According to Survey Over Half of American Workers Have Taken Data When Leaving Their Employers

This “daily chart” showing  “Over Half of American Workers Surveyed Have Taken Data When Leaving Their Employers | Employers Beware” (The Economist 2/24/2009) intrigued me for a couple of reasons. First, there is that “Gee, this is good cocktail party information” (not that I actually go to cocktail parties). But foremost is the all-white male line-up used in the photo to depict what seem to be disgruntled “departing employees.” Does this mean that only members of this demographics go home with company stuff ? Or is this some sexist and racist commentary on the make-up of the US workforce? Or were these the only people who showed up with a nice suit and briefcase for the photo-shoot? Or was this the best  stock photo their graphics department could buy within the budget? Or…

According to the The Economist,

IF YOU are losing your job, you might at least walk away with a competitive advantage. A survey for Symantec, an internet-security firm, suggests that some 60% of American workers who left their employers last year took some data with them. Respondents admitted that they had lifted anything from e-mail lists to customer information, with two-thirds of such workers using this stolen data in their new job. The most popular method of theft was taking hard-copy files (61%), while around half put data on an electronic-storage device such as a CD or USB stick. And it seems easy to do: 82% of departing employees said that no checks were carried out on what they had kept. Many also admitted to keeping electronic-storage devices given for their jobs, even PDAs and laptops.

Good News: Supreme Court Strips Gun-Ownership Rights From Those Convicted of Domestic Violence

Here is some good news for those of us who support gun-control laws in the interest of protecting public safety.  In the Los Angeles Times “Supreme Court Upholds Gun-Control Law” (2/25/2009) David G. Savage reported,

The Supreme Court upheld the broad reach of a federal gun-control law Tuesday and said that no one who has a conviction for any crime of domestic violence may own a firearm. The 7-2 decision strips gun rights from tens of thousands of people who were convicted or had pleaded guilty to an assault against a spouse, a live-in partner, a child or a parent. These crimes include not just felonies, but misdemeanors.

“Firearms and domestic strife are a potentially deadly combination nationwide,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said.

Gun-control advocates and law enforcement officials praised the ruling. On average, more than three people are killed each day by domestic partners, according to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. About 14% of police officers who are killed in the line of duty die in response to a domestic violence call, the group said.

Since 1996, federal authorities have turned down more than 175,000 prospective gun buyers because of domestic violence charges, according to the Brady Center. Most of them could have had their rights restored had the court ruled the other way. Tuesday’s ruling did not involve the 2nd Amendment and its right “to keep and bear arms.” Last year, the high court ruled that law-abiding citizens had a constitutional right to have a gun at home for self-defense, but it said felons could be denied gun rights.

In 1968, Congress made it illegal for felons to own a gun in the United States. Lawmakers in 1996 extended this ban to include those convicted of “a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.”

Until Tuesday, however, it had been unclear who is covered by this provision. Only about half the states have laws that make domestic violence a crime. Across the nation, prosecutors often charge offenders with an assault or battery. Two years ago, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the federal gun ban did not extend to state charges involving assault or battery. Randy Hayes, a West Virginia man, had challenged the federal law after he was convicted of illegal gun possession. He was found with three guns in his house in 2004. Ten years earlier, he had pleaded guilty to misdemeanor battery against his then-wife. Ruling for Hayes, the appeals court said this “generic battery” conviction did not count as a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,” and it freed him from the federal charges.

The Supreme Court overturned that ruling Tuesday in United States vs. Hayes and restored the broad view of the federal law. Ginsburg’s opinion said the ban on gun ownership extends to any person who has been convicted of any crime involving “physical force or the threatened use of a deadly weapon,” so long as there was a “domestic relationship” between the perpetrator and the victim. Congress sought to keep “firearms out of the hands of domestic abusers,” she said, but the law would be a “dead letter” in much of the nation if it were read as narrowly as Hayes sought.

Only Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Antonin Scalia dissented. They focused on the precise words of the law and said it should be applied narrowly. […]

Something to Emulate, a Politician Making a Stand Against the Death Penalty

Even before the recently filed bankruptcy, our local newspaper The Philadelphia Inquirer has been steadily shrinking into a news-service reprint bulletin at the expense of original reporting. Luckily,  in addition to the daily comics, once in a while worthwhile pieces do appear. Here is “Editorial:  The Death Penalty—Principles First” (2/24/2009), which succinctly and pointedly argues for the Pennsylvania governor to follow in the footsteps of Maryland’s governor in working towards abolishing the death penalty.

