What's up with the AMA?

All of a sudden, unbidden, my Twitter timeline is on blast from the American Medical Association (AMA).

I am not a member.

I am not a physician.

And even if I were a physician, statistically speaking, I likely wouldn't be a member of the AMA anyway. Fewer than 20% of MD's are.

But the AMA is a pretty powerful lobbying organization, and - if what I'm seeing fly by me on Twitter is any indication - a lot of their lobbying efforts go to going after nurse practitioners, physicians assistants, and other (not-so) allied medical professionals who've been performing tasks that the AMA wants to see reserved for physicians.

I clicked through on one of their tweets and came upon a post the AMA recently put out - Battlefield widens with hundreds of scope-creep bills introduced.

Battlefield widens!

Oooo. Scope creep! Scary!

So the AMA is working state legislatures - aux barricades! - to make sure that their club, with its exclusive membership, is protected. They have all sorts of studies showing that costs go up and quality goes down when and where non-physicians practice medicine. (I only gave one of their studies a glance, but, if I were a betting person, I'd bet that there's plenty of countervailing evidence.

Okay, I don't want an orderly performing brain surgery. At least on  me, anyway.

But in wide swaths of the country, there's a shortage of primary care physicians - and plenty of other specialties. And even if you have a PCP, or have already seen a specialist, you can wait months for an appointment.

So why not "allow pharmacists to test, treat and prescribe medications for conditions such as strep throat or a urinary tract infection"?

And why not let psychologists write prescriptions, as opposed to requiring someone in need of mental healthcare to see both a non-MD therapist and an MD shrink? 

And why not let an optometrist diagnose and write a scrip for pinkeye?

I love my PCP. She's an excellent physician, plus she's a good two decades younger than I am, so I'm hoping she'll see me out the door. (Additional bonus: her husband is my dentist.) But 99.99% of the care I require is pretty routine, and if the day comes when my annual is with a PA or an NP, so be it. Yes, I'd still want my most excellent of doctors to glance at my test results and see if anything jumps out at her. And if anything does jump out, I want to talk to her about it. 

But I'd be happy to see a PA or NP. Or have my local pharmacist take care of a UTI before I'm septic. Or have my PT guy prescribe a test. 

And I suspect the folks who live in "healthcare deserts" are just as happy to see a nurse, a pharmacist, a physical therapist if there's no alternative Marcus Welby available.

Maybe the AMA needs to focus its energies on the physician shortages we're facing, and coming up with ways to expand the ranks. Maybe we need larger med school classes. More med schools. Fewer years spent in med schools. (I've seen a lot about three-year med schools, and six-year undergrad+med school programs.) Ways to get medical care in areas and to populations that for the most part do without. 

Physicians, heal thyselves!

Good for Sadio Mané

I'm not much of a soccer fan. 

Sure, I know that everyone else in the world calls soccer football.

I know that teams in the UK's Premier League get relegated (demoted to a lesser league) if they don't perform.

I know that the American women's soccer team tends to be pretty good.

I'll keep a vague eye on the World Cup, and maybe even watch a bit of the final game. (I kinda sorta know that Argentina is the current champion.)

And I can name a few famous soccer players.  Cristiano Ronaldo. David Beckham. Lionel Messi. Megan Rapinoe. Pelé. (Only he's dead.)

But I'd never heard of Senegal's (and the German team Bayern Munich's) superstar Sadio Mané, even if he is one of the top footballers playing today and one of the greatest African soccer players of all time. 

I first saw his name when he came across my Twitter feed. 

Seems that Mané, who makes roughly 22M Euro each year, was spotted by fans carrying an out-of-date iPhone 11 with a cracked screen. His response?

"Why would I want ten Ferraris, 20 diamond watches, and two jet planes? I starved, I worked in the fields, played barefoot, and I didn't go to school.

Now I can help people. I prefer to build schools and give poor people food or clothing. I have built schools and a stadium, provide clothes, shoes, and food for people in extreme poverty. In addition, I give 70 euros per month to all people from a very poor Senegalese region in order to contribute to their family economy. I do not need to display luxury cars, luxury homes, trips, and even planes. I prefer that my people receive some of what life has given me."

He's also built a hospital in his hometown, donated big bucks to covid relief, and given laptops to hundreds of kids from his village.

Senegal is one of the poorest nations on earth - bottom 15% - and that's where Mané directs most of his philanthropy. Because of his generosity, he was the first person given the Socrates Award, which recognizes the humanitarian efforts of a bigtime footballer. 

It's not like Mané lives like a monk. He owns a few pricey cars, including a Mercedes and a Bentley. He has a couple of nice homes, and when one was broken into, the thieves made off with watches, car keys, and - yes - some iPhones. (Presumably with screens intact.)

It's not as if he's a saint. This spring, he was suspended for a game for punching out one of his teammates.

And it's not like he's the only philanthropic footballer. Rinaldo and Messi are both noted for their generosity. And pretty much any athlete you've heard of has some sort of charitable thing going. 

Given how much bigtime athletes make - and given that so many of them come from impoverished backgrounds - it's the least they can do. 

Still, Mané stands out for the relative modesty of his lifestyle, and his generosity.

There's no doubt that what he's doing is helping give a better life to the desperately poor folks in the village he managed to kick his way out of. 

Good for him. 

The Birds

When it comes to birds, I'm neither a pure lover nor a pure hater. 

Come spring, I love seeing the first red, red robin come bob, bob, bobbin' along. 

I love waking up to chirping birds. I love seeing hawks flying over Boston Common. I love the occasional sighting of a colorful bird, like a cardinal or a Baltimore oriole. (My brother recently saw an oriole on the Cape. I'm jealous.) I love, and am always amazed by, hummingbirds. (How do those little critters survive???)

I love making way for ducklings. 

I love the raptor show in Tucson, Arizona.

I love that birds are dinosaurs. Or were. 

I like crows. I like watching swarms of starlings swoop around. I don't mind blue jays. Sure, they squawk, but they're a pretty blue. 

I get a kick out of seeing buzzards in the Southwest. 

On the other hand, unless they're in chevron formation, flying somewhere else, I despise Canada geese and the crap they strew far and wide, wherever they waddle. 

And pigeons? Don't get me going.

But whether birds are on my good or bad list, I hate the idea that, thanks in large part to human activity, we've lost 3 billion birds in North America since 1970. That's one quarter of our feathered friends. And that's a lot. (Source: American Bird Conservancy)

So I'm happy to learn about pockets of preservation.

I haven't been there in years, but I used to do an annual dune hike on the Snail Trail in Provincetown, where areas are staked out for the piping plovers when they're nesting. And if you get too close, you will absolutely be strafed by a protective plover parent. Yay, piping plovers!

And I am buoyed to learn that, over the past twenty years, thanks to conservation efforts, the population of roseate terns in Buzzards Bay on Cape Cod has doubled over the past twenty years. 

