The A&E Real Crime Blog published this nice article quoting me and two of my colleagues on how death investigator determine time of death.
The A&E Real Crime Blog published this nice article quoting me and two of my colleagues on how death investigator determine time of death.
A dear friend of mine is a smart, witty, fun, upbeat, attractive, hilarious, and successful woman. While she has no trouble getting dates with men, things often start to spiral downward after a few dates as the men realize how strong and independent she is. She’s not just smart, as in, she’s good at amusing you in a conversation. She’s a doctor in private practice and was the chief resident during her days in training.
She made the “mistake” (her words) of putting her career first through her 20s and then once she was well established, started to think more about finding a partner and starting a family. It has not been easy.
Well, getting dates has been easy. Men are eager to meet her and to sleep with her. But when it comes to making it a committed relationship, they always get squeamish. She has tried hard not to accept my explanation that most men are intimidated by a woman that is as strong and independent as she is. “Some of them, sure, but not all of them. There must be something wrong with me,” she sighs.
Unfortunately for her, she finally found a sleaze ball to say it openly. In hindsight, he did telegraph his pathetic insecurities right from the start. Here’s a message he sent before they even had a date:
Right from the jump, he shows how fragile his ego is and even calls it out. Obviously, she moved on, but for some reason, he kept pursuing her. She went with it because, well, it’s slim pickins’ these days so she was optimistically hoping that maybe, having shown some inkling of awareness, he could grow up a little bit and become comfortable with dating someone who considered herself his equal.
After lots more talking and the building of some promising chemistry, the real man showed himself. Brace yourself for some A-level misogyny.
Wow. This dude-bro just comes right out and says, “Please protect my ego from the fact that you may be smarter than I am by concealing your job at every turn.” The word “surgery” is clearly a trigger for his insanely fragile masculinity.
He’s not done…
Hey, I didn’t make the rules. This isn’t personal. This is how we guys are. We need to know that we’re more powerful than you. You need to “downplay your success” if you want us to be comfortable.
Of course everyone knows that many men feel this way, but it’s stunning how aware he seems to be of his own fragility and yet sees nothing wrong with it. There is no work here for him to do. It is SHE who must change if they are to go forward.
He’s still not done…
C’mon, “girl,” you gotta put yourself in my (pathetic) shoes. You can’t possibly be hot AND successful. That’s way too much to ask me to put up with. I’d love to surprise you at your work, but can you please be scrubbing the floor or doing some kinds of arts and crafts? Something I can roll my eyes at preferably. K thanks.
(Just to be clear, women who scrub floors or do crafts don’t deserve an asshole like this, either.)
STILL not done…
Okay, why the F%$#@ does he keep calling her “girl” in this context? That was rhetorical. The answer is obvious. He needs to infantilize her to maintain some semblance of power differential in his favor.
And yes, embarrassment. That’s what she needs. Because she needs to be knocked down a few pegs, clearly. She needs this “even if [she’s] not interested in [him],” because this is really about her growth as a person. She’ll never amount to anything if she doesn’t shrink down that obnoxious personhood of hers. I mean just look at her blatantly existing as a professional woman using words like surgery just like a man would.
Just in case we weren’t clear about his need for dominance over her, there is this gem…
This man is not some uncultured Neanderthal. He’s an investment banker, very successful, and highly educated. He believes, somehow, that because he’s mildly aware of the misogynistic dynamic he’s bathing in, he’s more evolved and honest and therefore it’s okay. Hey I didn’t make the rules. No, you just enforce them. I take it back. He is an uncultured Neanderthal.
In fact, this asshole is actually way worse than the millions who simply aren’t aware of why they hate strong women. He sort of knows what’s going on, but instead of challenging himself, or gawd forbid some of his fellow men, he wraps himself up in the misogyny like the security blanket that it is. He owns it, declares it, and says, sorry, this is how it is, so can you please hide your strength so that I’m comfortable?
As a man, I totally understand the temptation to write this man off as just a lone asshole, but I have shown these texts to a bunch of women and not one of them was surprised. Angry, frustrated, depressed, but not surprised.
