So here’s our latest “what the [ ] were they thinking?” news item.

It starts with this.  If you steal someone’s web site, try changing something … like maybe the words or the pictures.

Something more than the address and the name of the company.

Oh, and if you insist on copying a web site and relabeling everything as your own, please DO NOT do this to a law firm.  You might get sued.

This is the story of John Doe and a British law firm Maslin Associates.  Seems they needed a web site.  So they looked around, and copied the web site of Palm Beach law firm Gordon & Doner, a Palm Beach law firm.

According to the story in Law.com:

Highlights of a Palm Beach Gardens law firm’s Web site were bizarrely copied by someone posing as a British law firm while using the same text, design, logo and even photographs of the Florida attorneys.  Gordon & Doner, a personal injury firm, sued GoDaddy.com, the Web host for the copied site, and the unknown copier as John Doe after an attorney at the firm did a Google search for his own name and stumbled on maslinassociates.com, purportedly the site of a firm in Manchester, England.  Names were changed on the copy, and minor tweaks were inserted in the text to take out a home page reference to West Palm Beach and change dollars to pounds. But everything — from a list of Gordon & Doner’s courtroom victories to photos of staffers participating in a charity run — were copies of the Gordon & Doner site fortheinjured.com.

“It’s really strange,” said Adam Doner, whose photo appeared on the copied site and was identified as Evans Maslin.

According to the law firm, GoDaddy.com was cooperating … “after we sued them.”

Hell hath no fury than a lawyer with cause.  According to a report in LegalMatch:

The law firm’s request for an injunction and damages from the defendants includes “a report detailing all of their activities in connection with the creation, revisions to, registration and hosting of the offending Web site, remedial advertising, actual damage, attorney fees, costs and punitive damages.”  Translation: they want anything and everything they can plead!

Well, the Russians have no intention of just kicking back and waiting to get hit – like they did in 1908 when the Tunguska meteorite landed in Siberia and knocked over about 80 million trees (fortunately, there are many parts of Russia that can sustain a hit of that magnitude without any loss of life).   No, the Russians have already begun planning a mission to deflect Apophis and steer it safely away from Earth…if necessary.

It’s not all that likely to be necessary, though.  While scientists once thought Apophis had a 2.7% chance of hitting earth on its first pass in 2029, they have since determined that it will miss by a comfortable 18,000 miles.  But Apophis appears to be a determined little asteroid and will take another shot at Earth in 2032 and, again, in 2068.  On its second pass, the odds of it hitting Earth are approximately 1-in-250,000 and on its third pass 1-in-333,000.

But the Russians are taking no chances.  They are exploring a variety of plans – to be developed over the next two decades – to avert this potential disaster.  One calls for landing a spacecraft on the asteroid and steering it away from Earth.  Another would involve striking it with missiles to alter its course.  A third would use satellites exerting gravitational pull to change Apophis’ orbit.

Last we checked, Russia had other more immediate problems – like a faltering economy, a revolt in Chechnya, official corruption, and a Prime minister who thinks he’s still President.  But their determination to not leave their fate to chance is instructive for other nations.  As we develop greater and greater capability to achieve astonishing feats of science and technology, will we feel compelled to do so?  Even if the threat is only 1-in-333,000, will we feel that it is irresponsible not to spend a couple billion dollars to insure against it?

Russia is optimistic that it will be able to enlist the support of the United States, China, and other nations in this endeavor.  Put us down as skeptical.

For example, here is what he told NPR on  December 29^th:

“A couple of years ago we began the process of testing them to see, first of all, if they worked and second, if they could be deployed without unduly restricting the flow of traffic. And the good news is that we were able to demonstrate that they were successful. We could use them without slowing up traffic and we could also protect privacy.”

Here’s what he DIDN’T tell NPR or anyone else until pressed in a CNN interview – his company, The Chertoff Group, represents the company that manufactures the machines.  In other words, he is paid (probably well but that’s a guess) to promote the use of full-body scanners.  And that is exactly what he is doing – to great effect – speaking  in his expert capacity as former Secretary of Homeland Security.

Personally, the greater use of full-body scanners makes sense to me, although it does feel a little like déjà vu all over again.  Every time we have an attempted terrorist attack, we change our TSA procedures to address that specific kind of attack.  So, when Richard Reid hid bomb material in his shoe, we all had to start taking our shoes off before boarding a plane (ever been asked to take your shoes off in a European airport?).  Thank God Reid didn’t hide his bomb where the sun don’t shine or we’d all be holding our ankles  as we go through security.

But, wait, Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalab, the “underpants bomber” came close to that – hiding his explosives where they could not only bring down a jetliner but also make him look more manly in the process.   So, now we will all be electronically strip-searched to see what we have in our underwear.  That’s OK by me.  If it keeps my plane from blowing  up, I’ll be scanned.