It's just that the conservation efforts are a bit creepy. 

Those efforts take place on three islands in the bay, including one that's aptly named Bird Island. Part of those efforts is the annual counting-of-the-tern-nests. Which sounds like a colossal nightmare. 

Carolyn Mostello, a biologist with Mass Wildlife, has been leading the charge for the past two decades. 

Not that there’s any real way to prepare someone for the sensory overload that is Bird Island. As Mostello steers a boat toward the 2-acre island just outside Marion Harbor, the sound grows from a dull roar to a shattering shriek, and with it the realization from the crew — five young student volunteers — that they are going to spend the next five hours trapped inside a Hitchcock movie, under constant attack from the common terns and endangered roseate terns whose nests they have come to count.

“The first day here, I thought I was going to die,” said Adriana Pastor, a Bates College student on day three as a volunteer. “I was honestly wondering if I would ever see my family again. I wanted to leave. But now, I kind of love it.” (Source: Boston Globe)

I don't imagine that I'd ever get over the "going to die" and onto the "kind of love it" sentiment. Part of the deal is that you end up covered in bird shit. The birds peck at your back. And, woe to you (and your eyeballs) if you look them in the eye. This gives new meaning to our family motto, which has long been Don't Make Eye Contact. 

For the count, the island is marked out in a grid, and the crew members line up a few feet apart and slowly walk through each section, counting the nests. To make sure they don’t count the same nest twice, they place a tiny piece of leaf in each nest to show it has been tallied, an action that enrages the birds, who don’t like anyone going near their eggs.

And you have to be super careful that you don't step on an egg or a hatchling. Even if I wanted to take part in the count, I believe that my size 11 feet would eliminate me as a candidate.

But crushing young 'uns and soon to be young 'uns underfoot is only part of the problem. Biologists have to contend with animal predators, like racoons, that swim the mile to get to the island to feast on the terns and their eggs. Right now, the biologists are trying to trap a mink that's been responsible for dozens of deaths. 

Not for me, that's for sure.

I'm certain I'd feel differently if the preservation efforts were being aimed at Canada geese, but I'm happy that there are folks like Carolyn Mostello and her student volunteers who are making Buzzards Bay a safe space for terns. 

You don't have to be a birdwatcher to feel that birds, for the most part, make the world a better place. 

Bali H'ai

I will confess to having lost precious little sleep worrying about those who gambled away their fortunes on the cryptocurrency humbug. And precious little time focusing on the details of the companies that aided and abetted the enterprise. 

Sure, I read a bit about Sam Bankman-Fried et al. All those big Stanford-MIT brains...

But I wasn't familiar with Three Arrows Capital, a crypto hedge fund, until I saw a NY Times article a few weeks back on what the fund's two founders have been up to since their company went kaput, "spawning the market meltdown that devastated the industry."

While Sam Bankman-Fried's been cooling his heels under house arrest, The Three Arrows guys have been whiling away the hours "surfing, meditating and traveling the world."

While investigators have been investigating, cofounder Kyle Davies took himself to Bali, where he painted and read Hemingway. (Why am I not surprised.) 

One clear evening, on a rooftop in Bali, Mr. Davies took shrooms with a group of crypto colleagues. “You look at the stars, and the stars are just, like, moving,” he recalled over dinner last month at a seafood restaurant in Barcelona, Spain, where he was vacationing with his wife and two young daughters. “You touch the grass, and it feels, like, not like normal grass.” (Source: NY Times)

Barcelona was just one of Davies' travel destinations Using Bali as his basecamp, h swanned around through Thailand, Malaysia, Dubai, Bahrain...

Not a bad life for someone who's only 36 years old. 

Last year, Davies and his partner Su Zhu were crypto "superstars."

...known for their trading acumen and bold predictions about the market. They were fixtures on the crypto podcast circuit whose influence allowed them to borrow hundreds of millions of dollars from leading firms and make big bets on the future of the industry.

When their hedge fund failed, a large swath of the industry was dragged down with it.

The ensuing crisis drained the savings of millions of amateur investors and plunged other companies into bankruptcy.

Darn the luck for those schmucks, but Davies and Zhu (who's also 36; the two were classmates at Philips Andover and Columbia) are sitting pretty. Meditating. Gaming. Surfing.  

Unlike the other crypto superstars (like Bankman-Fried) who are being held accountable, facing lawsuits and jailtime, others appear to be getting away with things scot-free. While Three Arrows "owes its creditors $3.3 billion," Davies and Zhu seem to have gotten out in time. They both say that they'll never need to work again. (Note that Davies and Zhu are under investigation.)

Although they may not need the money, at 36, both Davies and Zhu still have a bit of chutzpah and juice left.

In April, they unveiled Open Exchange, a marketplace for traders who lost money in last year’s crypto implosions. Customers will be able to buy and sell claims to the bankruptcy estates of defunct crypto firms like FTX and possibly Three Arrows itself.

In pitch documents sent to investors in January, Mr. Davies and Mr. Zhu code-named their new company “GTX,” an alphabetical successor to Mr. Bankman-Fried’s failed exchange.

“I just thought it was very funny,” Mr. Zhu said. 

Emphasis on the chutzpah. (Funny peculiar or funny haha, as we used to say.)

While their investors were absorbing their losses and licking their wounds, Davies and Zhu continued to live large. 

“You eat very fatty pork dishes, and you drink a lot of alcohol, and you go to the beach and you just meditate,” Mr. Davies said as he recounted his travels. “You have these magical experiences.”

So far, one of the 'magical experiences,' hasn't been arrest. Pretty much the only consequence that Davies and Zhu "suffered" was loss of a superyacht (the Much Wow) they were going in on halfsies. But investigators are still investigating.

Let 'em, I guess.

Mr. Davies said he was ready to move on from Three Arrows by the end of last summer. “I really spent so much time meditating in Bali that I’m really just pretty zenned out,” he said.

Davies and Zhu are kicking around some business ideas. A chicken cloud kitchen restaurant in Dubai Filmmaking. Getting into AI. But if nothing pans out, they've made their nuts and can stay retired.

Meanwhile, not surprisingly, Bali has no extradition treaty with the United States.

Musk-Zuckerberg cage match? (Never thought I'd be cheering "Go, Zuck")

In what has got to be the most tech bro bit of idiocy evah, Elon Musk has challenged Mark Zuckerberg to a cage match. And Zuck has apparently accepted.

Elon Musk, who frequently posts jokes and provocations on Twitter, which he bought for $44 billion last year, responded this week to tweets about a potential competing service by Meta, run by Mark Zuckerberg, by saying, “I’m up for a cage match if he is.”

On Instagram, the social network owned by Meta, Mr. Zuckerberg responded with a screenshot of Mr. Musk’s tweet and the caption, “Send Me Location.” (Source: NY Times)

Gauntlet thrown. Let the games begin!