Dear men – if you feel the temptation to write this dude off as just an asshole or a kook, please resist that. Sweeping this under the rug enables it as inevitable or even acceptable. As men, it is our responsibility to take misogyny seriously. We cannot leave the work of destroying patriarchy to women. It’s our problem to fix. (Truth be told, patriarchy cages and hurts us, too, but that’s a topic for another day.) Don’t dismiss or normalize this. Call it out when you hear it. If you are an enlightened man, that’s great, time to step up and explain it to your fellow men.
And before anyone starts with the whiny “not all men” crap, take a minute and ask the women around you. It may be true that it’s “not all men,” but it certainly is all women that have to deal with misogyny like this, whether they have high-powered careers or not. No woman deserves this.
Dear women – I sincerely apologize on behalf of my fellow men that you have to deal with men like this and for my role in perpetuating the patriarchy that enables them. I promise to do better.
The dude continued to pursue her! When she failed to respond, he lashed out some more, unsurprisingly.
Did you catch that? “Why would you think I want you to change?” Then followed by, “Yeah, maybe you’re too old to change.” And of course, “There’s lots of younger women out there,” so you really should know your place and subjugate yourself before my enormous (but fragile) ego. How dare you not accept these terms!
This goes beyond standard male chauvinism and even the all-too-common casual misogyny of men who insist that women accommodate them. This is the MO of an abuser. Tear them down, establish dominance, feign tenderness, tear them down again, and if they refuse to put up with it, hit them where you know it will hurt.
This F$%#@ing guy.
Our laboratory just published the results of our in-depth study of the changes in the human skin microbiome that occur following death.
To do this, we swabbed the nose and ear canals of decomposing human bodies and then analyzed how the bacterial communities change through the course of decomposition. The goal of this work is to develop a statistical algorithm that we can use to estimate the time-since-death of a human corpse discovered in an uncontolled environment. We think we made great strides in this effort and outlined a path for how microbes can be used in forensic applications such as this one.
Here is a link to the study itself published in PLoS ONE.
And these press accounts do a great job explaining the work and its significance:
Wonder How To
Scientific American’s 60-Second Science podcast
Science World Report
Lab Manager magazine
The Digital Journal
Foreign News Outlets:
The Economic Times
The Australian (subscription required)
The Asian Age
DPA German News Agency (in German)
ChinaVOA.com (in Chinese)
Sputnik Mundo (in Spanish)
RT Sepa Más (in Spanish)
MeteoWeb (in Italian)
Russia Today (in Russian)
Hope you enjoy!
Listen here to a podcast from the BBC show, “The Why Factor,” discussing the value, meaning, and meaninglessness of our recent obsession with Genealogy.
I was interviewed for this podcast for around 90 minutes. I think I discussed a lot more interesting things that didn’t make it into the podcast. In fact, the portions that did make it are all ones that have me sounding a bit smug and contrarian. Oh well, I enjoyed doing the interview and it’s a topic that I think a lot about.
Science Line published an article discussing a new study of the oral microbiome and how it changes, and doesn’t change, over time.
Read it here.
All the Republican presidential candidates, along with the GOP leadership in the Senate, have declared that President Obama should not name, and the Senate must not approve, a replacement for Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, who passed away this past weekend.
There is nothing even close to a precedent for this. While a few justices have been rejected over the years, no president in history has been denied his constitutional privilege and responsibility of filling Supreme Court vacancies.
In fact, there have been many supreme court justices named in the final year of a president’s term, whether he was about to stand for re-election or not. In addition, history is filled with examples of nominations being confirmed during times of divided government.
If the GOP plans to block the naming of a replacement for Scalia, what is their reasoning for doing so? The people elected President Obama and then re-elected him. The possibility that the President might be naming justices of the Supreme Court was hardly ignored during the campaign. With so many of the Justices in their twilight years, both campaigns relentlessly reminded voters of the stakes should there be a vacancy in the SCOTUS.
Knowing this, the voters chose Obama. It is his duty to name Scalia’s replacement and the Senate’s responsible to give advice and consent.
Perhaps even more important than the constitutional issue is the fact that the Supreme Court cannot fully function with a partial bench. How many cases will be split 4-4 without a ninth member to break the tie? With such uncertainty, many judicial cans will be kicked down the road and the lower courts will be in disarray for lack of direction from the SCOTUS. Would the GOP intentionally inflict legal chaos on the country just to humiliate Obama?
Back to the issue of precedent. Here are seven SCOTUS justices, just in the past 100 years, that were appointed by a president within a year of a presidential election. Every single one was approved the Senate, more times than not, ruled by the opposing party.