But, back to Chertoff.  Is he just another “expert for hire” promoting whatever  his client is selling?  The evidence suggests not.  Chertoff was a believer in full-body scanners long before he went to work for the company.  In fact, as Homeland Security Secretary, he ordered the first purchase of the machines.  It is not surprising that the manufacturer turned to Chertoff when he re-entered the private sector to be an advocate for them.

No, Chertoff’s sin is one of stupidity, not avarice.  He didn’t disclose his financial relationship with the manufacturer before making the case for the machines in all his recent interviews.  Would he have been less effective if he had begun each interview with “Look, I represent this company because I have been a believer in full-body scanning as an airport security measure ever since it became available and, as a public servant, promoted its use at TSA.”

Disclose.  Disclose.  Disclose.  Can anyone still believe that you can run around to every media outlet in America touting a technology that has the potential to make certain people rich and not have someone look into your relationship with those people?  Just get it out there.  In many cases – this one included – it will do little to diminish the force of your argument.  But, if it does – even if it leads to the cancellation of some interviews – that is better than destroying your credibility and looking like just another sleazy huckster.

When will they ever learn?  Apparently after the damage has been done.  A Chertoff op-ed appears in Friday’s (1/1/2010) Washington Post and identifies him as a paid advocate for the company.  The piece is well-reasoned and compelling.  Unfortunately, it appears on Page A15.  The headline Chertoff “said to abuse public trust by touting body scanners” appears on Page A7.

I was reminded of the “two-way street” concept when Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalab failed to bring down a Detroit-bound commercial flight on Christmas Day.  Recriminations started almost instantly.  Why wasn’t he on a “no fly” list?  Why hadn’t the warnings of his father that he was dangerous been taken more seriously?  How often can we get “lucky” and avert another 9/11?

Now, granted, the first reaction of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano – that “the system  worked” – was a little rediculous.  But the hysteria about the most recent terrorist attack that went awry was equally unjustified in the other direction.

What warranted the deep and sustained fear following 9/11 was the magnitude and sheer awesomeness of Al Qaeda’s achievement – they leveled two of the world’s largest buildings, attacked the Pentagon, and crashed a plane in a Pennsylvania field killing a total of nearly 3,000 people.

But the would-be Christmas Day terrorist, like Richard Reid (aka “Shoe Bomber”) before him, killed no one.  As terrorists go, both Abdulmuttalab and Reid were abject failures.  So, instead of being terrorized (which is their goal) why are we not reassured that the incredibly deadly and effective international terrorist organization of 9/11 seems to have devolved into the gang that can’t shoot straight?

You would think Al Qaeda would have more pride than to announce three days after the miserably failed Christmas event that they were, in fact, responsible for it.  How does aligning yourself with incompetence make you more feared?   As terrorists, Al Qaeda now seems to rank behind two whack-jobs cruising the D.C. area in a Chevy Caprice randomly shooting people.  Now, there was some bone fide terrorism.

So why is our thinking so “one-way.”  Why are we terrorized when terrorists succeed brilliantly and also terrorized when they fail miserably?  Why are we unwilling to acknowledge what appears to be clear successes of the international community (and the U.S. in particular) in killing, disrupting, and largely dismantling Al Qaeda?

Make no mistake, there may be more successful and deadly terrorist attacks in the future.  Some may even involve weapons of mass destruction.  We need to continue doing everything possible to thwart them.  But, it does us no good to treat all attempted acts of terrorism – successful or unsuccessful – alike.  Not all hurricanes are Katrina.  Not all volcanoes are Pinatubo.  Not all attempted terrorism should be terrorizing.

Exhibit A is a poster being distributed by the National Association of Latino Elected Officials (NALEO), that reads “This is how Jesus was Born: Joseph and Mary Participated in the Census.”  NALEO is one of many partners to the U.S. Census helping them increase participation in 2010.

If the large font and “in your face” JESUS isn’t sufficient to get your Christian attention then there’s the silhouette of the holy family walking down a hill toward the star of Bethlehem.

The message is clear.  If the Virgin Mother and Joseph were obedient to the despicable, tyrannical Ceasar theleast you can do is answer a few questions from a humble census worker making minimum wage.

Apparently some Hispanic evangelicals are not amused.

Shawn Wood of the Examiner.com writes that Rev. Miguel Rivera, chairman of the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, claims invoking the name of Jesus to promote the 2010 Census is “blasphemous” and “violates the concept of separation of church and state.”

Perhaps being more in the holiday spirit the Washington Post writers characterize the  reactions to the poster as “mixed.”

We suspect that the whole kerfuffle is wrangling between Democrats and Republicans on who gets the inside track on the predominantly Catholic (and growing evangelical!) Hispanic vote.

