Random Thoughts

So why isn’t everyone talking about how the economy is screwed up, middle class and poor people are suffering so bad, yet there is very little news talking about it. You see some articles like this and people probably just say, oh there are bad people out there, and this is just another example. Well In my humble opinion this is just a symptom of the sickness that is prevalent in this country.  Corporate America is doing well making money and the expense of the people. The people are suffering, and there is very little data released about it. You can be sure that places are not reporting all the thefts and many places do not even know how bad it really is.

corporations try to minimize this info to keep stock holders happy and their stock price up, just like police agencies are reporting crimes as lesser charges in order to make their cities and respective departments look better.

Article found via the Tennessean newspaper

Wal-Mart has tough time as thefts increase
Store’s losses closer to industry average

By ANNE D’INNOCENZIO and MARCUS KABEL
Associated Press

NEW YORK — Shoppers at Wal-Mart stores across America are loading carts with merchandise — maybe a flat-screen TV, a few DVDs and a six pack of beer — and strolling out without paying. Employees also are helping themselves to goods they haven’t paid for.

The world’s largest retailer is saying little about these kinds of thefts, but its recent public disclosures that it is experiencing an increase in so-called shrinkage at its U.S. stores suggests that inventory losses because of shoplifting, employee theft, paperwork errors and supplier fraud could be worsening.

The hit is likely to rise to more than $3 billion this year for Wal-Mart Stores Inc., which generated sales of $348.6 billion last year, according to retail consultant Burt Flickinger III.

Flickinger and other analysts say the increase in theft may be tied to Wal-Mart’s highly publicized decision last year to no longer prosecute minor cases of shoplifting in order to focus on organized shoplifting rings. Former employees also say staffing levels, including security personnel, have been reduced, making it easier for theft to occur.

Wal-Mart declined to offer any explanations for the rise in losses but denied it has cut security staff and said employee morale is rising rather than falling.

Theft common in retail

Although Wal-Mart declined to reveal any details, analysts suspect Wal-Mart — which for years had a theft loss rate that was half that of its peers — is getting closer to the industrywide average. Theft is a big problem for all retailers, costing them $41.6 billion last year, according to a joint study released Tuesday by the National Retail Federation and the University of Florida.

Whatever the cause, such theft — which late founder Sam Walton once called one of retailers’ top profit killers — adds one more challenge when Wal-Mart is already struggling with sluggish sales at its established stores because of an overall economic slowdown as well as its own stumbles in its home and apparel merchandising strategies.

Eduardo Castro-Wright, president and CEO of Wal-Mart’s U.S. store division, acknowledged the theft problem in a mid-May conference call with analysts. He cited shrinkage as well as increased markdowns and higher inventory for dragging down first-quarter profit margins.

“We are concerned about shrinkage and are investigating the cause and are taking steps to correct it,” Castro-Wright said. Company officials won’t comment on those countermeasures.

The company also said in a June 1 filing with federal securities regulators that the gross profit margin for its Wal-Mart Stores segment fell by 0.1 percentage points in the first quarter caused in part to “higher inventory shrinkage.”

Revelation is significant

Analysts say it’s significant that the company has publicly disclosed that theft is becoming a problem.

“It is getting to the point of being material,” said Richard Hastings, vice president and senior retail sector analyst at Bernard Sands. Securities regulations require companies to alert shareholders to significant corporate developments that could affect the value of their holdings.

About 47 percent of the dollars lost came from employee theft, while shoplifting accounted for about 32 percent, according to the National Retail Federation report. Administrative errors account for 14 percent, while supplier fraud accounts for 4 percent. The remaining 3 percent is unaccounted.

The company’s vociferous critic WakeUpWalMart.com, funded by the United Food and Commercial Workers, which has been for years trying to organize the retailer’s workers, publicized the company’s decision last year to relax its zero-tolerance policy on shoplifting. The new policy seeks prosecutions of first-time offenders only if they are between ages 18 to 65 and steal at least $25 worth of merchandise.

That change may have emboldened some folks to shoplift, said Mark Doyle, president of Jack L. Hayes International, a retail consultancy on loss prevention.

The change in policy came at the same time the company began using more part-time workers — in part because of a new scheduling system that matches staffing more closely to peak shopping hours — and shifting security personnel, analysts and critics say.

While Wal-Mart denies that it has cut anti-theft jobs overall, it said it has adjusted staffing to put more personnel in stores in high-crime areas and fewer in stores with less trouble.

So are they just NOW figuring this out? I bet this will be seriously underreported, and even if it wasn’t, so many people will just discount it because they can’t open their minds. But think about it, this is probably true. Think of how many men are suffering and don’t even know it. Think of how many medical malpractice lawsuits could be opened up with this study. And how many people will wish they could get uncircumcised.

I found this post on digg and the study article is here.

Here is an excerpt:

Circumcision surgery involves the removal of the skin that covers the tip of the penis, called the foreskin. Infant male circumcision is the most common medical procedure in the United States, with an estimated 60 percent of male newborns undergoing the surgery.

Morris Sorrells of National Organization of Circumcision Information Resources Center and colleagues created a “penile sensitivity map” by measuring the sensitivity of 19 locations on the penises of 159 male volunteers. Of the participants, 91 were circumcised as infants and none had histories of penile or sexual dysfunction.

For circumcised penises, the most sensitive region was the circumcision scar on the underside of the penis, the researchers found. For uncircumcised penises, the areas most receptive to pressure were five regions normally removed during circumcision—all of which were more sensitive than the most sensitive part of the circumcised penis.

