Welcome to the Illadelph

So after a week of moving my belongings down from northern New Jersey, and about an equal amount of time actually being in Philadelphia, I've finally decided to make a post about my first few days here.

Overall, the move went very smoothly, save for the one piece of Ikea furniture that came without instructions! But that's ok, since we returned it and will be getting a complete one soon.

My roommates are all spectacular, and we have developed a good chemistry with each other already. There have been several gatherings together, including a few bar trips, a Philadelphia tour and trip to Reading Terminal Market with some newly made BGS friends, and even hosting a friendly game of Quarters at our humble abode. All in all, I have started strong in developing a social network here in Philadelphia, and as I continue to do more of the Penn seminar events and meet people in classes, it will only get larger and more involved.

Speaking of my apartment, here are some pictures. Be kind, as they are taken on my iPhone, so some are a bit grainy, but overall they definitely capture the awesomeness that is my pad. You can view all of the photos of my new apartment at this link.













Additionally, here are some pictures from my city tour of Philadelphia this morning. I've been to a good amount of these places already (Independence Hall, Liberty Bell, etc.) but I found cool new places to try out and met some new friends to hang out with, so a good day's event all around.













As I continue to try out new places in Philadelphia and meet new people, I'll be sure to update here about my adventures. Though I am at Penn primarily for academics, I am also here to further develop my knowledge and experiences of city living and develop and foster new friendships.

If you have any cool events or places that you want me to experience, please drop me an email and I will do my best to try them out!

Cheers,

Mike C.

This Would Make Ponce de Leon's Day!

The ever-desired "Fountain of Youth". Though it has never been found, many of us try to emulate its effects, spending billions of dollars on cremes, plastic surgery, and Botox. And despite our incessant infatuation with staying young forever, we always eventually end up on the losing side of nature. But via the power of science, could we be as close as we've ever been to an actual product that slows down the aging process?

Research scientists have focused on two areas that seem to delay the aging process: caloric restriction and single gene changes. In published studies, mice on a calorie restricted diet (defined as 30% fewer calories than a normal diet) have been shown to live 30-40% longer than their normal diet counterparts. And, perhaps just as important, the calorie restricted mice seem to be protected from disease. Critics point to the use of lab mice compared to wild mice, and their skepticism about increased longevity seems to be warranted. But nevertheless, even they cannot deny the beneficial effect of a calorie restricted diet on the health of both lab and wild mice.

The key compound in this altered regulation of metabolism is resveratrol, which is found in grapes and red wine. Resveratrol is known to be a very strong sirtuin activator, which explains its alleged effect in delaying the aging process. Sirtuins are compounds that detect low levels of energy reserves in cells and are activated when levels are low, which would be crucial for proteins that regulate metabolism. It is believed by some scientists that sirtuins can explain the French paradox - why the French have a high life expectancy while eating a high-fat diet, but also one flush with resveratrol-containing wine. Thus, develop a compound that can also activate sirtuins and you could hold the scientific "Fountain of Youth".

That's just what Dr. David A. Sinclair of the Harvard Medical School is doing, with his co-founding of Sirtris Pharmaceuticals. And apparently his company has something, as it was sold to pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline last year for $720 million.

More research needs to be conducted to confirm the anti-aging benefits of a resveratrol-like product, but if one can be developed and confirmed, it will take a whole legion of bioethicists to examine the implications of such a development.

Some already believe our life expectancy is too high to be sustainable. If we eventually do get to the point where the average life expectancy in developed nations reaches 90+ years, we will have no choice but to mandate longer work careers and longer waits to receive benefits, such as Medicare and Social Security eligibility. And with people working longer, the impact on entrants into the work field could be severe. Of course, there are issues about expanded energy use, our planet's population capacity, limits in food production levels, among many others.

If these new compounds could allow us to lead healthier lives without expanding our life expectancy, then the economic impact could actually be very beneficial. Health care costs would decrease due to overall improved health, but the average total length of care would remain the same, thus leading to lower costs. But would that even be possible? Every advancement that has made us healthier (adequate nutrition, vaccinations, more effective treatments for many diseases) has lead to drastic increases in our life expectancy. In only 160 years - an infinitesimal amount of time in regard to biology - female life expectancy at birth nearly doubled, from 45 years in 1840 to 85 years in 2000, nearly all of that contributed to our scientific advances in health care. And with humans seemingly being the only species to defy the omnipotent "S-curve", anything that adds enables our total population to increase at an even faster rate could have potentially drastic effects.

What are all your thoughts, both on the science aspect as well as the ethical/philosophical aspect of anti-aging compounds? Comments always welcomed.