Hoo boy! (Hoo bro?) Hard to figure out who to root for if this one comes off, but I'm going to have to go with Zuckerberg. 

No surprise that Musk is being his usual puerile idiotic self:

A Meta spokeswoman said Mr. Zuckerberg’s response “speaks for itself.” Twitter’s media office auto-responded to a request for comment with a poop emoji.

A variant of Godwin's law holds that the first person in a social media debate who makes a comparison to Hitler/Nazism loses the debate. 

I'm proposing Rogers' law: The first person to use the poop emoji needs to sit down, STFU, and stop tweeting/insta-ing/whatever-ing.

So my money's on Zuckerberg.

Oh, the poop emoji's just part of it.

There's the fact that Zuck has taken up jujitsu, and is even competing. Musk, on the other hand, claims that he "almost never works out." (Musk is, however, bigger than Zuck, and claims to have been a street fighter when growing up.)

I'm hoping that, cometh the cage match, Zuck's training beats Musk's ability to throw his weight around. 

But, oh these tech bros. 

More than in other sectors, tech leaders have been known to embrace conflict in public forums, said Katy Cook, author of “The Psychology of Silicon Valley,” who described the industry as a “male-dominated, emotionally primitive” environment where leaders are rewarded for displays of hypermasculinity.

“When you get a taste of power via some of those ways of behaving, it tastes good for a lot of people,” Ms. Cook said.

My career was spent in a "male-dominated" and often "emotionally primitive" environment.

In one famous incident, a colleague who was unhappy that our company had made an offer to someone he didn't want hired put his fist through the wall. We had to find a picture to cover the hole until we finally got around to fixing it.

The wall-puncher - with whom I always got along and pretty much liked, other than for this incident (I was pissed and called him a shanty Irishman, which would never hold in today's work world) - went on to a highly successful career in tech. 

The guy he didn't want to hire ended up doing very well at our company, and became one of my closest work friends. For many years, my work husband. (We were out of touch for a couple of years, but recently had a catch-up conversation and will be seeing each other soon.) 

Back to Musk v. Zuckerberg. 

There's now a proposed location: Las Vegas. (Where else?)

And, although Zuck is an "aspirational MMA fighter," who's developing some physical chops to go along with that big brain, Musk has tweeted:

“I have this great move that I call ‘The Walrus,’ where I just lie on top of my opponent and do nothing.” (Source: The Verge)

I find Zuckerberg creepy and weird, and I'm no fan of Facebook. But Musk is creepier and weirder. And a ton more dangerous. I'm on Twitter, but Musk has been turning it into a crazed rightwing and conspiracy theory playground. (Among other things, he's going all gaga over RFK Jr.) 

Never thought I'd say it, but "GO ZUCK!"

All things considered, the best possible outcome

Every once in a while, some catastrophic event captures the world's imagination. 24/7 News takes hold. And we all speculate, fret, hope, fear, pray that the folks in peril are saved.

Sometimes they are. Baby Jessica made it out of the well. The Chilean miners made it out of the Chilean mine. 

But sometimes there are no happy endings, and the catastrophe turns out to be catastrophic for those involved.

So far - as of Thursday afternoon - it looks like the immersible OceanGate Titan experienced a catastrophic event on its way down to the deepest of the deep, where it was supposed to do an hour or two looking around the remains of the Titanic.

With such a catastrophic failure - an implosion - the folks on board - OceanGate CEO Stockton Rush, Pakistani billionaire businessman Shahzada Dawood and his 19 year-old son Suleman, and adventurer/explorers Hamish Harding and Paul-Henri Nargeolet - were blown to nothingness. Death would have been instant. If they suffered, it was for a split nanosecond. 

All things considered, this is the best possible outcome of this sad and hideous situation.

When there was speculation that the Titan might still be intact but incommunicado, the worry was that those on board would be sitting there on the ocean floor, dark, crowded, cramped, cold, hungry, thirsty, and running out of air. Or, there was some thought, the vessel might be floating around on the surface, which would be a little lighter, but those onboard would still be crowded, cramped, cold, hungry, thirsty, and running out of air. And there was no way to open the hatch - it was bolted shut from the outside - and get a gulp of air. 

I cannot imagine the terror those men (and the boy) would have experienced. 

Three of the five - Rush, Harding, and Nargeolet - were adventurers, explorers, brave, courageous, and bold men who presumably understood the risks. Maybe they - or one or two of them - wouldn't have panicked. Maybe they - or one or two of them - would have stayed calm. Maybe they - or one or two of them - would have tried to keep everyone onboard calm. Especially the Dawoods, father and son. From an incredibly rich Pakistani family. Tourists. 

Sure, brave. Even if I had $250K to burn, I wouldn't have gone on this particular adventure. (I almost wrote I wouldn't be caught dead...) I don't mind gawking at the remnants of the Titanic. It's fascinating. But I'm happy to do my gawking from the comfort of my den. I don't need to be up close and personal. Not the Dawoods. Brave, sure. But tourists. 

If the submersible hadn't imploded, imagine what would have gone on in that father's mind, thinking he had brought his beloved son along on a death trip. What would have flashed through his mind? My wife will kill me. How would he have tried to keep his son calm? Would they have held hands? Would he have cradled his son's head?

Just as well that the Titan exploded, so those five souls - with especial sympathy for the Dawoods - didn't have to spend the final hours of their lives in fear.

Meanwhile, there's a lot of noise being made about the safety of the Titan.

There's this:

Leaders in the submersible craft industry were so worried about what they called the “experimental” approach of OceanGate, the company whose craft has gone missing, that they wrote a letter in 2018 warning of possible “catastrophic” problems with the submersible’s development and its planned mission to tour the Titanic wreckage.

The letter, obtained by The New York Times, was sent to OceanGate’s CEO, Stockton Rush, by the Manned Underwater Vehicles committee of the Marine Technology Society, a 60-year-old trade group that aims to promote ocean technology and educate the public about it.

The signatories — more than three dozen people, including oceanographers, submersible company executives and deep-sea explorers — warned that they had “unanimous concern” about OceanGate’s development of the Titan submersible, the same craft that is now missing in the North Atlantic with five people on board. (Source: Boston Globe)

The response from OceanGate's CEO, the late Stockton Rush, "industry regulations were stifling innovation." The company refused to get certified, saying that their vessel was so innovative that it would take too long to get any certification entity up to speed on it. 

It has also emerged that an OceanGate employee, "David Lochridge, a submersible pilot, had substantial concerns about the safety of the sub." 

The concerns Lochridge voiced came to light as part of a breach of contract case related to Lochridge refusing to greenlight manned tests of the early models of the submersible over safety concerns. Lochridge was fired, and then OceanGate sued him for disclosing confidential information about the Titan submersible.