But we wonder why (whether?) folks at NALEO didn’t anticipate the uproar.

What if …

The Centers for Disease Control’s campaign on obesity featured a picture of Buddha.  “Yeah, he was smart, but would anyone really want to date him?”

The State Department launches a campaign targeted to Arabs featuring the image of Mohammad.  “Last we checked, he never blew himself up.”

The Environmental Protection Agency’s campaign on climate change with a figure of Moses and the likeness of Al Gore.  “The pharaoh didn’t listen then and you know what happened … we better listen now.”

Would the Forest Service entertain replacing Smokey the Bear with Joan of Arc?

But enough about us.

What is your government campaign featuring a spiritual, religious, or otherwise culturally sensitive icon?

We’ll announce a winner and prize later.

What’s up with the Danes?

Here’s an historic climate gathering that has been planned for God knows how long.  Something that you know is going to (a) involve tons of very agitated people and (b) include the heads of states of umpteen nations.  And then there’s the hangers on and protesters.

You’ve been planning on this event for years and what do you do?

First, put it in a place where all the people can’t fit.  We guess the idea was to get as many people crowded together in as small a place as possible with the idea that they’ll just HAVE to get along.  We suggest the next climate change conference be held in New York subway car in August at rush hour.

Next, have a politician be the emcee and master of ceremonies.  This was Geoff Keey’s description of how that went:

During the small hours of Saturday morning I watched as the Danish Prime Minister Løkke Rasmussen embarrassed himself on the world stage by his incompetent chairing of the negotiations. It was like watching something scripted by Ricky Gervais. At times the negotiations descended into complete confusion by his erratic, biased and sometimes bizarre conduct. It was an historic moment for all the wrong reasons.  A Danish colleague of mine translated the subsequent Danish news headlines: Horror night for Løkke; Løkke in pillory at nightly summit-marathon; Mini-country pulls Løkke to the scaffold; This is where Løkke hits the wall; Løkke got beaten up all night…You get the idea…

Finally, schedule things requiring the precision of a diamond cutter.  An agenda so exacting that it would make the pilots of the Blue Angels’ heads spin.

We don’t know what was more painful, reading about the public announcements of empassioned, angry and often sanctimonious political leaders or reading about the soap opera of unmanageable behind the scene discussions.

All looked more like a Marx Brothers Nite at the Opera to us.

So here’s the lesson.  If you’re going to do show, take the time to do it right.  Like any Boy Scout … Be Prepared.  If if the show lacks substance or doesn’t lead to much, people will give you points for making trains (and cabs and limos) run on time and getting in a few good meals.

And if someone named Mikkel or Freja show up to plan your wedding … take a pass.

• Goldman’s pr campaign in defense of billion dollar bonuses
• DirecTV’s use of the deceased Chris Farley as the “fat guy in the little coat” in its satellite TV advertising
• All Nippon Airways asking customers to urinate before flying in order to reduce the weight of the plan and save fuel
• The Obama Administration’s Recovery Board supposedly tracked stimulus money reporting money earmarked for non-existent congressional districts and non-existent jobs
• AIG’s chief executive Robert Benmosche who in his first meeting with AIG employees, called Congress a bunch of “crazies,” saying he would tell them to “stick it where the sun don’t shine” if he was called to testify on Capitol Hill.
• Avaya who paid Anthony Armatys a six figure income for six years despite the fact that Armatys changed his mind before accepting the job and never showed up for work.

But that’s just a sampling.  You can get all of it on CNNMoney.com.

Thanks, David.

In a piece in the Sunday New York Times, Scott Sayare describes a France political system still grappling with acceptance of the impact of the Internet and social media.  Reading the article it is hard to imagine what planet these folks are living on.

Our favorite quotes:
“The Internet is a danger for democracy,” … Jean-François Copé, parliamentary chief for the governing party, the Union for a Popular Movement.
“I find we’re entering a strange society … We can no longer say anything, we can no longer do anything. It’s absolute transparency — it’s the beginnings of totalitarianism!”  Henri Guaino, one of Mr. Sarkozy’s closest counselors.

Guaino and Cope’s comments are typical reactions of minds that simply can’t adapt to new ways.  It is classic Luddite thinking.  For some reason we don’t seem surprised that it is coming from French politicians.  Someone needs to explain — in French, of course — to these folks that this “Internet” thing is not reversible.

The “cheval” has left the “grange”.  The “genie” has left the “bouteille”.

What were they thinking?  Whatever it was it wasn’t part of this century.

So what were those crazy members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force thinking when they dropped the screening bomb on the world last week?  It appears they were thinking big scientific thoughts.  And, yes, they were probably thinking clearly.