Open and Shut Case? Even With DNA Evidence, Perhaps Not Anymore

In our CSI-obsessed society, we are conditioned to believe that DNA evidence is the one infallible item in a prosecutor's collection. And for good reason, because all humans (save for those like myself - identical multiples) have different coding DNA. It's true that the percentage of our own DNA different from another human being is very small, but alas that percentage spread over 3 billion basepairs is still a lot of DNA. And because we all have some DNA that is different from everyone else and technologies exist to reliably detect those differences, prosecutors around the world have been using DNA evidence as the smoking gun in criminal trials.

However, a newly published study casts a shred of doubt on the Holy Grail of crime scenes. The online abstract of the study entitled "Authentication of forensic DNA samples" details the relative ease (at least for those familiar with DNA amplification and cloning technology, which would certainly include all life science professionals) that DNA evidence can be fabricated. More details about the study can be found in this NY Times article.

It must also be noted that the leading scientist of the newly published study is a founder of Nucleix, a biotech company offering an assay that can detect between artificially synthesized and naturally synthesized DNA molecules. The science behind it is actually quite simple. Artificially synthesized DNA, like that amplified via PCR or Whole Genome Amplification, is not methylated (methylation of DNA is known to be a mechanism for regulation of genes), whereas naturally synthesized DNA is partially methylated. Thus, if you assay for methylation, you can determine whether the DNA is artificial or natural depending on whether or not it is methylated.

As scientists, we should investigate on our own anything we read in regard to science, especially when the technique we read about is used for something as serious as evidence certification for crime scenes. Nevertheless, as long as the assay actually works and is reliable, I have no reason to believe the motive of the lead author to be anything devious. It could provide an extra level of protection (or certainty, depending on the circumstances) in criminal cases in which the result literally could be a life or death decision.

As an aside, it is important to note that DNA evidence has been questioned in appropriate instances in the past. A DNA lab in Houston, Texas was found in 2003 by state auditors to have "widespread flaws in its work, including sloppy record-keeping, misinterpreted data and evidence contaminated by water from a leaky roof in the laboratory."

The advance of technology in forensics labs has been, I believe, beneficial to law enforcement and society in general. DNA evidence has been a major tool of both prosecutors and defense lawyers alike, and both groups should welcome additional technology that allows for the evidence to be taken with even more certainty, either for proving guilt or proving innocence.

Jenny McCarthy's "Mission" to Spread Pseudo-Science

Cross posted at DailyKos.com

Nothing frustrates me more than when people misuse science to construct so-called "logical" responses to questions. Whether it be people using science to assert a reasoned truth to a religious conviction, or people advocating deleterious behaviors resulting from pushing pseudo-science, the misuse of science has no place in our public discourse.

I give an example of the first violation. In defense of the assertion that human embryos are as "alive" as adult humans, one of my college friends cited that both possess 46 chromosomes as "scientific fact" of the claim. Other than the actuality that such a "scientific" claim is invalid - tissue cultures of human somatic cells also possess 46 chromosomes, but I find it hard pressed to presume the same individual would claim those cells to be as "alive" as a full human being - there is an underlying philosophical fallacy in my friend's argument.

My friend, a self-proclaimed Catholic, doesn't base his belief that human embryos are as "alive" as adult humans on science, he bases it on his faith. Yet in arguing his position, he includes some "scientific facts" as if they are supposed to impress scientists like myself; a sophomoric "ooh, look at me, I used science in my argument so it is correct!" ploy.

The problem with that notion is that it is intellectually dishonest. Overall, for the aforementioned individual, the notion of religious morality is the focal point for the debate on when "life" begins. Those who are anti-abortion should not try to use science to defend their ideals, because their ideals are not ordained by science in the first place.

I transition to Jenny McCarthy, famous actress and infamous pseudo-science peddler. In the years since her child was diagnosed with autism, she has made it her personal crusade to impart her non-scientific information on some of the most vulnerable of our society (and rightly so) - new parents. It is no surprise that new parents are extremely protective of their newborn children, as there are chemicals that can cause harm, such as lead paint and overdoses of certain childhood medications. However, those harmful effects have been confirmed after years of peer-reviewed scientific studies.

Ms. McCarthy's mission to indoctrinate new parents with garbage stems from her belief that her child contracted autism from a vaccination for measles/mumps/rubella (MMR). The first claim of such a connection comes from Dr. Andrew Wakefield from his 1998 paper in the British medical journal, The Lancet. However, it was revealed that Dr. Wakefield received funding for his study from trial lawyers seeking evidence against vaccine manufacturers, after which 10 of the 12 co-authors retracted their support for the paper. Additionally, the same newspaper reported that Dr. Wakefield manipulated his study's results. Not to mention that a 2005 peer-reviewed meta-study showed no statistically significant correlation between the rise in autism cases and MRR. Instead, the study asserted "the increase is largely a consequence of improved ascertainment and a considerable broadening of the diagnostic concept." And finally, twin studies find heritability of autism to be as high as 90%.