In response, Lochridge filed a compulsory counterclaim where he alleged wrongful termination over being a whistleblower about the quality and safety of the submersible. (Source: New Republic)

I imagine there are some lawsuits lurking out there. And that OceanGate may well be out of the tourist business.

But for now, what we know is that five souls have perished on the sea.  

And, all things considered, death by implosion was the best possible outcome.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Odd fact: Wendy Rush, the widow of Stockton Rush, is the great-great-granddaughter of Isidor and Ida Strauss. The Strauss family was fabulously wealthy. They owned Macy's.

Survivors of the disaster recalled seeing Isidor Straus refuse a seat on a lifeboat when women and children were still waiting to flee the sinking liner. Ida Straus, his wife of four decades, declared that she would not leave her husband, and the two were seen standing arm in arm on the Titanic’s deck as the ship went down. (Source: NY Times)

Wendy Rush also worked for OceanGate, and had gone of a couple of Titanic explorations in the Titan. What must she be thinking?

BOGO? If you shop at Safeway, it's more like BOGUS

Who doesn't like a BOGO. Buy one, get one free? There's always room in the freezer for another package of English muffins.

But sometimes, apparently, the deal isn't quite what it's cracked up to be.

In California, Caleb Haley was hoping to score a BOGO on ice cream at a Safeway. But $7.49 for a pint seemed a bit high, even for a two-fer. And it was. The price prior to the BOGO promo was $4 a pint. And when the BOGO deal was over, it reverted to $4 a pint. So, if you threw a couple of pints into your shopping basket, thinking you were saving big bucks,

well, as it turned out, all you were saving was 51 cents. 

I mean, I scream, you scream, we all scream for ice cream, and all that. But this isn't much of a BOGO.

So Haley decided to file a lawsuit against Safeway, alleging that these bogus BOGOs have been offered across the California Safeway universe - 243 stores - for the past four years.  And needed to stop.

The lawsuit accuses Safeway of raising the cost of goods included in special sales so that customers have to pay more for their product of choice – and buy more of it than they typically would – in order to get what is being advertised to them as a better deal.

“Contrary to the language of Defendants’ free product offers, the BOGO products are not actually free. Instead, Defendants increase the price of the first unit of the product to cover the cost of the second—purportedly ‘free’—unit of the product,’” the lawsuit alleged. “These ‘free’ sales are unlawful, unfair, or deceptive practices under California’s Unfair Competition Law and are impermissible under California’s False Advertising Law.” (Source: SFGate)

It wasn't just ice cream that Safeway goosed. 

Peets Coffee. Gorton's frozen fish sticks. Oreos. 

The prices for these products were also jacked up, and someone not paying attention might pick up, say, a package of Oreos and not ask themselves, Isn't $6.79 a lot to pay for Oreos? Instead, they might say, Oreo BOGO? I can have a sleeve for dinner tonight, and still have dessert for the next couple of weeks. Cool!

The lawsuit claims that nearly 800,000 Safeway customers were affected by the so-called "deceptive" deals. Haley is seeking actual and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief prohibiting the grocery retailer from inflating the cost of products included in BOGO promotions to more than their regular retail price.

Pretty shoddy practice on Safeway's part, that's for sure. 

But it's apparently something of their standard operating procedure. 

Among the other lawsuits charging fraudulent behavior that Safeway's settled, was one in Oregon.

Safeway just paid $107 million to settle a 2016 suit that claimed that Safeway had "duped" shoppers into a not-so-BOGO on boneless porkchops. 

What's Safeway's defense going to be? Caveat emptor?

I'm not all that price sensitive, but the next time I pick up a couple of packages of Thomas's or two pints of Ben & Jerry's thinking I'm getting a BOGO deal, I think I'll check out what those items are going for in a store I'm not shopping in. Just to get a sense of what the "real" price is. I'm sure it'll be okay. After all, I'm not shopping at a Safeway...

How's this for a side hustle?

Up until May 6th, Cedric Lodge had been working as the morgue manager at Harvard Medical School for nearly 30 years. He lost his job for theft and sale of body parts that had been donated to the Medical School.  

Lodge has been arrested and is facing federal charges, as is his wife Denise, as this seemed to be kind of a family side-hustle.

A federal grand jury indictment returned Tuesday in Pennsylvania alleges that the couple, who live in Goffstown, N.H., conspired with others as part of a yearslong nationwide network that illegally bought and sold organs and cadaver pieces pilfered from Harvard Medical School and a mortuary in Arkansas. (Source: Boston Globe)

They've been vending items like heads, brains, skin, and bones for four years. 

Salem's Katrina Maclean has also been arrested. The owner of Kat's Creepy Creations, which specializes in the macabre, as pictured here. Maclean allegedly went shopping at Harvard Med, where she got to pick out the remains she was interested in. Things like faces - she paid the Lodges $600 for a couple of them - and plain old skin. 

She allegedly shipped human skin to 46-year-old Joshua Taylor of West Lawn, Pa., to have him “tan the skin to create leather,” the indictment says. Maclean then allegedly used human skin in lieu of monetary payment for Taylor’s services.

Human skin leather?  Shades of lampshades from Auschwitz. How utterly disgusting. How utterly depraved to participate in such a scheme. (What were the services Maclean paid Taylor for? Apparently, he sent her the human leather, but got to keep some of the skin as compensation.)

Maclean sounds like a true prize. 

In a post on Feb. 9, 2020, during the time MacLean was believed by officials to be receiving and selling human body parts from Lodge, the Salem woman posted an image of a reworked, “killer clown”-style doll with a skull between its fingers.

The caption on her post read, “Throwback to the set of Hubie Halloween. This doll has been sold and yes that is a real human skull. If you’re in the market for human bones hit me up!” (Source: MassLive)

But wait, there's more in this multi-state festival of the grotesque. 

Jeremy Pauley, 41, of Bloomsburg, Pa., is accused of purchasing remains that had originated at Harvard Medical School and at a mortuary in Little Rock, Ark., where another defendant, Candace Chapman Scott, was employed. Authorities also accuse 52-year-old Mathew Lampi of East Bethel, Minn., in relation to the alleged conspiracy.

Whatever Pauley and Lampi were doing, $100K exchanged hands over the four years the scheme ran. There were also PayPal transactions between and among those charged that ran into the tens of thousands. 

Scott, the Arkansas morgue employee, sold "the corpses of two stillborn babies who were supposed to be remated and returned as cremains to their families, authorities said."

Oh.

Meanwhile, those who donated the bodies of loved ones to Harvard Medical School for research and teaching purposes, are wondering just where those remains are. (At one point, I had an HMS donor card, as did my husband, but that was a long time ago. When Jim died, I will admit it didn't occur to me to donate his body. He wanted to be cremated, and I wanted the ashes to bury and spread. As for me, maybe I'll look in to being a donor. Who doesn't want to get accepted to the prestigious Harvard Medical School?)

