can help or harm you.

BioShock 2

BioShock 2: Hands All Over It

First, you know what’s obnoxious and insulting? This: “I stopped by the Access PR offices this week in New York City to put my hands under the shirt (and the bra) of the latest up-to-the-minute build of BioShock 2.” And it’s the first sentence of the article. That’s a completely unnecessary metaphor (especially when you consider that the only female characters in those games are only sexy if you like children and zombies,) and the only thing it accomplishes is to set an anti-woman tone that completely colors the writer’s complaints about the Big Sister and makes me think that you just don’t want women ruining your video games. *eyeroll*

That irritation aside, I’m not sure how I feel about the BioShock 2 this writer described. I really liked the hacking mini-game from the first game, and I hate that they’ve dumbed it down. Hacking was a nice break from the game’s environment; yeah, it got a little tedious at times, especially when you’re watching someone play, but the solution shouldn’t be scrapping it for something easier—it should have been to mix it up a little. Why not have save the easy mini-game for vending machines and save the original mini for turrets and cameras?

I am, however, looking forward to adopting the Little Sisters (I couldn’t bring myself to harvest one in the original) and seeing what the Big Sister’s story is. I’m keeping my fingers crossed that we get to see a LOT of new areas of Rapture, too, and that the Big Daddy is slightly less cumbersome than the main character at the end of the first game. Overall, I’m staying cautiously optimistic about BioShock 2—especially since the jerk writer of this piece couldn’t get through a piece without invoking boobies. Somehow I doubt that he and I see eye-to-eye.