Despite the overwhelming evidence against Ms. McCarthy's claims, she continues to get face-time in a variety of media, including magazines and even an hour-special on Oprah. Her latest step in advancing her pseudo-science is an interview in Cookie Magazine, as featured on Yahoo!'s homepage. Just reading the comments allows one to get an idea of how her inaccurate and dangerous accusations are being taken as truth by new parents and anyone susceptible to a good 'ole fashioned tin-foil conspiracy theory.

Head on over to Ms. McCarthy's own website and you will find yourself access to seemingly limitless amounts of bullshit. Click on the "Biomedical Treatment" section and you'll find some new methods to "recover" your child from autism. Most insane is the "Methyl B12 and Valtrex" method, developed by none other than proud parent Stan Kurtz, who decided that spending 6+ years on getting a Ph.D. was a waste of time, and instead thought his Yahoo! Groups Message Board would be an acceptable substitute for a peer-review board. (Can't you just feel the sarcasm...)

Not to mention that while you're saving your child from pending doom, you can shop til you drop at Ms. McCarthy's online boutique.



Nothing protects your child from evil
vaccines more than buying Jenny's new book!

The media time these nitwits get is unfathomable. They are literally endangering our society by advocating for insane proposals that will lead to increased rates of horrible diseases. Want to know how bad measles, mumps, or rubella can be? Try asking your parents, who likely had at least one of them during their childhood before the MMR vaccine was developed.

This episode can be related to our society's scientific acumen (or rather lack of). People like Jenny McCarthy are why it is imperative that we ensure that all children have access to educational opportunities that teach science, but most importantly, the basis of the scientific method - critical thinking.

Because There's No Plausible Deniability For Using the "N-Word"

Watching all these teabaggers and "birthers" yell and scream at healthcare town halls has been frightening, mildly amusing, and most of all, confusing. I've already blogged on the hypocrisy and radicalism of these nut-job astroturfers, but even that didn't cover why the outrage is so overwhelming. Don't give me the rising debt - where were all these screams when President Bush doubled our national debt in his eight years in office, not to mention that the CBO's scoring of the public-option H.R. 3200 bill will actually produce a $6 billion surplus (see here for link). Don't give me "government run healthcare can never work!" - if your parents are over 65, they are already on government run healthcare - it's called Medicare. And it is rated 2X as favorable as private insurance (see my first link for source). And it has only 2% administrative costs, compared to 25-30% for private insurance.

So, then, would could possibly be the reason for the crazies coming out in droves with their 'Obama = Nazi' signs and their 'No Obamacare' signs and even their guns? What could exactly be the reason that at town hall after town hall we hear people ranting how "they want their America back". Back from what? What exactly is being proposed in the public-option healthcare bill that prevents you from maintaining your own individual status quo? It's called an option for a reason, i.e. if you'd like to continue to get bent over by health insurance companies, be my guest. And all these mobs can't be protesting about bringing socialism to America, because it already is here in the form of our police, fire, and ambulance departments, our public schools, our public parks, our trash removal, the list goes on and on.

Ah, but if you are a codebreaker of dog-whistle politics (and I am), then it's actually pretty obvious what these crazies mean when they say "they want their America back."

They can't stand the fact that (gasp!) a black man is President.

All these outcries aren't about the public-option or socialism or anything related to healthcare reform at all. They can't be; these wingers have shown their ignorance in stunning proportion. People who scream "don't let the government ruin my Medicare!" are pawns to the highest form of irony imaginable. Remember, these are the same people who screamed and yelled about the wildly popular and effective "Cash for Clunkers" program, which even some Congressional Republicans said is a great form of stimulus. Simply put, these people are against Obama for one and only reason - because he is black and represents the beginning of the end of white privilege. It's why the birther movement exists - the wingers have to find some reason to disqualify Barack Obama as a valid President. Keeping in tune with their disgusting and racist nature, these conservative psychos from Free Republic even attacked President Obama's daugther Malia, calling her "a typical street whore", and "ghetto street trash".

But (somehow) even conservatives are smart enough to know that if they use the "N-Word" in their protests, their cause is finished. So they result to dog whistle politics, which they have gotten very skilled at. When wingers say they want "their America back", it's all code for "I can't believe that n****r is President!" But by calling Obama a Nazi, or saying he's a socialist, or saying he's ushering in a "dismantling of our nation", they are all shielded from the accusations of racism. Repeating the title of this post, there's no plausible deniability for using the "N-Word".