Too few politicians today are willing to act in accordance with their conscience when doing so might risk their careers. Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley is doing that, though, with his push to abolish the death penalty in his state. O’Malley faces a tough fight, but his cause is just. The majority of Maryland residents support capital punishment. The General Assembly in Annapolis remains divided over the issue. By forcing lawmakers to take a stand on the death penalty, O’Malley risks rankling lawmakers he may need for other legislative battles.

A Catholic long opposed to the death penalty, O’Malley believes it isn’t a fair punishment, nor is it an effective deterrent. More broadly, DNA testing has proved that wrongly convicted people have been sentenced to death. There have been 232 post-conviction DNA exonerations nationally since 1989, including 17 involving inmates who served time on death row. The risk of putting an innocent person to death is too heavy a burden to take, O’Malley says. In addition, he argues, the death penalty is more expensive than keeping an inmate in prison for life. O’Malley cites research that shows Maryland has spent $22.4 million more to house inmates on death row than it would have if they had been sentenced to life in prison.

Maryland has executed five people since it reinstated the death penalty in 1978. Five inmates are now on the state’s death row. But the state has had a de facto moratorium on executions, since its highest court ruled in 2006 that Maryland’s procedure for lethal injection had not been properly adopted.

In 2007, New Jersey became the first state to abolish the death penalty legislatively since 1965. A report by the New Jersey Death Penalty Study Commission concluded that the penalty did not meet evolving standards of decency and that the state could give no guarantee that an innocent person would not be executed. Gov. Corzine signed the measure “with pride.”

Worldwide, 137 countries have abolished the death penalty, including Argentina, Chile, and Uzbekistan in 2008, according to Amnesty International. Meanwhile, the list of countries that still execute citizens reads mainly like a list of rogue states, including Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. The United States has executed more than 1,000 people since the Supreme Court reauthorized the death penalty in 1976.

With New Jersey taking the lead to abolish the death penalty, and O’Malley taking up the cause in Maryland, perhaps Gov. Rendell will be inspired to put Pennsylvania in the good company of his more progressive neighbors.

How Will the Obama Administration Handle Gun Control Issues?

Putting the spotlight back on a favorite topic, I just had to post The New York Times editorial “Two Early Tests on Guns” (2/19/2009). The editorial critiques the Obama administration decision to “defend a bad rule […] that allows concealed, loaded firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges.” This rule was pushed through during Bush’s last few days in office. The NYT rightly calls the rule “[…] a gift to the gun lobby.” Here is the rest of the editorial,

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has asked for a 90-day internal assessment of the rule’s environmental impacts, offering some hope that the administration might later reverse an unwise policy. But for now, the administration’s operating position is contained in a Justice Department brief filed last Friday. It seeks to block a preliminary injunction of the rule sought by gun control and environmental groups.

Although concealed, loaded weapons obviously have no place in the national parks, the Justice Department brief asserts that the rule “will not have any significant impacts on public health and safety.” We can only hope that the Justice Department’s position does not reflect a broader weakening of President Obama’s stated commitment to sensible gun control policies.

Another early test of that commitment is coming soon. It involves the so-called Tiahrt Amendment, which is strongly supported by the gun lobby. The amendment denies police and local governments access to essential information about guns used to commit crimes. The question is whether Mr. Obama’s forthcoming budget blueprint will include language aiming to repeal it.

Mr. Obama is well aware of its pernicious effects. As a senator, he sponsored legislation supported by Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City and a coalition of more than 30 national and state law enforcement organizations to remove the amendment’s restrictions on access to crime gun tracing data. His White House Web site calls for the rule’s repeal.

There is a good chance that the rollback of the Tiahrt Amendment could finally be achieved this year. The issue has nothing to do with the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms and everything to do with public safety. The only real purpose served by the Tiahrt restrictions is to protect shady gun dealers and gun traffickers from detection, arrest and punishment.

Much depends on the new president’s willingness to risk offending gun extremists by submitting a budget plan that includes language explicitly repealing this unfortunate and unproductive amendment. Mr. Obama should not back down.

Now, why would all those law-abiding citizens who own legitimately purchased guns be opposed to regulations allowing law enforcement agencies to obtain information on weapons used to commit crimes?

I hope that the needs of public safety do not get squashed (again) by the ever-powerful gun lobby, that deviously hides behind the vaguely voluminous skirts of the Second Amendment—distracting politicians from serving the real needs of society.