The prestigious Harvard Medical School is, of course, appalled. In an email response to this appalling situation, Deans George Q. Daley and Edward M Hundert wrote:

“The reported incidents are a betrayal of HMS and, most importantly, each of the individuals who altruistically chose to will their bodies to HMS through the Anatomical Gift Program to advance medical education and research.”

The deans also noted that they believe the Cedric Lodge was the only Harvard employee involved. Which is I'm sure a big relief.

As for the Lodges, Maclean, Pauley, Taylor, et al. What a bunch of ghouls. They're all facing some pretty serious sentences. Maybe next time they'll take up a more normal - and legal - side hustle. 

Back to the workplace

Remote work has been around for a good long time, and even prior to covid many companies were allowing working from home (WFH) for all of their employees some of the time, or some of their employees some of the time, or some of their employees all of the time. But all of their employees all of the time? It took covid to turn that into a reality.

WFH was never without controversy. It destroys morale. People don't actually work, they're just goldbricking from home. It destroys downtown areas, and kills convenience stores and sandwich shops. WFH is just not productive. 

For years, I did freelance work for a company which provided WFH technology. During my years working for them, I wrote white papers, blog posts, brochures, web copy, customer stories, webinar scripts, etc. touting the joys and benefits of remote work. (I haven't thought of this outfit in years, but just glanced at their website and saw that a customer story I wrote nearly eight years ago is still featured on their home page. Which kind of cracked me up. Too bad I didn't get paid for content longevity!)

The company, itself, frowned on working from own except on rare occasions, for rare exceptions. (I did check things out and it looks like they've changed their tune.)

Anyway, covid proved that, for many positions, in many companies, working remotely worked out just fine when it came to productivity and employee satisfaction. 

But just fine wasn't perfect.

The executives of corporate America are stepping up efforts to get workers back into the office, using a combination of threats and incentives to get employees to give up the work-from-home lifestyle they adopted in the first years of the covid-19 pandemic. (Source: Washington Post)

Some big names are getting in on the push to bring workers back into the office.

Martha Stewart has gotten in on the act, arguing for a return to the office. So is Kevin O'Leary, one of the business gang on Shark Tank. 

Then there are the big name companies. Google's one of them, and they sound suspiciously like that company I did freelance writing for in the wayback. 

Google has pitched its video conferencing and cloud services to other companies as ways to enable remote work, recreation and education. But it’s also been one of the biggest companies pushing for a return to the office.

They're requesting that employees start coming into the office three days a week. They're using a carrot and stick approach: lots of perks (like free food), and the stick of stating that noncompliance would be considered in performance reviews.  

Salesforce is wooing workers back, promising to make donations to local charities for "each day workers come in to the office."

Amazon. Disney. Farmer's Insurance. Starbucks. AT&T. All are among the ranks of companies segueing from fully remote to hybrid. 

Three days a week seems to be a magic number for many of the back-to-the-office schemes.

That's true for my sister Trish's company.

She's been working home 100% of the time since covid began - and loving it. Working from home, she's been able to avoid a rotten commute, and stay in bed later. But she's heading back to the office for three days a week.

Trish is the type of employee you can 100% trust to do her job remotely. 

But she's also the type of employee that a company might want to have around up close and personal. She's been with her company forever, knows all the ropes, the history of everything, who-does-what-to-whom. However much a drag it is for her, for the company to have her around in person so that younger and newer employees can tap her experience and wisdom is a good thing.

Fortunately, she'll still be able to avoid the two worst commuting days: Monday and Friday.

I'm a believer that there's a lot of good to be had when people work together. 

Some argue that it's better for collaboration and innovation. Maybe. Maybe not. 

Some flat out state their belief that working from home = not working at all. (If that's the case, it's a management problem.)

But part of a successful workplace is built on the relationships forged among employees. And that's just plain more likely (and easier) if employees get to see each other face to face at least some of the time.

In my last full time job, I had two colleagues I became good friends with.

The company was an agglomeration of a dozen of so smaller companies in like spaces. I worked at the official headquarters, but my friend Sean worked in Syracuse, while John worked in the DC-area. 

We stayed connected daily via phone and early versions of text, but what cemented our relationship was when Sean and John blew into HQ every month or so for a meeting. We'd have lunch together. Take breaks to meander around the parking lot. Go out to dinner. We got to really know each other. 

I don't believe that if our experiences had all been virtual they would have turned into true friendships. And making friendships is an important aspect of working in the office, from the employee  - as opposed to the employer - perspective.

I've made lifelong friendships in two places: school and work. Hell, I met my husband at work.

Not everyone wants to make friends or meet husbands or wives at work. By the time you're further along in your career, or even at the tail end (like my sister Trish), you've made your friends, met your spouse, etc. You'd be happier to work remotely full time. And maybe even more productive.

But I think that, especially for younger folks, just starting out, people should think twice before fully digging in their heels when it comes to going back to the office - as many are threatening to do.

I think I've heard all the arguments, pro and con. 

And, as much as I think my sister Trish has earned the right to work fully from home, I'm on the side of those arguing for a return to the office. Three days a week sounds about right to me. We'll see how it goes. 

I'm all for SRO's. Within reason.

St. Francis House (SFH), the shelter where I volunteer, has 56 SRO apartments. SRO's are single room occupancy units, basically a private bedroom with shared bathroom and kitchen. Residents pay one-third of their income for rent, and can get breakfast and lunch for free, plus draw on other SFH resources (clothing, health care, counseling, general support).

The rooms aren't large. They remind me of the single room I had in graduate housing at Columbia University 50+ years ago. A bed. A desk. A chair. A few addon items. But they're clean, safe, private, and have doors that lock. If you've been on the streets, getting a room at SFH is cause for celebration.

For years, SFH was a day shelter-only, and when the SRO's were opened, the thought was that people would live in them for six months max. Many people do transition to fully independent living, but there are some folks who I believe have been there from the beginning in 1997. Certainly, there are some who've been there at least ten years. They're used to it. It's there community. And rental housing - especially affordable housing - is at a premium in the Boston area. 

As it is in NYC.

Where a 77-square-foot apartment in lower Manhattan has been listed for $2,350 a month. (It was initially going for $1,975, but what with a bidding war...) There are 26 such units in the building.

NYC used to be loaded with SRO's. Between 1955 and 1995, the numbers plummeted from 200,000 to 40,000, and I'm betting that in the nearly 30 years since, the number has dwindled a lot further. 

Boston used to be loaded with SRO's, too. They weren't great, but they were places where minimum wage workers - day laborers, dish boys - could afford to live. A billion years ago, my husband lived in a building that was next to an SRO building. Now long converted to splosh condos, the place was a complete dump, peopled with a loud and colorful brigade of tenants. (One time when we were walking by, there was an ambulance out front. A neighbor who was also walking by sardonically remarked, "Pick up or delivery?")