You know, there have been other times in history where conservatives rallied in mobs against a product of a progressing society. In case you haven't been enrolled in a United States history course in a while, let me remind you:









People hailed Barack Obama's election as President as a sign that we are finally entering a society where racism will start to dissipate. But ever since the end of the Civil Rights era, we have had only a semblance less racism; in reality, it had entered the world of the underground, suppressed by those who despite increased opportunities for black people, were not threatened by their gains. But with the first black President, and the first Latino Supreme Court Justice, and with the demographics pointing to a swift increase in the population of non-Caucausian citizens, they are now starting to feel threatened. To these people, desperate times are amongst us, and desperate times call for desperate measures.

But thankfully for the sane, their version of America is over. The coming demographic numbers do not lie, nor does the mandate of the American people who elected a black man President.

To those of you pushed to intimidation, lying, radicalism, and violence all because we have a black President, I have a message for you.

Get over it.

**Update**

One of my readers of this commentary from my post stated that people are protesting about moving away from laissez faire economic policy. And one of my other readers responded with a brilliant and succinct (i.e. - Tweetable) response:

"People don't carry signs that say "Death to Obama" because they're worried about economic policy."

Q.E.D., indeed.

Mind This!

A mini-article on clever ways job seekers screen their candidates on Yahoo caught my attention. Some of the are passable, like the one about the cleanliness of a candidate's car. According to the article, a receptionist will head out to your car and see if it is all messy - if so, that's supposed to be an negative implication about your character. Granted, that seems pretty suspect, as almost all of us say to our friends as they enter our vehicle, "sorry my car is so messy", which clearly indicates that we actually have more important things to do than to clean up every single MapQuest print out or ATM receipt.

OK, so clearly you get my overall opinion on this so-called "trick", but if your car really is super messy, then yeah, you probably aren't that organized or careful with your items. Hope you aren't applying for a job with security clearance - wouldn't want to lose that top secret file.

But some of these "tricks" are the exact reasons why I detest corporate culture. For example, watching what candidates do in the waiting room, or engaging in a bit of gossip? Yes, it's best to read that resume instead of playing Nintendo DS and it's better to not display your opinion, even if you agree with what your quizmaster is testing you on. But come on, this is like using your results from a Rorschach test to definitely assess what your personality is.

And finally, this lovely "trick" from the corporate candy bowl:

Many recruiters use meals as a screening tool. "I know a recruiter who passed over a candidate because of the way they cut their meat during a lunch interview," says Varelas. (The candidate cut his meat all at once, not one piece at a time.) Juliet Boghossian, a behavioral food expert and columnist for Food-ology.com, teaches execs what they can learn by the way someone eats.

Give me a fucking break. If you think someone is not qualified for a job because of the way they cut their steak, then you should really look in the mirror about how qualified you are to be in charge of HR at said company. It's not like the person is eating sloppily, he's simply cutting all of his meat into small pieces at once, which is actually more time efficient than one bite at time. You figure efficiency would be a quality a corporation would want...

Luckily for me, a university will hire me based on how much funding I receive from grants, the quality of my research, and to an extent, my teaching abilities. That's it. Yes, I understand that you have to be professional every step of the way, and I'm not at all advocated some kind of job seeker anarchy movement, but seriously, most of these rating criteria are absolute bullshit. What the fuck does how some one cuts their meat on their dinner plate have anything to do with how well they perform their job? If you answered "nothing", then you're probably just as disillusioned with corporate culture as I am.

You know what my response would be to the person who told me I wasn't hired because of how I cut my meat?

"I guess I should have ordered the soup then, you fucking jackass."

Picking a First Lab Rotation

This afternoon I began the long and meticulous research process for finding a lab for my first rotation. With one month until classes start at Penn, now is a good time to start looking for rotations, as was recommended by the newly appointed Chair of my sub-division at Penn - Developmental, Stem Cell, and Regenerative Biology (DSRB).

I initially chose DSRB as my sub-division within CAMB because of several reasons, which include my undergraduate research projects, my fascination with stem cells, and my strong interest in signaling pathways, especially Wnt signaling.

My heightened interest in Wnt signaling stems from a course I took at Rutgers in my final semester named "Genetic Regulation of Development and Cancer". The middle segment of the course, taught by Howard Hughes Medical Institute fellow Dr. Ken Irvine, focused on the Wnt signaling pathway. Dr. Irvine is no ordinary scientist, however; he was a graduate student at Stanford in Dr. Eric Wieschaus's lab when he won the 1995 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (along with Christiane Nusslein-Volhard) for their work in Drosophila embryonic development. Despite his affiliation with a Nobel Prize-winning lab, Dr. Irvine is one of the most humble researchers one can ever hope to meet. It was only by satisfying my innate curiosity that I even found out that Dr. Irvine worked as a graduate student with Dr. Wieschaus.