Keen Observations on the Experience of Physical Therapy

As someone who benefited from physical therapy several months ago, I was struck by “Cases – Physical Therapy and the Camaraderie of Healing,”  written by Caitlin Kelly (The New York Times 2/16/2009).  It’s a meditation on the experience of physical therapy that includes a well-deserved ode to physical therapists. Kelly writes,

[…] Physical therapy, or P.T., demands the month-after-month tedium of spending hours in a room filled with strangers stretching colored rubber bands or spinning their arms in circles. The rituals are oddly and intimately public. Patients of every age, race and income level share a large, sunny room. We do our leg-raises side by side on wide beds. We wait in line for the pulley, the elliptical and the arm bike. We learn a new language and its tools: the strap, the stick, shrugs and pinches.

Everyone ends up in P.T. — lithe teenage athletes, construction workers and police officers with job-related strains, C.E.O.’s with skiing injuries, older people with replaced knees and hips. I’ve commiserated there with an Episcopal minister, an Ivy League economics professor and a firefighter.

The rituals become routine, starting with a heating pad and nerve stimulation, ending with the soothing benediction of a black rubber ice pack. We learn to bend our lives around the inexorable, unfashionable truth — healing takes work and it takes time.

Camaraderie grows as patients compare notes on the frustration of needing help for tasks as simple as pulling up your trousers or opening a can of soup. Women commiserate with the new knowledge that a bra strap can pinch a healing shoulder like steel cable. Struggling to complete even the simplest of tasks in a room full of fellow adults is humbling. When I see someone’s jaw clench with effort, I remember that lifting a one-pound weight can be tough.

I never expected to forge a multiyear relationship with my physical therapists, but I have. I like Helen and Matt and Stephanie and Richard. Really. I just hope I never see them again. I don’t envy them their job, stretching and shaking and manipulating our joints to loosen them and keep them flexible. It has left me gasping in pain, sometimes even tears. I can’t imagine having to intentionally inflict pain, but that, one quickly learns, is an inevitable part of healing.

It must be difficult for our physical therapists to cheer us on for what are, in other circumstances, a toddler’s proud achievements — when we have regained the ability to tie our shoelaces or walk steadily across a room or throw a ball.

There is an upside. Because we see them so frequently for months, we get to know our physical therapists, and they us, in ways we’ll never know our doctors. We learn where they live and go on vacation, who has a new puppy, whose husband changed careers.

It’s not an intimacy we would choose. But, shoved out of our private, busy lives, whether reluctantly or gratefully, we fall into their strong, skilled, waiting hands.

The Top 5 Worst U.S. Presidents

Since lists are always a popular item, I am posting this pretty reasonable one from the “Presidential Tenures: the Bad and the Worst” commentary by John Hinshaw and Chris J. Dolan, published in The Philadelphia Inquirer (2/16/2009). It seems a fitting way to celebrate President’s day, when we celebrate George Washington and Abraham Lincoln—two presidents who are as far away from this list as possible.

1. James Buchanan (1857-61)—The only president to hail from Pennsylvania should, unfortunately, rank as America’s worst. Buchanan was a tool for pro-slavery Southern secessionists. His anti-Union policies put the country in a downward spiral toward the Civil War, the deadliest war in U.S. history.

2. George W. Bush (2001-09)—Since he did not plunge us into civil war, Bush fell short of the No. 1 spot. But he did wreak havoc on our nation and its global reputation. The lowlights included suppression of science, torture, domestic spying, Katrina, unprecedented deficits and debt, corporate scandals, the Valerie Plame case, and the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq. Bush’s foreign misadventures were costly in their own right, and they also meant ignoring other pressing problems abroad. He did more damage to U.S. power than any other individual in the last 100 years.

3. Andrew Johnson (1865-69)—Johnson assumed the presidency after the assassination of probably our nation’s greatest president, Abraham Lincoln. His sympathy for racists and former Confederates, as well as his undermining of Reconstruction, led to the rise of Jim Crow segregation. If Reconstruction had not been bungled, there may not have been a century of racial terror in the South, necessitating the civil rights movement.

4. Richard Nixon (1969-74)—Nixon could have been one of our greatest presidents. He accomplished lasting achievements on civil rights, the environment, health, and protections for women and the poor. He also opened diplomatic relations with communist China. But he escalated the war in Vietnam by secretly invading Cambodia. And he ordered his operatives to break into Democratic headquarters and then cover up the crime. The Watergate scandal’s damage to the U.S. political system has been far-reaching and devastating, making generations of Americans more cynical about government.