But an SRO going for more than $2k per month is not aimed at day laborers and fast food workers. 

That 77-square-foot stunner rents for nearly $30K a year. You need to be making serious coin (or have serious mommy-daddy money) to pay that amount of rent.

Sure, 77-square-feet is bigger than, say, a coffin (approx. 14 square feet), but still...

I'm all for SRO's. 

At SFH, there are housing specialists continually on the hunt for affordable housing for our guests. Even an SRO is a godsend. 

Imagine sleeping on a cot in a shelter, in a room with maybe 100 other people? Think of the night noise, especially in a population where many suffer from mental illness or substance abuse disorder. Think of dragging your possessions around with you all day - because overnight shelters are just that. You leave in the morning - and, in Boston, many of the folks thus dispossessed find their way to SFH - and go back in late afternoon, queueing up to get a bed for the night. Others avoid the night shelters entirely, choosing to sleep rough.

Imagine the day you get the key to the place you can now call home. A place you can leave your stuff. Where you can sit and read a book, or watch TV while snacking on popcorn your just popped in the kitchen. Where you can roll over and stay in bed if you feel like it. 

When people finally get housing - and, no, it doesn't work out every time for everybody - they are ecstatic. And we are, too, when they let us know.

But $2,350 a month?

I don't care how desirable the neighborhood is, this is just plain awful.

How long before everyone but the wealthiest are priced out of living in cities? Not just those minimum wage workers, but folks with good jobs. New graduates. People that used to be part of the middle class.

Is all this sustainable?

Sure, I sit here on my privileged perch, living in one of the nicest areas of my city. A small one-bedroom around here (if you could find one) would probably go for about the same rent as the NYC SRO. Which is crazy enough. 

But for 77 square feet of living space? OMG doesn't quite do it. 

------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: Daily Mail

Meanwhile, Happy Juneteenth. 

Not everyone's cut out to be an entrepreneur. Maybe Ivi's thing is social media.

Remember when the Internet was going to disintermediate everything?

Who needs an insurance agent? A used car salesman? A brick and mortar anything, like a shoe store?

Let's eliminate all those middlemen and middlewomen. If they're not wetting their beaks, we'll all save money.

Buy direct, young man, young woman. Buy direct.

Yay!

And, indeed, the Internet has done plenty of disintermediation. (C.f., CarGurus etc.)

But it's also true that plenty of new intermediaries have sprung up. 

A common internet business is flipping vintage or reduced-price goods. While some items may be ignored when they’re hanging at Goodwill, the keen eye of a fashion influencer may recontextualize the piece so they are able to sell it via Depop or another service—often at a significantly increased price. (Source: Daily Dot)

Note: Everyone knows what Goodwill is. Depop is a "peer to peer ecommerce company."

Plenty of the ecommerce intermediaries are in the shoe world, where people have built businesses grabbing up the inventory of coveted sneakers and selling them online at a markup (once, I guess, they've been "recontextualized.")

But it doesn't always work out as planned, as one Florida woman learned.

Ivana Diaz ("Ivi") had posted about some shoe finds she'd scored at Ross, the discount department store. For some reason, her Ross shoe TikTok went viral. Really viral: 2.7 million viewers. (Huh???) 

A lot of those viewers commented "how they never found good shoes at their Ross," and even asked Ivi for some help with their shoe shopping.

Which got Ivi thinking about whether there might be a business there. So she went out and bought 14 pairs of shoes and tried to sell them on Depop. She was only able to sell 4 pairs, but was able to return the rest and got her money back. (Turns out, what with Florida taxes, shipping costs, and the Depop's cut, she wasn't going to be able to make much bank on what was some run of the mill footwear from Ross.)

Ivi sounds like she has a pretty good sense of humor, so she made another vid about her entrepreneurial fail. 

That post also went viral, which apparently generated a fair amount of criticism. (Surprise, surprise.)

“Apparently, many people HATE resellers and think they’re the worst human beings to walk the face of the Earth (I wish I was exaggerating).”

...“Since the video went viral, the amount of hate I have received is scary. I had people asking for me to end my life and chanting how horrible I am as a human…for reselling?” she said. “I wish people understood the amount of time, gasoline, taxes, fees, and out-of-pocket money I put down to get a return on investment of $20 per shoe haha… but I also understand that people just guide their opinions on the comments they see on screen without doing their own research.”

Hate comments for trying to resell shoes? However unserious the suggestions that Ivana kill herself, however moronic the comments that she's a horrible human, this had to be something of a startling and frightening experience for her.

Ah, the anonymity of the Internet, enabling randos to engage in mindless, no point negativity and cruelty. (What's wrong with people???)

I give this young woman plenty of credit for trying something new, and sharing her experience when it didn't work out. 

“Everything in life is a learning process, and I learned some lessons from this experience. Many lovely resellers gave me tips on how to minimize costs when it came to platforms, so I am moving on from Depop and trying out a more sustainable option for my future endeavors!”

Good for her. 

She may still succeed - I wouldn't bet against her - but everyone's not cut out to be an entrepreneur of the salesperson variety. Maybe Ivi's thing is being good at social media. Whether she turns out to be a Ross shoe intermediary or not, I hope she manages to monetize her fame, her ability to go viral. 

Ignore the naysayers, Ivana. Don't let the bastards get you down!

Alexa. how much will I get for your violating my privacy.

There are more than 100 million Alexa or Alexa-like devices out there. Then there are all those indoor Ring cameras.

Nary a one is in my home.

Sure, there may come a day when I need to use something like an Alexa as an assistive device. ("Help! I've fallen and I can't get up.") So never say never. But for now, when I need to settle a bet by immediately learning who won the World Series in 1949. (Hiss, boo: The Yankees.) Or when there's that wake-up-in-the-middle-of-the-night moment when you're wondering  whether or not George Washington had a middle name. (He didn't.) I can just do it the old fashioned way and go to the Google. 

(Remember the real old fashioned way to settle a bet, even if the bet was just with yourself? You consulted the big, thick annual World Almanac "Book of Facts," or you thumbed through your family's multi-volume encyclopedia. In both cases, you probably got sidetracked by a whole lot more useless information.)

As for security cameras in the home? I don't have kids. I don't have dogs. I don't have anything worth surveiling. 

Not to mention that I've always been a bit suspicious about having some bit of techno-wizardry recording my every word, monitoring my every move. I'm not even wild about having a TV that responds to my voice requests. Just how smart is that TV, anyway?

Of course, not everyone shares my suspicious nature. Or any suspicions that folks might have had were overcome by the desire not to have to go to the Google and/or the wish to monitor kiddos and/or doggos. 

Looks like any suspicions were somewhat well-founded, and the FTC is looking to grab over $30M in fines for Alexa and Ring violations of privacy.