The Wnt signaling pathway is active in many types of organisms and in many kinds of cells. Because the pathway also plays a role in cancer biology, as it is composed of both tumor suppressor genes and oncogenes, it remains active even after development. The pathway operates as a two-state model, which means it is either activated or inactivated.



On the left is a schematic that shows the canonical Wnt signaling pathway in an inactivated state. Without the Wnt protein attached to the intra-membranous Frizzled protein, the transcriptional activator beta-catenin is bound by a three-protein complex of GSK3, APC, and Axin, whose combined function is to phosphorylate beta-catenin. Once phosphorylated, beta-catenin is targeted for degradation, which maintains low levels of the protein within the cell. The result is the transcription factor TCF actively repressed by the Groucho protein.

On the right is a schematic that shows an activated canonical Wnt signaling pathway. The Wnt protein binds to Frizzled, which causes the protein Disheveled to detach from the Frizzled domain within the cell. This newly freed Disheveled protein attaches to Axin, which causes the three-protein complex to disassociate. The result is a released and non-phosphorylated beta-catenin protein, which localizes within the nucleus. Beta-catenin competes with Groucho and initiates TCF, causing transcription of targeted genes.

The reason why I'm so intrigued in the Wnt signaling pathway is because it functions in my two favorite aspects of cell and molecular biology - embryonic development and cancer development. As I stated above, I am assigned to the DSRB sub-division, but one of the great things about Penn is that you are allowed (and even encouraged) to do one of your rotations in a sub-division different from the one you're registered in. When I heed that advice, which I will later on in my first year at Penn, I will almost certainly choose a rotation in the cancer biology sub-division. And since the Wnt signaling pathway is implicated in the physiology of both embryonic development and cancer development, I could easily do rotation projects in each sub-division that are both focused on Wnt signaling.

The Wnt signaling pathway
in cancer development

As expected, Penn has several researchers whose work focuses on Wnt signaling in some capacity. My preliminary list of rotation labs is 12, and three of the labs on my list conduct research on Wnt signaling - Dr. Edward Morrisey, Dr. Peter Klein, and new DSRB Chair, Dr. Sarah Millar. These three researchers all received 4-stars in my own rating system, and their labs will be the first three I contact.

Choosing a rotation lab is one of the most important decisions a graduate student must undertake. One of the three/four rotation labs will ultimately be the lab where a graduate student will conduct his/her dissertation project in, so you must choose each rotation lab as if it has a really good chance of becoming your thesis lab. I'm still in the early stages of my search for my first rotation lab, but having a strong interest in Wnt signaling allows me to focus on specific researchers whose work matches my interests. I definitely want to branch out my research endeavors in my first year at Penn, but in order to ensure the smoothest transition to graduate life possible, I figure it's a good idea to focus on initial labs that share the same passion for Wnt signaling that I do.

Fellow Penn (and non-Penn) graduate students - what are some of your rotation experiences? I encourage you to share your advice and experiences in the comments.

Cheers,

Mike C.

Republican Game Plan on Health Care - Hypocrisy, Lying, and Radicalism

With the August recess already here for the House of Representatives and mere days away for the Senate, it's no surprise we've seen increased levels of fear-mongering and lying from the health insurance corporations and their cronies in Congress, the Republican Party. If you thought the racket was bad now, as the popular saying goes, "you ain't seen nothin' yet". We continue to hear the same old scare tactics - President Obama's health care plan is "socialized medicine", a public option will lead to rationing, it will put the health insurance companies out of business, etc., etc.

We all know that the above three scare tactics are complete bullshit. First, since conservatives are so quick to bash anything "socialized", then by that logic we should get rid of our public schools, police, fire, and ambulance depts., our sanitation services, our depts. of public works, and if your town is lucky enough to even have one, your local recreation center.

Second, newsflash - health care in our country is already rationed. If you are fortunate enough to be able to afford health care, then consider yourself lucky. But maybe not so much, especially if your provider chooses to discontinue your policy by finding a pre-existing condition. And we haven't even gotten to the 47 million (and growing) in our nation that don't have any health insurance.

And third, private health insurance companies deserve to go out of business. Private insurance companies have one allegiance, and that is to their shareholders. And in order to fulfill that allegiance (i.e. - profits), they will deny your medical claims even when you pay your monthly premiums on time. So while your family's rates are going up as much as 44%, Cigna's CEO is raking in $12 million this year. As Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman writes, the free market cannot cure health care.