Circumcision is a procedure practiced in several countries for medical as well as cultural reasons. Most scientists agree that the surgery confers some protection against infection and the risk of contracting sexual diseases. Recent studies have also shown that circumcision can lower the risks of HIV infection by as much as 60 percent in sex between males and females.

But Robert Van Howe, a study team member at Michigan State University, thinks such claims are somewhat overblown. “The [health benefits] that have been consistently shown are very small, and there are less aggressive, less invasive, less expensive ways of dealing with the problems [circumcision] is supposed to address,” Van Howe told LiveScience.

Other practices, such as choosing sexual partners wisely and using condoms consistently, are far more effective in protecting against diseases, he added.

Circumcision is opposed by some groups on the grounds that it is painful and not a life-saving procedure, and that it also makes sex less pleasurable by exposing and numbing the tip of the penis, called the glans. Some have gone so far as recommending foreskin restoration.

Some previous studies found that circumcision led to little, if any, decrease in penile sensitivity, but Sorrells and his colleagues say such findings are suspect because many are based on self-reports from men who were circumcised to correct medical problems.

• Circumcision: Fact, Fiction and Hype

 Two articles one the same day show how you can’t have it both ways.. or will they? Students free speech is further limited. Interesting debates here. You’ll have to read all three of these stories, then consider other ramifications..

first, from Boing Boing:

Girl sues for right to wear a “purity ring” to school

Pinkblocks has an item about a 16-year-old girl who is going to court to fight for her right to wear a “purity ring” to school, which forbids jewelry.

A sixteen-year-old girl took her fight for her right to wear a ‘purity ring’ to the High Court. Her school has determined that her chastity ring was jewelry and therefore under the normal school rules, not allowed. Her ring represented her vow to abstain from sex. One would imagine she would abstain until marriage. It doesn’t actually state in the newspaper report when the deadline of her abstinence would expire.

To some extent this young girl has some justification in making her request. There are other forms of apparel that are allowed, which show off religious allegiance. Of these a more obvious one is the head gear worn by Muslim girls and women. These scarves are permitted in schools in the UK. What would one then say is the difference between a narrow ring, and a full-on head covering. If she were to wear a head scarf as an image of her vow, would that be allowed then?

Link to the whole story at pink blocks

Then the story about free speech restrictions of another student, and how the supreme court, sharply divided and basically tipped by the conservative appointments made by pres bush..

From Reuters …

 Student loses ruling over “Bong Hits 4 Jesus”

By James Vicini

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A divided Supreme Court on Monday curtailed free-speech rights for students, ruling against a teenager who unfurled a banner saying “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” because the message could be interpreted as promoting drug use.

In its first major decision on student free-speech rights in nearly 20 years, the high court’s conservative majority ruled that a high school principal did not violate the student’s rights by confiscating the banner and suspending him.

The decision marked a continuing shift to the right by the court since President George W. Bush appointed Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. The court has issued a series of narrow 5-4 decisions on divisive social issues like abortion and the death penalty.

In another decision on Monday by the same 5-4 vote, the court ruled taxpayers cannot challenge Bush’s use of government funds to finance social programs operated by religious groups.

“Both of these First Amendment cases reflect the clear right-wing trend of the Roberts court. Unmistakably. Both are clearly wrong,” said Abner Greene, a Fordham University law professor.

In the school case, student Joseph Frederick said the banner’s language was meant to be nonsensical and funny, a prank to get on television as the Winter Olympic torch relay passed by the school in January 2002 in Juneau, Alaska.

But school officials say the phrase “bong hits” refers to smoking marijuana. Principal Deborah Morse suspended Frederick for 10 days because she said the banner advocated or promoted illegal drug use in violation of school policy.

The majority opinion written by Roberts agreed with Morse. He said a principal may restrict student speech at a school event when it is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use.

YOUTH DRUG ABUSE ‘SERIOUS’ PROBLEM

Drug abuse by the nation’s youth is a serious problem, Roberts said.

Liberal Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented on the free-speech issue.

“Although this case began with a silly nonsensical banner, it ends with the court inventing out of whole cloth a special First Amendment rule permitting the censorship of any student speech that mentions drugs,” Stevens wrote.

Justice Stephen Breyer said he would have decided the case without reaching the free-speech issue by ruling the principal cannot be held liable for damages.

The Bush administration supported Morse and argued that public schools do not have to tolerate a message inconsistent with its basic educational mission.

Kenneth Starr, the former special prosecutor who investigated former President Bill Clinton in the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal, argued the case for Morse and said the ruling has implications for public school districts nationwide.

Morse said, “I am gratified that the Supreme Court has upheld the application of our common sense policies.”

The American Civil Liberties Union, which represented Frederick, criticized the ruling for allowing censorship of student speech without any evidence that school activities had been disrupted.

“The court’s ruling imposes new restrictions on student speech rights and creates a drug exception to the First Amendment,” said Steven Shapiro, its national legal director.

I read a post today from Stephanie Sexton about ask.com. She seems to enjoy all the options at ask.com, and suggests that people newer to the internet may enjoy or prefer the use of the ask compared to google and other search portals. I am kind of mixed on this opinion. My first run though of asks new options make me think that is will be more useful for geeks that are used to doing more advanced searches and search filtering.

Although considering her opinion, I can see how some users may find things, or may find more things than they normally would using such a system. My first thought was that google and others already have these options, but I do agree that ask.com makes these options easier to find, and certainly does make these options easier to use.

I wish I could see how new internet users actually use this portal and what they use and don’t use and how they end up using it. I myself am more concerned with the results they show and don’t show. The engine that has most results will normally win in my mind. for some people it will be how easy it is to filter your results, and for some people I am sure there are more important issues.

Overall I like the options, but am not impressed with the design.