After a meta-analysis of tons of data on the risks and rewards of screening at various ages, the task force concluded that screening of women under age 40 is not justified by the results.  But, you say, what about the women whose lives are saved by early screening?  Are they to be sacrificed on the altar of cost-cutting?

Well, consider this.  Some women in their thirties die of breast cancer.  And some in their twenties.  But we don’t hear anyone – even the “death panel” Republicans calling for screening of all women over  age 20.  Why?  Because it would be a colossally stupid thing to do.  It would cost a fortune.  It would produce false positives.  It would lead to some women receiving surgery, chemotherapy, and/or radiation who, in fact, were never at risk for dying of cancer.  All the things the task force said about women in their forties being screened.

So, why the brouhaha?  Because there is the perception of something being taken away.  And it is very easy to stir up any group – particularly in today’s difficult economic environment – by telling them that they are about to give something up.  Particularly if it can be couched as a life-and-death issue.  And most particularly if it can be portrayed as the opening salvo in a health care rationing scheme.

But, back to the task force and what they were thinking.  They were thinking like scientists, not politicians or PR executives.  After all, that’s how they were asked to think.  Aggregate and analyze the data and tell us what you recommend.  But, where were the politicians and the PR executives?  Haven’t we learned over the years that you don’t let scientists out in public by themselves?  They speak the truth!  (At least as they see it.)   They don’t spin.

Worse, they don’t even think about timing.  This study has been going on for years.  In fact, breast cancer screening studies have been going on for decades and the recommendations have been about as consistent as recommendations to take or, no wait, don’t take Vitamin E supplements.  Did they have to release it dead smack in the middle of the most important health care debate ever?  A debate rife with talk of rationing and death panels?  And, not to be outdone, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists rushed out a few days later to advise women to delay their first Pap test for cervical cancer.  Brilliant.

We are not suggesting a return to the bad old days of the Bush Administration and cooking the scientific books.  Just a little prudence in the timing and the wording of public release of good science.

We can hear the scientists and doctors from the task force and ACOG complaining, “But we’re not politicians;  Don’t expect us to act like them.”  Wrong.  When you participate in a high-profile political discussion that has the potential to affect not just women in their forties but tens of millions of Americans of all ages, you better learn how to think politically or find someone who can help you.  That’s what they should have been thinking.

Take the case of the institutional indignation over the small but growing business of teacher lesson plan exchangees.

In last Sunday’s New York Times Winnie Hu tells the story of poorly paid and beleaguered teachers who have developed online exchanges for their lesson plans.  One of them — Teachers Pay Teachers — has, according to the Times, “200,000 registered users, has recorded $600,000 in sales since it was started in 2006 — $450,000 of that in the past year.”

Like Pharisees lecturing Jesus that it is a sin to work on Sunday, the education bureaucracy has expressed concern over this unusual outbreak of teacher entreprenurism.

First to express its concern was the education “academy.”  According to Joseph McDonald professor at the Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Human Development at New York University.

“Teachers swapping ideas with one another, that’s a great thing,” he said. “But somebody asking 75 cents for a word puzzle reduces the power of the learning community and is ultimately destructive to the profession.”

If a 75 cent lesson plan puts our entire education profession at risk we’re in more trouble than we think.

The local school board representative got right to the point.  Money!

According to Robert N. Lowry, deputy director of the New York State Council of School Superintendents, “To the extent that school district resources are used, then I think it’s fair to ask whether the district should share in the proceeds.”

We suggest that neither Lowry nor McDonald are living on a primary or secondary school teacher’s salary.

What can “the academy” and “the education bureaucracy” be thinking?

Sadly, we no longer invest in our teachers.  We don’t recruit them from the top graduates of our university.  We pay them subsistence living.  And more often than not they are on their own when it comes to providing basic supplies for the classroom.  School systems historically underfund and mismanage their education systems.  Now that the enterprising teachers have made a go of it people either want to shut them down on alleged ethical grounds or get a cut of the action.

We’d note that the New York Times article has prompted considerable debate among teachers themselves.  However it strikes us as mildly outrageous that the education elite embrace things like tenure, consulting contracts, outrageously expensive text books and ivory tower remedies but then balk when it comes to teachers actually getting compensated for effective lesson plans it took them years to develop and refine.

No wonder that the plight of education and the quality of today’s teachers have brought together the oddest of bedfellows –Newt Gingrich and Al Sharpton.   In their appearance on Meet the Press yesterday both talked about “bold reforms.”

We’ve recently had painful reminders that Gordon Geko was wrong.  Greed is not good.  And anyone who took a high school history class knows that part of the American heritage is the rejection of elitism and an embrace of the common man’s struggle for the pursuit of happiness.

Even if you are a teacher.