Now that those talking points are debunked, the insurance lobby and their Republican stalwarts in Congress are pursuing even more drastic measures to kill health reform. But in doing so, they reveal their true nature as hypocrites, liars, and radicals.

Conservative economics hero Arthur Laffer displays his inability to grasp facts with this lovely gem:

If you like the Post Office and the Department of Motor Vehicles and you think they're run well, just wait till you see Medicare, Medicaid and health care done by the government.

Spare me a minute to stop laughing. See, the funny thing is that Medicare and Medicaid are already run by the government. And another funny thing is that compared to private insurance, people rate their experience with Medicare as "excellent" 2X more.

Since Republicans hate government-run health care so much, you think they would all vote in a heartbeat to eliminate it if they had the chance, right? Well, they did have that chance. In a brilliant political move, Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY) introduced an amendment that would eliminate Medicare to the proposed health care bill. And what did Republicans do? They voted to keep Medicare (again, this is already government-run!) Not to mention that all members of Congress (that includes you Republicans) receive their health care... wait for it... from the government! If single-payer health care is of good quality for our senior citizens and veterans - you know, the people we are supposed to care about the most - then it should be good enough for all of us.

I suppose I should also add ignorance to the list, based on this piece of news:

During the town hall, one conservative activist turns to his fellow attendees and asks them to raise their hands if they "oppose any form of socialized or government-run health care." Almost all the hands shot up. Rep Green quickly turned the question on the audience and asked, "How many of you have Medicare?" Nearly half the attendees raised their hands, failing to note the irony.

Republicans also have no unease lying about the public option and it's administrative costs.

And finally, when all else fails, Republicans clearly show that they have no problem embracing their inner radical. Demonstrating anger with your Congressperson is not inherently a wrong thing, especially when it comes to a literal life-and-death issue like health care. But there's a right way and a wrong way to do so. The right way would be to go to a town-hall and strongly voice your displeasures, but do so in a professional and civil manner. And the wrong way to do it? The radical Republican way.

“When you look at the fervor of some of these people who are all being whipped up by the right-wing talking heads on Fox, to me, you’re crossing a line,’ Connolly said. ‘They’re inciting people to riot with just total distortions of facts. They think we’re going to euthanize Grandma and the government is going to take over.”

It's time the Democrats strongly push back on this bullshit the Republicans are pushing about health care reform, because if you're always on the defensive, you're losing the war of the airwaves. Rather than always hearing the same milquetoast statements coming from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), I want the true progressives and liberals in Congress (and especially the Senate) to call out the insurance lobbyists and the Republicans for their bullshit peddling. As clearly demonstrated above, the iron curtain against health reform is solidifying, so we must fight back stronger than ever.

To Catch a... Lottery Thief?

Everyone's favorite investigative journalist, Chris "Why don't you have a seat over there" Hanson, host of Dateline NBC's controversial "To Catch a Predator" series, is back with a new show special. So, who's he after now, you ask? Women sexual predators? Telemarketing scammers? Large-scale email spammers? Nope...

Lottery clerks.

Bob Sehested of Camarillo, Calif. had just watched himself buying what turned out to be a 500,000 winning lottery ticket at this store. Trouble is, Bob didn't have the prize money, and didn't understand what had happened. The clerk behind the counter had told him his winning ticket was only worth four dollars.

So....

Bob Sehested: I called the lottery and it all went from there.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

Lottery investigators came to Sehested's house and interviewed him. They quickly determined that Sehested was the legitimate winner of the $500,000 prize--- and he eventually got his money.

But why hadn't Bob known he'd had the winning ticket in the first place? After some more investigation, it became clear the clerk had stolen the winning ticket.

Here's how he did it:

Bob Sehested: When I put my ticket on the counter for him to check it, he was waiting on another customer. And he kept glancing down at my ticket. And then, when he was done with that customer, for some reason, he went into the backroom. Then, he came back. And then, he checked my ticket and told me it was four dollars.

Apparently the clerk knew he was looking at the winning numbers.

Bob Sehested: So I guess since he knew that the store had the $500,000 winner, he knew what numbers he was looking for.

And it seems he was prepared. He had another ticket handy in the back room ready to substitute just in case the big winner showed up. That substitute ticket was for a mere four dollar winner. The ultimate switcharoo.

Lottery investigators became suspicious when the clerk tried to cash the $500,000 ticket. Any large claim like that gets investigated, and the clerk's story about how he got the ticket didn't add up. The clerk pled guilty to Grand Theft, Making a False Claim to a Government Agency and Enhancements for a theft over $500,000.00. The prize offered by the stolen Mega Millions Lottery ticket was $530,858.00. The clerk was sentences to five years and four months in state prison.