5. James Madison (1809-17)—The principal author of the Constitution will forever be known as one of our worst chief executives. As president, Madison launched an ill-conceived preemptive war against superior British forces in Canada, which almost destroyed the nation. The War of 1812 is discussed little in the United States, but it gets more attention in Canadian history books. Given the U.S. preference for the inevitability of Manifest Destiny and the exceptionalism of the Monroe Doctrine, it is little wonder why.

Hinshaw and Dolan conclude,

One striking feature of our list is that military missteps loom large. Presidents who were merely corrupt, inept, or responsible for driving the economy into a ditch did not warrant mention. Perhaps that’s because the foreign-policy disasters involve avoidable deaths, or because the Iraq misadventure looms so large today. But given the scale of the social and economic problems confronting the United States, it’s possible that Bush will be remembered not for Iraq or the war on terror, but for his gross incompetence and facilitation of U.S. economic decline.

What Astronomy Can Teach About “Much-Needed Human Humility”

Here is a striking philosophical observation marking the 400th anniversary of Galileo’s discovery that earth is indeed not the center of the universe. Astrophysicist Jeffrey Bennett shares his opinion, “Astronomy Can Teach Us Much-Needed Humility” published in The Philadelphia Inquirer (2/15/2009). Bennett says,

[…] astronomy is not just about science, and Galileo’s revolution was not just about knowing Earth’s physical place in the universe. It also was about human perspective – our cosmic perspective – and about how we should understand our place and purpose in the universe.

One need not be religious to see that a cosmic perspective gives some universal meaning to our lives. We may be only a tiny part of a vast universe, but we are here, and, as a species, we have accomplished great things. We have created staggeringly beautiful works of art and music, we have performed acts of love and generosity that make even the most cynical among us quake with emotion, and we have developed mathematics and science that have enabled us to learn our place in the universe.

These are achievements of consequence. But the cosmic perspective also should teach us some humility, because the central lesson of Galileo’s discoveries is that we humans are no more central to the universe than our planet or star. Future generations and alien civilizations may enjoy our human creations, but no one will come running to our rescue if we choose to destroy rather than to create.

Sadly, this lesson in humility seems not to have taken hold. Emotionally and behaviorally, our species still acts as though the whole of creation somehow revolves around each of us personally. How else can we explain tyrants and dictators? Or religious fanatics who believe that their God wants them to kill those who think differently? And before you let yourself off the hook, ask yourself if you don’t at least sometimes think that those who are poorer, sicker or otherwise less fortunate than you are also somehow a bit less central to the universe than you are.

As we think about science during the International Year of Astronomy, let’s also show that we can finally absorb the lesson that we are not the center of the universe. This year, try extending a little more kindness to your fellow human beings, in recognition that we are all equally important. Try to demonstrate an understanding of the fact that we all share the same small planet by taking better care of it. And perhaps most important, especially as we confront a time of crisis both for the economy and for international peace and security, remember that we must create our own legacy.

Galileo once said, “You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself.” In this 400th-anniversary year of Galileo’s greatest discoveries, let’s hope that we can finally find their meaning within ourselves.

It’s a beautiful message. The world would be a much better place for all of us if more people understood this.

The Irony of Banning Books to Oppose a Totalitarian Government

What caught my eye today as I perused various news sources is the sad irony of the book-banning episode that is the focus of The New York Times (2/10/2009) editorial, “Banning Books in Miami.” I think the editorial describes it best.

Schools are supposed to introduce children to a variety of ideas and viewpoints, but the Miami-Dade School Board decided a few years ago to put one viewpoint off limits. It banned the children’s book “A Visit to Cuba” from its school libraries because it said the book offers too positive a portrait of life under the Castro regime. That was bad enough, but then last week, a federal appeals court upheld the ban. The Supreme Court should reverse this disturbing ruling.

“A Visit to Cuba” and its Spanish edition, “Vamos a Cuba,” are part of a series of books for children ages 4 to 8 that introduces them to the geography, customs and daily life of different countries. The Miami-Dade County Public School District had 49 copies in its elementary and middle schools.

The father of an elementary-school student, complaining that the portrait of Cuba in the book was inaccurate, petitioned to have “A Visit to Cuba” pulled. The school superintendent denied the petition, but the school board overruled him. The board said it was acting because of inaccuracies and omissions in the book, but Miami’s strong anti-Castro political sentiment was undeniably a factor.