In one lawsuit, the Federal Trade Commission claims the tech company violated privacy laws by keeping recordings of children's conversations with its voice assistant Alexa, and in another that its employees have monitored customers' Ring camera recordings without their consent.

The FTC alleges Amazon held onto children's voice and geolocation data indefinitely, illegally used it to improve its algorithm and kept transcripts of their interactions with Alexa despite parents' requests to delete them. (Source: NPR)

Amazon not only has to pay the fine ($25M); they can't use the data they captured. So their algos will be starved, not fed. As is only right and just.

Amazon, not surprisingly, is pushing back, claiming they did nothing wrong. 

Hmmmmm.

In the second lawsuit, the FTC is looking for less money - but the implications of the violations Amazon is being charged with strike me as worse. In this suit:

...the FTC seeks a $5.8 million fine for Amazon over claims employees and contractors at Ring — a home surveillance company Amazon bought in 2018 — had full access to customers' videos.

In at least one case that was reported, an employee spied on women's security footage from bedrooms and bathrooms. (Security cams in the bathroom? Why would you want that, unless you were concerned that one day, the cops were going to need to have a recording of you being Psycho'd in your shower?) 

Amazon is also accused of not taking its security protections seriously, as hackers were able to break into two-way video streams to sexually proposition people, call children racial slurs and physically threaten families for ransom.

Ring knew about security issues, but didn't bother to deploy the necessary patches. Note that the Ring violations for the most part occurred before Amazon acquired Ring. Still: NOT GOOD. 

The FTC's claims need to be approved by federal judges and, as noted Amazon is pushing back.

Still, I'm just as happy that I don't have to worry about Alexa and Ring spying on me.

The orcas are mad as hell...

I've been doing a bit of traveling of late - Tucson, Ireland, Chicago - and have a couple of trips coming up (State of Washington, NYC) - but, fortunately, none of my jaunts involve sailing in the Strait of Gibraltar. Because the orcas have been on the attack of late, ramming into small vessels making their way through what I guess the orcas consider their waters. 

The [latest] incident follows at least 20 interactions this month alone in the Strait of Gibraltar between small vessels and the highly social apex predators. In 2022, there were 207 reported interactions, GTOA [Grupo de Trabajo Orca Atlántica, or  Atlantic Orca Working Group] data showed. (Source: AlJazeera)

In most cases the boats have just been damaged, and could be towed to shore. After a few rammings, however, the boats were flooded and left to sink into the drink.

Orcas, a.k.a., killer whales (think Shamu) are not whales. They're dolphins. Think Flipper ("faster than lightning; no one you see, is smarter than he").  Think Fa loves Pa in Day of the Dolphin.

Only bigger than Flipper, Fa, and Pa. And a cool black and white, rather than boring dolphin gray. 

A study published in 2021 on orca interactions with vessels in the Strait of Gibraltar said that several orcas began showing disruptive behaviour towards boats in 2020 – most were sailing vessels but also involved fishing boats and motorboats.

“The animals bumped, pushed and turned the boats,” the report stated, noting that 14 individual orcas, most of them juveniles, had been identified engaging in such behaviour.

Teen gangs of orcas? Who knew? 

Scientists don't necesarily believe that the orca version of the Sharks and Jets are acting in an aggressive manner. It may just be that they're being "curious and playful."

Or it may just be that they're the aquatic version of bored, snotnosed teens, riding around country roads slugging mailboxes with baseball bats. 

It's also not known whether the orca gangs came up with the idea of going on a ramming spree on their own (i.e., behavior that's "self-induced") or whether it was triggered by some "aversive incident" and is, thus precautionary. A shot across the bow, as in we'll get you before you get us. 

Scientists on the "triggered behavior" side of the theory of the case, believe that: 

...a traumatized orca initiated the assault on boats after a "critical moment of agony" and that the behavior is spreading among the population through social learning. (Source: Live Science)

They've also seen younger, smaller, less mature orcas imitating the behavior of the leader of the pack, starting out by shaking a boat's rudder, then adopting the leader's technique and doing full-force body slams at a boat's side.  

Some don't see this behavior as being a purely juvenile gang phenomenon. Here's what one witness on an attacked sailboat in the Strait reported:

Greg Blackburn, who was aboard the vessel, looked on as a mother orca appeared to teach her calf how to charge into the rudder. "It was definitely some form of education, teaching going on," Blackburn told 9news.

This blows a hole in the juvenile gang theory. 

Experts suspect that a female orca they call White Gladis suffered a "critical moment of agony" — a collision with a boat or entrapment during illegal fishing — that flipped a behavioral switch. "That traumatized orca is the one that started this behavior of physical contact with the boat," [biologist Alfredo] López Fernandez said.

Maybe the mother that Blackburn saw was White Gladis; maybe White Gladis had educated the other mother orcas. Sort of an orca version of Ma Barker.   

Can't blame them for pushing back on those encroaching on their territory, especially if some of their own have been injured by boats.

Anyway, whatever the composition of the gangs - unruly juveniles, mom-and-kids - it's good to know that the orcas aren't the marine version of scorched earthers. While a few of the boats attacked have sunk, the orcas generally back off once they've done a bit of damage and made their point.

Whatever that point might be.

Maybe they're just sick and tired of humans.

Can't blame the critters. 

At least we no longer have to worry about bicycle face

I haven't been on a bicycle in years. 

Maybe 10 or 15 or 20 or 25 years ago, hanging at my cousin Barbara's on the Cape with The Banshees (girl gang composed of my sisters and cousins), some of us took off for a little bike spin.

Maybe 10 or 15 or 20 or 25 years ago, my husband and I rented bikes in Killarney and pedaled out to Muckross Abbey. 

When I see the grab-and-go blue bikes around the city, I sometimes look wistfully at them, and think that I should grab and go at some point. But I don't have a helmet. So, nah. 

But as a kid, I spent a lot of time on my bike. 

I don't remember riding it anywhere in particular.

I walked to school. I walked to the shopping center to buy the latest Nancy Drew. I walked to my friends' houses.

It wouldn't have occurred to me to take my bike. That's not what bikes were for.

Bikes were for riding around on your own street, which we did all the time. All of us. Get on the bike and pedal aimlessly around.

But having a bike meant something. You were growing up. You could ride a grown-up size two-wheeler, which everyone got for their eighth birthday. Having a grown-up size bike - 26" was the norm - was a bit of a leg strain for an eight year old. You had to spend a year or two riding while standing," because if you sat on the seat, you couldn't reach the pedals. Sure, there were smaller bikes, but they were for babies. They were for six year olds.

My bike was a blue and white balloon tire special from Western Auto which, by mid-1950's standards was a bit old-fashioned. But, because it had a headlight, it was the one I wanted. Naturally, the first time I was out and about in the rain, the headlight battery corroded, spilling rust all over the place. My father had to pull the headlight out by the roots, so I now had a bike with two rust-rimmed holes where the headlight had been.