Here's a short video clip of the hour-long episode:



Of course, this type of investigation can have its legality questioned, which is exactly what the New York State Lottery did. Its director, Gordon Medinica, declined an interview with Dateline NBC, but instead sent a letter which stated that the show is "...entrapping retailers into scamming customers our of lottery prizes." The New York Lottery even sent out a digital warning via its lottery ticket machines (the image can be viewed here).

Why I want to bring this story to your attention is to make a comment on how the type of crime committed can (and does) influence what we think about the law enforcement tactics used to catch the criminals. If you read the entire transcript of the show, you will note that the $1,000 "winning" tickets in California are really fake - the California Lottery manufactured them to appear real in order to aid law enforcement to conduct a sting operation. The first thing I thought of, even before the statement from the New York State Lottery Director, was entrapment.

What is important to me is what circumstances would we as a viewing public deem entrapment as a valid defense. When Perverted Justice sets up child predator stings by having chatters appear under age with intent to lure individuals to chat explicitly with them, is that not as potentially suspect an operation as the one conducted for the lotteries? Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of individuals who take their online encounters with the decoys way too far, with paper and video evidence clearly showing them guilty, but does that mean that all of them are automatically criminals? The answer to this question, at least in the eyes of the producers of the pilot episode, is no. In case you have forgotten, on the first episode of the long-lasting series, the individuals were not arrested. But had they been lured in on a subsequent episode, they would have been. Are the acts they committed any less criminal if conducted on the first episode instead of the second, at least deemed by the standards of all subsequent episodes?

Despite utilizing similar questionable sting tactics as used for the lottery fraud investigation, the word "entrapment" hasn't been mentioned on any of the "To Catch a Predator" episodes that I have seen, which is quite a lot. In my opinion, the type of crime largely determines whether or not we are willing to deem an entrapment defense acceptable. Stealing a $1,000 lottery scratch-off ticket is a much more defensible crime than attempting to have sex with a minor, and thus our emotions get in the way of our supposed objective and impartial adjudication of law.

I think this is why the study and practice of law remains so disillusioning for me.

The Only Living Boy in New York...

**Cross posted at DailyKos.com**

Yesterday marked a bittersweet event in the Greenwich Village of New York City. At the famous gay bar Julius' our family held a memorial event for my uncle, who passed away about six weeks ago. It was a time of kinship among friends and family, where we remembered a beloved husband, uncle, and friend. We were thankful for the wonderful memories we all shared, reminded by the many pictures passed around while we ate and drank. Perhaps most significant for me was the living history lesson my uncle and this bar taught me during only the last few months.





You see, it was only my final semester at Rutgers University where I really learned what the Stonewall Riots were and why they were so significant. Wanting to keep a difficult schedule in my last semester, I enrolled in a course entitled "Intersections of Sport and Sexuality", an advanced course that involved critically analyzing elements of sexuality, gender, race, and power in the institution of sports. Readings of scholars such as Michel Foucault and Susan Birrell were common. Part of our early coursework involved learning about the Stonewall Riots and reading newspaper articles about the incident. For those familiar with the riots, who can forget Jerry Lisker's article for the New York Daily Press entitled "Homo Nest Raided, Queen Bees Are Stinging Mad". The article is a quick read at only two or so pages long and the agenda of the author is clear, focusing more drag queens upset about their hair than the excessive force of the NYPD.

I learned a great deal about the conforming nature of the institution of sports and how to help shift society from a tolerance to acceptance to "we don't need to talk abut this stuff anymore" mindset. Fast forward to the third week in March where I enjoyed a nice spring break dinner with my uncles. I was excited to tell them of my enrollment in such a provocative and intellectually stimulating class, and of course I mentioned learning about the Stonewall Riots. The next thing my beloved uncle said left me surprised and inspired.

"I participated in the Stonewall Riots."

What ensued was a 15-minute highlight of my uncle's participation. Facing tough times at home, he let his adventurous side take over, scouting out the areas of Manhattan that were gay-friendly, or at least offered some safeguards against a vicious and backward society. My uncle, a mere 16 years old, joined a growing crowd outside the Stonewall Inn that fateful early Saturday morning in late June, 1969. His older friends told him to not get involved, fearful for the teenage boy's safety, but he wanted to stand united with the community he now was a member of. And so he remained, a boy thrust into a conflict between men, one 40 years later is still being fought.