The American Civil Liberties Union sued and argued that pulling the book violated the First Amendment. The Federal District Court sided with the A.C.L.U. and ordered the school district to keep “A Visit to Cuba” available. But on appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta reversed and upheld the school board’s decision.

The appellate court’s ruling is a disturbing case of a federal appeals court upholding censorship. It is clear, as the lower court concluded, that the school board pulled “A Visit to Cuba” because of its viewpoint, not for any sound educational reason. The district court rightly rejected the board’s claim that it was concerned about inaccuracies and omissions in the book. Many books have minor inaccuracies. And the omissions in “A Visit to Cuba” were appropriate in a book written for such a young audience.

The Supreme Court should not let this ruling stand. School boards have some discretion about what books to place in school libraries. The First Amendment does not, however, allow them to suppress political viewpoints.

The Miami-Dade School Board’s decision is not only unconstitutional, it is counterproductive. If the board wants to oppose the totalitarianism of the Castro regime, banning books is an odd way to go about it.

Public Acceptance of Evolution in the U.S. Is Dismally Low Compared With Other Countries

Here is an interesting graph from the brief report, “Untouched by the Hand of God” published in The Economist (2/5/2009), showing how people in various countries view the theory of evolution. Look who is nearly at the bottom of the list. Too bad there are no data from Canada, Asia, Africa, Central and South America, Australia, and New Zealand.

Year of Evolution: Philadelphia Celebrates Darwin’s 200th Birthday

In their “Year of Evolution Is Positive Step for Philadelphia” Opinion, published in The Philadelphia Inquirer (2/6/2009), Howard Goldfine and Michael Weisberg (both professors at the University of Pennsylvania) raise many good points about the ongoing debate (in certain circles) regarding the place of evolution in the public school curriculum. The time is now to recognize the need to keep religion out of the teaching of science in public schools.

Goldfine and Weisberg said,

In his inaugural speech, President Obama challenged us to “restore science to its rightful place” in our schools and public policy. In the same week, the Texas state school board had yet another discussion about teaching the “strengths and weaknesses” of the theory of evolution – a euphemism for introducing creationist views into biology classes.

The time has come for our country to decide: Will we continue to refight debates settled in the 19th and early 20th centuries? Or will we look to science and technology to help us solve the problems of the 21st century?

Philadelphia has chosen to look forward. This year, educational and cultural organizations in our city have come together to celebrate a Year of Evolution occasioned by Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday, which is next week. Darwin was a brilliant naturalist, gifted writer and profound thinker. He discovered that all life has a common origin, new species evolve over unimaginably long periods of time, and natural selection drives these changes, making organisms better suited to their environments.

Philadelphia is celebrating not just the man, but also his ideas. Evolution is central to both our scientific and quotidian views of ourselves and our world. It is the cornerstone of modern biology, helping us understand where we came from, where we’re going, and the challenges we will meet along the way.

HIV, genetic diseases and antibiotic resistance, to take just three examples, are all illuminated by evolutionary science. The human immunodeficiency virus was a medical mystery less than 20 years ago. Now, researchers have a clearer understanding of the virus that causes AIDS, largely due to careful observations of the evolution of the virus in patients. Frequent mutations of HIV – evolution in action – let it stay one step ahead of the human immune system. Yet evolutionary theory also provided hope: Once scientists understood that this rapid evolution rendered any single drug ineffective, they developed a highly effective triple-drug therapy.

Sickle-cell anemia and its concentration in people of African descent also has an evolutionary explanation. While potentially lethal, the sickle-cell genetic mutation also protects against malaria, which is endemic in sub-Saharan Africa. So evolution has increased the incidence of the sickle-cell mutation despite its unfortunate side effect.

Evolutionary considerations also urge caution about the overuse of antibiotics in medications and cleaning products. Like all life forms, individual bacteria vary slightly from one another. A small number even have the natural ability to resist antibiotics. When antibiotics destroy the bacteria that are sensitive to them, resistant strains quickly reproduce, potentially creating serious medical crises. Today we are seeing the evolution of tuberculosis strains that are resistant to drugs commonly used to treat the disease. The cause of this crisis is evolutionary – and so, no doubt, is the solution.

These examples show evolution’s centrality to some of our greatest scientific challenges. Every day brings new ones, and confronting them requires restoring science to its rightful place. That will happen only with an informed, engaged citizenry that understands the role of science in our future. We applaud Philadelphia – long a national leader in the scientific and medical sectors – for leading the way.