"It had a very sinister appearance. It had a battery behind it, and wires."

What else is there to say about yesterday's marketing gimmick gone awry in Boston except that city and state officials should be deeply embarassed? Bruce Schneier has a good post covering the madness. He also points to a story in the Boston Globe where:

Of the 2,449 inspections between Oct. 10 and Dec. 31, the bags of 27 riders tested positive in the initial screening for explosives, prompting further searches, the Globe found in an analysis of daily inspection reports obtained under the state's Freedom of Information Act.

In the additional screening, 11 passengers had their bags checked by explosive-sniffing dogs, and 16 underwent a physical search. Nothing was found.

Still, MBTA officials said the searches have been effective at thwarting potential terrorists and have been supported by passengers.

How in the hell can you determine their effectiveness if you haven't caught anyone? To crudely gauge the veracity of the latter statement, there is a poorly-constructed electronic poll:

Should the MBTA continue its random bag searches?
Yes: the random searches serve as a deterrent to future terrorist attacks.
No: the searches are a violation of privacy.

Not offered was the option "No: the searches are completely useless."

There was at least one bright spot in the story:

...records show that six riders refused to have their bags inspected and were asked to leave the stations. All complied, but some not without some harsh words, according to the inspection reports.

". . . a board game by two idiots in North America"

Intelligent Design vs. Evolution Boardgame

Who are the fat police?

Rogier van Bakel can predict the future:

Two months ago, I wrote about Britons being hauled into court on animal-abuse charges — for having pets that the authorities deemed too fat. I concluded, "The first child-abuse lawsuit against parents for having a fat child is surely just around the corner."

From The Times:

Social workers are placing obese children on the child protection register alongside victims thought to be at risk of sexual or physical abuse.

In extreme cases children have been placed in foster care because their parents have contributed to the health problems of their offspring by failing to respond to medical advice.

The intervention of social services in what was previously regarded as a private matter is likely to raise concerns about the emergence of the “fat police”.

Some doctors even advocate taking legal action against parents for illtreating their children by feeding them so much that they develop health problems.

[...]

Earlier this month two brothers were convicted of causing unnecessary suffering by letting their dog become obese. The labrador, Rusty, was 11 stone, more than double the weight he should have been, and could hardly stand. “We wonder whether the same charge should be applicable to the parents of dangerously obese children,” said Dr Tom Solomon, a neurologist at Royal Liverpool University hospital.

“I think it should be considered. It depends on the parents’ attitude. If the parents say there is nothing they can do because their child only likes to eat chips and biscuits then perhaps it might be worth the state intervening.

“The state intervenes with schooling. Parents who do not send their children to school are prosecuted eventually. To be badly educated is not dangerous but we are making our children diabetic, and even killing our children by our feeding habits.”

Tam Fry, chairman of the Child Growth Foundation, a charity that fights childhood obesity, agreed. “It should be a punishable offence,” he said.

“Very obese children are taking up NHS resources that should be used for legitimate purposes. Parents have got to be held accountable for overfeeding their children or letting their children become fat without taking action.”

Defense of atheism from The Great White North

Colby Cosh on RichardDawkins.net:

If it's true that some form of religious faith is positively required for a satisfactory human life, then there is no need to oppose Richard Dawkins at all; any minute now, the professor is bound to see through the miserable shallowness of being a bestselling author, holding a chair at the world's greatest university, and enjoying marital bliss with a beautiful television actress. In the meantime we are confronted with the spectacle of Dawkins and thousands of other unabashed atheists going about their business without becoming deranged by existential nausea. On the evidence, they seem to become more common, not less, as one ascends the ladders of income, education, or cognitive ability. Nothing much visibly distinguishes their behaviour or fate except a notable tendency toward smugness.