taking a bite out of crime

almost forty years ago, sonnet ehlers, a then 20-year old medical researcher, met a devastated rape victim who looked at her and said "if only I had teeth down there." ehlers promised that one day she would do something to help victims like her...and today she has made good on that promise: rape-aXe.

according to cnn.com, this female latex condom, which is inserted like a tampon and has jagged rows of teeth-like hooks inside to attach on to a man's penis during penetration, can only be removed by a doctor once it lodges on. ideally authorities will be on hand to make an arrest at that time. ehlers, who sold her house and car to launch the project, plans on distributing 30,000 free devices during the world cup in south africa. taking drastic measures to prevent rape is nothing new to women of south africa, which has one of the highest rape rates in the world. some women have gone so far as to insert razor blades wrapped in sponges in their private parts.

a man who finds himself on the receiving end of a rape-aXe (which was designed with the consultation of engineers, gynecologists and psychologists to make sure it was safe) will find himself in, what one can only assume will be, at the least, discomfort. according to ehlers: "it hurts, he cannot pee and walk when it's on...if he tries to remove it, it will clasp even tighter... however, it doesn't break the skin and there's no danger of fluid exposure."

ehler, a mother of two daughters, said blind dates and traveling in areas a women may not feel comfortable, are examples of times to wear the rape-aXe. she visited prisons to speak with convicted rapists who, according to her, said a device like rape-aXe may have made them rethink their actions. after the trial period at the world cup, rape-aXe will be available for about $2 a piece.

not everyone is sold on this product. some critics say it's not a "a long-term solution and makes women vulnerable to more violence from men trapped by the device." victoria kajja, from the centers for disease control and prevention in uganda, said it is a form of "enslavement" that reminds women of their vulnerability. "the fears surrounding the victim, the act of wearing the condom in anticipation of being assaulted all represent enslavement that no woman should be subjected to." she does say however that "it allows justice to be served."

my point, and i do have one...is, i don't think this device reminds a woman of their vulnerability anymore than when she puts mace in her pocketbook. sure, in an ideal world, people wouldn't need to worry about being sexually assaulted, however, we live in the real world, so if this is what some women need to feel safe and secure, more power to them. i wonder how long it will be before we see this item on law & order svu? what's your point?

good god...seriously?

if you are redeeming yourself from a thieving past, have a potty mouth, a bad attitude and are catholic, today is your lucky day!

that's right, the movie the blues brothers was officially sanctioned by the catholic church this week, with the vatican's official newspaper calling it a "catholic classic" and recommending it for catholics everywhere.

the movie, which celebrates it's 30th anniversary this year, is about two blues performers (john belushi and dan ackroyd) from a catholic orphanage who grew up to a wild life of crime (the characters started as a skit on snl). throughout the film the lead characters repeatedly say that they are on a "mission from god" to save the orphanage. (for those keeping score, another notable religious reference from the movie includes: "jesus h. tap-dancing christ! i have seen the light!") the official vatican newspaper l'osservatore romano devoted no fewer than five articles to the blues brothers, anointing it as a film with a catholic message.

it is worth noting that the church did not always find this movie to be quite so pious. in a review of the movie 30 years ago by the united states conference of catholic bishops, they referred to it as having "rough language and crude situations" as well as saying that certain scenes were "spectacularly unfunny and uninvolving."

there are some in the church that take issue with this recent cinematic endorsement saying that by increasing their use of pop references, l'osservatore romano is trivializing the vatican. a web-columnist for the national catholic register says they should instead be "devoting its pages to more spiritual and lofty matters related to the faith."

the blues brothers now joins the ranks of other vatican-endorsed films such as the ten commandments, jesus of nazareth, and it's a wonderful life.

my point, and i do have one...is that the catholic church never ceases to amaze me! drinking, debauchery and violence is a "catholic message?" no wonder they are dragging their feet when it comes to abuse within the church! additionally, when did the vatican become the siskel and ebert of religion? ("i give this movie three crosses" or "the maker of this movie need to say ten hail marys and ask for forgiveness.") what's your point?