Anthony Kennedy, 1987 – Kennedy was nominated by lame duck president Ronald Reagan on November 30, 1987, about 11 months before the presidential election of 1988. He was confirmed by the Senate in February of 1988 by a vote of 97-0. (Mitch McConnell, currently leading the call to prevent Obama from naming a Scalia replacement, voted “yes” on Kennedy’s confirmation in 1988.)
John Paul Stevens, 1975 – Gerald Ford nominated Stevens on November 28, 1975, less than a year before the presidential election that would oust him in favor of Jimmy Carter.
Lewis Powel and William Rehnquist, 1971 – These don’t count since they were just over the one-year mark, but Richard Nixon nominated both Powell and Rehnquist on October 22, 1971, about ten days and one year before the presidential election of 1972.
William Brennan, 1956 – Brennan was named by Eisenhower in a recess appointment just a few months before his re-election in 1956. This was an overtly political choice. Brennan was a Roman Catholic and Eisenhower was trying to shore up the Catholic vote, which was largely working class and immigrant at that time. In addition, Brennan was a Democrat and Eisenhower was trying to appeal, successfully it turned out, to moderates and swing voters that would be impressed with his bipartisanship. Nevertheless, he was eventually confirmed by the Senate with only one Senator voting “no,” the infamous Joseph McCarthy, whom Brennan had spoken out against.
Frank Murphy, 1940 – Franklin Roosevelt nominated Murphy to the high court in January, 1940, less than ten months before election day and with his final campaign in full swing. This was also an intensely political choice, as Murphy had openly supported Roosevelt’s plan to pack the SCOTUS with political allies to protect his New Deal legislation from being overturned. He was confirmed by the Senate a mere twelve days after his nomination was submitted.
Benjamin Cardozo, 1932 – Herbert Hoover named Cardozo in a desperate attempt to head off Roosevelt’s eventual trouncing of him in the presidential election of that same year. Of the appointment, The New York Times wrote, “Seldom, if ever, in the history of the Court has an appointment been so universally commended,” and the Senate unanimously confirmed him just days after his appointment. Though Hoover failed to rescue the country from the Great Depression, his appointment of the great Cardozo remains one of the brightest spots in his presidential legacy.
John Clarke, 1916 – Woodrow Wilson named Clarke to the court the summer before what would be his final election in 1916. Clarke was a noted liberal and Wilson made no secret of the fact that he first verified that Clarke would uphold the anti-trust legislation that had been used to break up industrial monopolies and pave the way for the creation of the middle class. Despite this, he was confirmed unanimously by the Senate just ten after he was nominated.
Louis Brandeis, 1916 – Prior to Clarke, Wilson named Brandeis to the high court in January of his election year. Brandeis was an unabashed progressive, political activist, and had been even been dubbed, “The People’s Lawyer.” His nomination led the Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee to do something it had never done before: they held a public hearing to debate his nomination and hear testimony for and against his fitness to serve. Though confirmation hearings are a required part of the judicial appointment process now, this was a contentious historical moment and the Senate took a then-unprecedented four months to hold a confirmation vote for Brandeis. He was confirmed by a supermajority vote of 47-22 with most Republicans voting yes.
There you have it. In just the past 100 years, seven justices have been named by presidents in a presidential election year (whether they stood for election or not). There is simply no precedent for denying a president his constitutional right and obligation to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court.
If the Republicans engage in a protracted delay maneuver, this will actually set a new and potentially very dangerous precedent. If Congress can decide to leave the SCOTUS short-staffed for a year, what’s to stop them there? Maybe they should wait another two years more in order to hope for an even more like-minded Senate. Why stop there? Maybe a future Senate could delay until the next presidential election, no matter how long the wait. If the president is of the opposing party, there’s nothing to gain by letting her/him get an appointment, when there’s bound to be a party ally in the White House eventually!
Hyperbole perhaps, but these are unpredictable times we are living in. Long gone are the days where a president can simply name whomever he wants and expect confirmation. But never before this year has it been suggested that the Senate leave a prolonged opening in the highest court in the land simply to stall for an election to occur.
It is no longer a question of allowing President Obama to pick whomever he wants. It’s a question of allowing him to pick anyone at all.