And that is what is so meaningful for me about my uncle's participation in the landmark event of the Gay Rights movement. In the face of discrimination, violence, and perhaps even death, he had the courage to stand against hatred and bigotry at a time when in New York City it was illegal simply to serve alcohol to homosexuals. I doubt that any of the participants in the Stonewall Riots thought they were taking part in an event that would spearhead the Gay Rights movement; in reality, they had had enough of the abuse and just wanted to be left alone. Despite the Stonewall Riots being the decisive event for gay rights, what does it say about our educational system and subsequent educational moral imperative that it took a 400-level course at a high quality university for me to learn about the Stonewall Riots. In my high school Advanced Placement U.S. History class, the most we learned about Stonewall Riots was that it was important enough to be on the list of "Important Events" of the 1960s.

Forty years after Stonewall we have progressed a good deal as a society, at least in certain areas of the country. But we still have a long way to reach the critical social breakthrough, the definitive point where we don't have to have classes on intersections of sport and sexuality because our mindsets and actions have progressed to a level intolerant of intolerance.

A good start would be to implement some of the revelations I learned and embraced in my class - the notion that gender, gender identity, and sexual preference are not Boolean values, but rather dials on a spectrum; the usage of the institution of sport to maintain current cultural norms about gender and sexuality; and methods to break through the cyclical nature of sports as a defense of traditional cultural values - into a high school or even middle school curriculum. Maybe then we can reach our youth before their values and mindsets are close to or solidly irreversible.

I don't know exactly why my uncle calls his departed husband "The only living boy in New York"; that is their moments and memories, and they will remain that way. But a quick glance at the final verse can offer some idea to us outside their bonds of marriage:

Tom, get your plane right on time.
I know youve been eager to fly now.
Hey let your honesty shine, shine, shine
Da-n-da-da-n-da-da-n-da-da
Like it shines on me
The only living boy in new york,
The only living boy in new york.

So thus, let the memory of my uncle live forever. He was a loving husband, uncle, and friend to us all. And never forget that he was an unintentional curious and courageous boy living a part of history that too few of us know.

Rest in Peace, Dear Uncle.



Simon and Garfunkel - "The Only Living Boy in New York":

Pathway to Penn: Using Third-Party Websites to Aid in Your Search

In the last part of my "Pathway to Penn" series I talked about the steps to finding the right graduate program for you. Talking with your professors is a good way to get some information about programs, as is looking at some of the researchers you cite from in your lab's work. It is also essential to look at individual program websites to get a feel for what each respective program offers. You can often access statistics of an average accepted student, which can help you decide whether or not you should pursue an application. However, just like universities are active in recruiting the best faculty, they are also interested in recruiting the best graduate students. Therefore, you must acknowledge that programs will highlight their strengths and hide their weaknesses. This is why using reputable third-party websites can be very helpful in your graduate school search.

Two third-party websites that I have used in my search are College Confidential and The Grad Cafe.

Both websites have an immense amount of useful information, but they differ in focus somewhat. College Confidential caters to all students, not just prospective graduate/professional students. They have their own articles about how to get into an Ivy League school and how to best study for certain AP exams. As a side note, the website, while indeed having a wealth of valuable information, is pretty much targeted for and frequented by students who put the Ivy League on a pedestal, so if you browse a bit you should expect to see posts from students who claim their life is over because they didn't get into an Ivy. Such stories are fairly common and definitely overkill, but if you can get beyond this atmosphere on the site, I can promise that it will be worth visiting.

The discussion forums are the hotbed of
information for all of your questions.

If you head over to College Confidential, you should check out the discussion forums. This is where prospective and current students can ask and answer questions of all kinds. All professional programs are covered, including graduate, medical, law, business, and even veterinarian school. All you have to do to post you question is register an account. As you can see from the below image, the discussion forums are very active, so you should have no trouble getting an answer to your post.

Another third-party website I used for my graduate school search was The Grad Cafe. The Grad Cafe differs from College Confidential in that it specifically caters to graduate students. There are also discussion forums at The Grad Cafe, though they are not as active as the ones at College Confidential. The main reason I visited The Grad Cafe was their "Results Search" feature. The Grad Cafe allows users to submit interview/acceptance/waitlist/rejection decisions for schools, along with the method for notification and date received. This can be useful later on in the application process to better predict when you will receive word from the institutions you applied to. Like College Confidential's "What are my chances?" posts, this is not an exact science, but the "Results Search" section is generally a good measure of when you can expect a decision letter back.

The Grad Cafe caters specifically to prospective and current graduate students,
offering forums and a useful "Results Search" feature.

Overall, the benefit for using third-party websites in your graduate school search is to see an unfiltered perspective of your program from fellow applicants as well as current students. You can ask about some of the weaknesses of a program and receive an answer that would not be included in that program's website. Additionally, both sites I highlighted offer advice to help you prepare for your standardized entrance exams. While it's not guaranteed that you will be aided by using third-party websites, you should at least give these two a try.