to tweet or not to tweet, that is the question

phil corbett, the latest standards editor at the new york times, issued a memo to staff asking writers to abstain from using the word "tweet."

while acknowledging that new words are created all the time for our ever-growing technology, he noted that not everyone uses twitter and therefore may not be familiar with what a "tweet" is. he said it isn't standard english, "and standard english is what we should use in news articles." he went on to say that the new york times doesn't "want to seem paleolithic and favors established usage and ordinary words over the latest jargon or buzzwords." (ok - quick show of hands…how many of you reading my blog, excluding my mom, know what "tweet" means, but need to look up what paleolithic means? mom - we all know you know what they both mean :) click here for an article highlighting the top words nytimes.com readers looked up in the last year using the site's online dictionary tool).

but i digress, corbett went on to say that should the new york times choose to make an exception to the no "tweet' rule, it will be for special effect. he said: "we try to avoid colloquialisms, neologisms and jargon. and “tweet” — as a noun or a verb, referring to messages on twitter — is all three. yet it has appeared 18 times in articles in the past month, in a range of sections...but let's look for deft, english alternatives: use twitter, post to or on twitter, write on twitter, a twitter message, a twitter update. or, once you've established that twitter is the medium, simply use 'say' or 'write."

my point, and i do have one...is with this story being in the news, and the new york times being a newspaper, how are they going to be able to report that they have stopped using the word "tweet" without using the word "tweet?"(deep thoughts). what's your point?

i've thought this was (pea)nuts for years!

the department of transportation is considering a ban of all peanut products served on planes. the prevalence and the potentially deadly consequences of severe peanut allergies have prompted them to consider this under the agency’s disability rule.

peanut allergies can be more serious than many of us realize, especially for children. while not all peanut allergies are serious enough to keep a sufferer off airplanes, when airlines serve peanuts on board as an in-flight snack, severe allergy sufferers may not even have to eat the peanuts to have a reaction. for these travelers, including many children, just the presence of peanut particles in the air can bring on a life-threatening allergic reaction. the dot believes that a severe peanut allergy counts as a disability and federal law prohibits air carriers from discriminating against individuals with a disability, so they are left wondering whether it should require specific steps for handling severe peanut allergies and what those steps should be.

congress has given the dot mixed signals on this issue over the years. the air carrier access act prohibits discrimination against those with disabilities by u.s. and foreign air carriers and requires airlines to accommodate travelers with disabilities unless doing this would cause an “undue burden” or require the airline to “fundamentally alter its services”. but in 1999, when the dot informed airlines that this applied to peanut allergies, congress withdrew dot funding for any restrictions on airline peanut practices. this ban lasted only one year, congress hasn’t re-imposed it since.

so what options are the dot considering? here are three:

* an outright ban on airlines serving peanuts and peanut products
* banning service of peanuts and peanut products only on a flight where a passenger with a peanut allergy requests a peanut-free flight in advance
* requiring the airline to provide a peanut-free buffer zone around a passenger with a medically-documented severe peanut allergy if the passenger makes a request in advance

my thought, and i do have one...is how did it take so long for this to become an issue? i am sure that the peanut lobby is doing what they can to make sure they keep their spot on planes, but i have to tell you i think it's just nuts! people with peanut allergies can have quick, violent and sometimes deadly reactions when coming near a peanut, so much so that stores that serve food (like my folk's store) and restaurant menus have to indicate when peanuts or peanut remnants can be found in their food. now, i do think that people who have allergies have to take extra steps to ensure their own safety, but i have always thought it was silly to introduce a known, common allergen, like peanuts, into a confined space! you would think that the airlines would think so too, if for no no other reason than to cover themselves. what is your point?

shoplifter steals the heart of shopkeeper

a curly-haired seven year-old was in the trendy williamsburg boutique catbird when he saw a locket in a candy dish he thought it would make a perfect mother's day gift, so he took it and brought it home. (happy mother's day!) when his family realized that the gift was as hot as it was heartfelt they made the boy bring it back, which he did along with a note:

"dear catbird people. sorry I took the locket. my sister said what is a good mother's day gift? that day i thought that the locket would be a great present, so i picked one and i didn't know they cost anything so i put it in my pocket."

staffers said the youngster handed over the $15 locket when he came in with his dad, who nudged him toward the sales counter where, standing three-feet tall and a little teary-eyed, he told the clerk "i have something for you." the store clerk said : "thank you for doing the right thing."

according to the store's blog (where they posted the apology letter) they won't be pressing charges. "sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words. or, at least the cost of a $15 locket," they wrote. "have you seen anything sweeter?" the owner said that indeed the necklace was in a candy dish on a table and the kid could have mistaken for something free. additionally, he feels that this is a valuable experience the boy won't soon forget.

the neighborhood has had some recent issues of shoplifting and some co-workers at the boutique hope that their forgiving nature will not come back to haunt them. "we do have some shoplifting in here, but it's usually adults. it's not a major issue...but after people find out about this, every shoplifter in the city is going to come to the store because we are so lenient."

my point, and i do have one...is, i think that this scenario showed the best in all involved. the boy for wanting to do something nice for his mom, the parents for first identifying that the gift was stolen and then making him bring it back, the store owner for keeping it all in perspective and not pressing charges and then, hopefully in the end, the boy learning a valuable lesson. (that all being said, dude...you totally threw your sister under the bus in that note, like if she didn't make you think about what a good gift was you wouldn't have stolen it - ha!) what is your point?

criminally delicious

there is nothing i like more than sanctioned competitions in prisons that involve knives!

that's right riker's island hosted a cook-off (a-la bravo's "top chef") between teams of incarcerated inmates between the ages of 16 and 21. (a separate evening program also teaches kitchen techniques to women over 21). the competition was an opportunity to showcase the cultivated culinary prowess acquired from a behind-the-bars cooking program called island academy. the 60 girls who attended have been locked up for drug offenses, according to department of education. mark sauerhoff, who has taught at island academy for the last 11 years, says its main goal is to "change these kids' lives -- not just to teach them cooking."

and what do our julia childs' of cell block c think of the experience? students said that the class has taught them invaluable lessons about patience and teamwork. nineteen-year old aisha (who is set for release tomorrow after an eight-month incarceration from what she says stemmed from a fistfight) told the new york post "[the program] changed my attitude and my perspective on life." her first order of business come monday? to get a state-issued id card and then on tuesday, enroll in a cooking program at manhattan's co-op tech. "when i went to court [for sentencing] they called me a 'menace to society...now if i went in, they wouldn't feel the same, because i'm not a bad person."

but what about the food? harlem restaurant owner and judge melba wilson praised the entrees of sautéed tilapia with lemon caper sauce versus barbecued salmon with ginger cole slaw. ultimately it was ruled a tie! (come on, would YOU want to tell a bunch of inmates they lost?)

my point, and i do have one is...i have no idea what the cost implications of this kind of a program is, but i think it is good to teach people who may have aggression issues to channel their energies into something positive. that being said, should these prisoners find their way down an even more violent path once they get out, their trained knife skills should make it easier to identify their work later on. what is your point?

how do i love the stupidity of some union contracts, let me count the ways....

during a nyc mass transit authority committee meeting the other day, it was discussed that when a bus driver is assaulted they get an average of two months off to recover. on the surface this may seem reasonable, but it was also revealed that their contract defines an "assault" broadly enough to include...wait for it...getting spit on.

that's right, last year the 51 bus operators who reported they were spit on each got to take an average of 64 days off. it was suggested that, while some were genuinely traumatized, the mta thought perhaps, some may have been abusing the leave time policy. (ummmm, ya think?) the committee said they will be looking into changing the definition of "assault."

in fairness, it is worth noting that 1,500 drivers were assaulted last year in various ways, including being punched and some of those assault victims used no sick time at all. my point, and i do have one...is those who are legitimately assaulted should, of course take the time they need to recover, the others are just insulting their colleagues's pain and suffering. what's your point?