I’m not a political scientist, but I am a political junkie and a close watcher of polls, primaries, and elections. While I normally restrict myself to blogging about science, there is something that is bugging me and, in the off chance that I am right about this, I want to go on record.
Why is no one talking about how caucuses are different than primaries and why this could spell a big victory for Bernie Sanders on Monday?
Most states, like New Hampshire, have traditional primaries that mirror general elections. The voter goes to a private booth and casts a secret ballot. Polls are usually good predictors of elections and primaries because they operate on the same principle – the voter is acting alone and in private. (This is notwithstanding the Bradley effect, which may have been permanently broken by Barack Obama anyway.)
Caucuses, like Iowa, are quite different, especially for the Democrats. (Republicans and Democrats do this differently, but I am concentrating on the Democratic caucus because the GOP caucus seems locked up for Trump.) Instead, voters show up to thousands of small locations, often high school gymnasiums. Each campaign has a representative that gives one final speech and then the caucus begins.
When the time comes, registered Democratic voters have to join, or caucus, the group representing their preferred candidate. Everyone can see each other. Everything is public. In a big gym, there will be various huddled masses and people can watch as the various caucuses grow and shrink. After sizing up the room, people can (and do!) switch from one group to another. Then, the “votes” are counted. But we’re not done…
After one round of this, candidates with less than 15% of the caucus-goers in their camp are released, and the voters then move to other camps. Voters in the bigger camps can also switch at this point. Before the caucuses are declared to be final, lots can happen.
This is different than a primary for so many reasons. There is a whole science about how people behave differently in groups, rather than on their own, as well as how they act in public versus private. For example, people often shy away from caucusing with an obviously losing candidate. People like to pick a winner. Momentum is powerful and can turn on a dime.
Even more importantly, some candidates tend to draw more enthusiastic and persuasive supporters. These caucus-goers can generate a ground-swell of support just at the right moment. Enthusiasm is infectious. Peer pressure is powerful.
Does this really matter? In 2008, Senators Obama and Clinton were neck-and-neck going into the Iowa caucuses. Some polls had Obama slightly ahead; some had Clinton ahead. Consensus was that it was a toss-up. But what actually happened? Obama trounced Clinton by 8 points.
Many observers have attributed Obama’s win to the caucus effect. Obama was the candidate of hope, enthusiasm, energy, and youth, at least rhetorically. Clinton was the candidate of experience, knowledge, strength, and the establishment. Both would make history, but Clinton was much more familiar and many people had Clinton fatigue. No one had Obama fatigue. The “energy difference” was palpable. This matters in a caucus, much more than in a primary.
This was borne out in other states as well. Of the 13 states that used the caucus system in the democratic primary, Obama won 11 of them! In fact, if we consider only the 37 states that use traditional primaries, Clinton won easily. The Clinton campaign made a big point about this. Their candidate won in the setting that most closely mirrors the general election. That was a really good point, but voters rejected it and Obama won easily that November anyway.
Bernie is the Barack Obama of 2016, and Hillary Clinton is still Hillary Clinton. It may seem weird that the crusty old white guy is the one with the young energetic supporters, but that’s clearly where his support is. Sanders supporters skew young, progressive, energetic, educated, and engaged. Clinton is clearly the “safe” candidate of the establishment. Often, that works well with the very sophisticated and savvy voters in Iowa. But it didn’t in 2008 and I don’t see why it would be different in 2016.
I predict that Sanders will win Iowa on Monday. His supporters are more likely to show up, will be more fired up to caucus, and will be pleading their case and pressuring their friends. Clinton supporters are the old, waspy, polite, serious, sober voters. That’s great in a primary, but boring in a caucus.
Bernie Sanders is the Barack Obama of 2016, not because of who he is, but because of who his supporters are. The young, idealistic, hopey-changey enthusiasm of 2008 has morphed into a more forceful and radical progressivism. That may be a tougher sell in November, but on Monday, it’s energy that matters and Bernie Sanders has it and Hillary Clinton doesn’t.
Sanders also has the come-from-behind underdog momentum that voters tend to like in any setting, but especially so in a caucus. The polls have Sanders and Clinton nearly neck-and-neck, but every single thing that makes a caucus different than a primary favors Sanders over Clinton.
I think that tips the scales and Bernie wins.
PS – This is not an endorsement, it’s just a prediction. I also predict a Trump win on Monday, but that doesn’t mean I’m happy about it.