My bike was also pretty heavy, especially for a skinny eight year old.

Fortunately, my sister Kath had a lighter weight bike, which she pretty much always let me use when she wasn't on it.

The only kids who had English racers, 10-speed bicycles, were only-children, or from two-kid families. I only recall two such bikes in our neighborhood: Charlie S. and Tony Mc.

Anyway, while these days I'm not a biker, I was a biker girl back in the day. 

And, although I no doubt had it when I was first attempting to master that two-big, two-heavy bike of mine, I don't recall ever having to worry about developing something called bicycle face. 

But if I'd been riding around at the turn of the century, rather than at midcentury, such a condition might well have been a worry. 

Because females on bicycles were a big scary threat. Women and girls biking were exercising not just their leg muscles, but their rights. And just as we were as kids in the 1950's, those early female bikers were independent. They were free. 

"THE UNCONSCIOUS EFFORT TO MAINTAIN ONE'S BALANCE TENDS TO PRODUCE A WEARIED AND EXHAUSTED 'BICYCLE FACE'"

"Over-exertion, the upright position on the wheel, and the unconscious effort to maintain one's balance tend to produce a wearied and exhausted 'bicycle face,'" noted the Literary Digest in 1895. It went on to describe the condition: "usually flushed, but sometimes pale, often with lips more or less drawn, and the beginning of dark shadows under the eyes, and always with an expression of weariness." Elsewhere, others said the condition was "characterized by a hard, clenched jaw and bulging eyes."

Descriptions of bicycle face varied: some implied it could be a permanent condition, while others maintained that given enough time away from a bicycle, a person's bicycle face would eventually subside. (Source: Vox)

A British doctor named Shadwell, who seems to have claimed to have come up with the notion of "bicycle face," warned about the dangers of bicycling for women, because he deemed women "unfit for exertion." While men could also develop "bicycle face," it was mostly members of the fairer sex who were struck by it. 

Anyway, while the fear of developing "bicycle face" was meant to keep women from becoming cyclists, it was just one of many fear factors. Exhaustion. Heart palpitations. Depression. 

Bad things happened when women and girls took to their bikes. 

Fortunately, the existence of "bicycle face" disorder was soon debunked. It only occurred with anxious beginners, and there was no lasting damage. 

The debunker? An American doctor. An American woman doctor named Sarah Hackett Stevenson who was a big proponent of women taking up the activity. Dr. Stevenson was quoted in the 1897 Phrenological Journal: 

"[Cycling] is not injurious to any part of the anatomy, as it improves the general health. I have been conscientiously recommending bicycling for the last five years," she said. "The painfully anxious facial expression is seen only among beginners, and is due to the uncertainty of amateurs. As soon as a rider becomes proficient, can gauge her muscular strength, and acquires perfect confidence in her ability to balance herself and in her power of locomotion, this look passes away."

Thank you, Dr. Stevenson. Blow it out your ear, Dr. Shadwell. (You wanna see bicycle face, bub, I'll show you bicycle face.)

The point of no return

Many, many, many years ago, I bought a dress, a work-ish dress, in Filene's Basement. 

It wasn't a great find, no super markdown, no prestige label. But I liked it. It was a purple/blue madras shirtwaist, and I'm sure I was drawn to it was because madras and shirtwaist were an "it" look when I was in high school. 

I found it on a flying trip through the B, something I did pretty frequently back in the day. A grab and go experience. Find a find, check the price, grab 'n go.

Anyway, a few days later, when I went to put the dress on, I realized that it smelled. Of body odor. So, it was ABW - already been worn. Yuck!

I did try to wash it, but, but, but...

I never ended up wearing it but, instead, tossed it - absent he BO smell - into the donation bag. I hope someone got some use out of it. Which would make two people: the person who got it as a donation, and the original owner - the non-deodorant-wearing byotch who wore it, decided she didn't like it, and went to the Basement and got her money back. 

What I got out of it: give the armpits of clothing before buying it. Not that I actually do it, mind you, but I did in the Basement for a good long while.

(This isn't at all what the plaid was of that infamous Basement dress, but in looking through pics of madras, I came across this. When I was in high school I had a skirt that was very similar to this plaid. I wore it with sleeveless navy nylon shell. Way cool! I forgot how much I loved madras...)

Given this brief yet memorable experience, I read with interest a story that I came across about people who regularly return pricey outfits (not $20 marked-down madras dresses) once they wear said pricey outfit to an event. Or just pose for in it on Instagram.

The tea was spilled on Tik Tok by someone who works at Saks Fifth. 

In a video with more than 1.7 million views as of Friday morning, TikTok user Jordyn (@_jordynrich) shows herself at a computer pretending to process a refund.

“Pov: you come back to work & see someone returned the $3000 outfit they wore on Instagram,” she writes in the text overlaying the video.

According to the Saks Fifth Avenue website, “Returned items must be presented in the same condition as when they were received: unworn, salable, undamaged, unaltered, with original tags and packaging (if applicable), and with proof of purchase. Returns that do not meet this policy will not be accepted and will be sent back to you.”

However, numerous commenters on TikTok claimed that this “unworn” clause isn’t always enforced. (Source: Daily Dot)

Commenters noted that this isn't just a Saks thang. Apparently Nordstrom shoppers borrowers are all in, too, turning those stores into "high end thrift stores." (Nordstrom has a more "lenient" return policy than Saks, which is why they're a frequent target of return abuse.)

It's one thing to return an item if it falls apart after a few wearings. Or something that you bought in haste and repented once you got it home. But IMH - and not especially fashionista - O, it's pretty shoddy to return something that you've worn IRL. It's just cruddy behavior. (Don't get me going on the Insta Queens who just want to look fancy for their "followers." Maybe they should brush up their Photoshop skills and just put their heads and backgrounds on whatever clothing item their heart and maybe their audience desires.)

My bottom line, old grouch that I am: if you can't afford something, DON'T BUY IT.  

And don't screw the salesperson who - in good faith - sold it to you. Because they're going to lose their commission once you return something. Big GRRRRR there. 

There are sites like Rent The Runway, where you can borrow clothing you just want/need to wear once and maybe can't afford. I looked at one of their plans: for $144 a month, you can borrow up to 10 items (2 shipments a month, 5 items at a time). There are other plans for more or less, but it seems  me that $144 a month is plenty reasonable and affordable - and would be very much worth it to the average Instagram-crazy ninny. And it would, of course, be reasonable and affordable to someone who wants to stay up with the latest, has occasions that they need fancy duds for, doesn't want items to gather dust in their closets. And - bonus! - is interested in sustainability, rather than just adding heaps of clothing to the world's growing nonbiodegradable slag heaps.

This returning goods you never had any intention of buying - but had every intention of wearing (at least to pose in it) - seems to me to be nothing more than quasi-legal shoplifting. 

There really should be a point of no return, and that's once you've worn something.