I haven’t taken this to others before now out of a misguided sense of family amongst programmers, but she continues to cross the line, her show started off as a general topic alt-med show, it is purely anti-vax nonsense and anti-science hatred now. (Her episode calling for people convicted of shaking babies to death to be released because it was actually vaccines that killed them is a classic.) Like the management, people who are not exposed to science are prone to believe she is citing accepted science.

Please help by calling, E-mailing and tweeting KRFC and making your opinion heard. Calling would be by far the most effective. Ending such a loud voice for SANEVax would certainly be a tremendous blow. Also, if anyone has a suggestion on how to take this plea to a wider audience, please let me know. Thanks.

Her website is here: http://holyhormones.com/
The contact page for KRFC is here: http://www.krfcfm.org/contact-krfc/

Image via Wikipedia

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice ….”

Vindictive behavior is one of those things that people do that we often want to believe is rational, but I think most people acknowledge that it is not. But it is so common. Recently, I’ve seen this idea of vindictiveness come out in two court cases that the media pretty much went nuts over.

In the Casey Anthony trial, the media had her tried and convicted before very much evidence was presented against her. In fact, the most compelling evidence in the case could be linked to several people and wasn’t even presented until near the end of the trial. By that time, though, the popular opinion was that Anthony was guilty. But the purpose of our courts is not to make decisions based on popular opinions. Instead, criminals facing trial are supposed to be considered innocent until proven guilty. In the Casey Anthony trial, there was not sufficient evidence to prove guilt. Thus, Casey Anthony was found not guilty in the murder of her daughter. When the public heard the news, though, there was little recognition for a trial that went the way trials are supposed to do. There was no commendation for a Jury having performed their duties well or for a nation that was proud that, in spite of all the media attention and twisting of information, our court system functioned properly. We did not send an innocent person to death.

Of course, we cannot know if Anthony is guilty or innocent. We can only know that there was not sufficient evidence against her. This makes the default opinion in court one of innocence. The courts function this way on purpose. Our system of justice is intended to protect the innocent and that includes protecting the innocent from false accusations. Yet, in the wake of the Casey Anthony trial, there were death threats, people expressing sadness that she wasn’t put away, people wishing harm upon Casey Anthony and many other shameful comments based entirely on people’s personal opinions regarding Anthony.

Just the other day, Warren Jeffs was found guilty of sexual assault on minors. This ruling was made, as well, based on the evidence. During the trial, many different issues came into play. Things were discussed, both in the media and even in the trial, regarding religion, cults and polygamy. The trial, though, was over the question of if Jeffs had sexually assaulted two young girls. He was found guilty based on the evidence, not based on the cult he led or the fact that they practiced polygamy. Polygamy is not what is to blame for his horrific behavior. When Jeffs was found guilty, the reaction that most struck me as problematic was the vast number of people who commented that they wanted to see Jeffs raped in prison. They said things like, “Bubba will take care of him,” and “well, he’ll get what he deserves, we all know what happens to child rapists in prison.” Essentially, these kind of comments acknowledge a serious problem in our prison system and use it as if it should be a correct and lawful method of punishment for those who go to prison. Prison rape happens. It isn’t just people guilty of sex crimes who experience it, it isn’t just people who are bad who have to endure it. It is a terrible flaw in our criminal justice system that we are unable to keep people safe while we attempt to rehabilitate them and/or their peers. Yet, we’re so used to this flaw that people have forgotten to see it as a flaw and would, instead, prefer to use it as if it is a part of our penal system.

I’m a fan of our judicial system doing their jobs in these two cases. I’m glad the proper decisions were made. I’m not, however, happy with people’s reactions to the cases. This kind of vindictive behavior is something we need to be wary of, in ourselves and others. How can we expect peace of we set our focus on irrational punishments? How can we make the world a better place if we don’t stop and think about what processes must come into play when there is a problem to address (like a criminal accusation). Vindictiveness, in these cases, does very little to bring us closer to a better society – it does nothing at all to help the victims or to help protect us.

Image via Wikipedia

Yes, you read that right. I am going to, in a way, defend Ted Haggard. Sort of. He is still culpable for all of the distress he caused himself, his family, his congregation, and everyone else. But there may be more at work here. What I’d really like to do is try to answer a few simple questions. Whenever a popular anti-gay activist is exposed as obviously gay a few questions come up: How can he be gay and married? Isn’t homosexuality a choice? Why are so many people turning gay these days? Let me take a crack at it.

First things first. A man who is attracted to, or has sex with, men is a gay man. Or at least a bisexual. There really isn’t anything else to it. A bisexual can very easily be married to a member of the opposite sex – for a strictly gay man it is harder. But if you live in a community that believes that the gay is the work of Satan, you are going to have to adapt or leave. For men like Haggard, perhaps leaving isn’t an option. How hard is it to marry someone you don’t love? Ask most married people. But this is an easy question, I think. The harder question is next. Why are men like this convinced homosexuality is a choice if they (apparently) didn’t choose it?

I lied, this is dead simple. They’re gay. Sure, you knew this already but they didn’t! They grew up in a culture that believes that homosexuality is a desire sent to them by Satan. What’s more, they think it happens to everyone! Straight men, let me ask you a question. Do you wrestle with homosexual desires? Of course not, you’re not gay. This is the disconnect everyone forgets about. Most men don’t wrestle with homosexuality because they aren’t gay. This is the simple answer no one ever thinks of. Anti-gay leaders think homosexuality is a choice everyone needs to make because they are gay. And not just living in the closet, but a bathroom stall like Larry Craig.

But why are there so many of them? Well, this is another easy answer. Gay people are everywhere. But you thought it was only 10%? Remember something important: to determine the number of gays and bisexuals, they must self report. Is a guy like Ted Haggard going to self identify? Of course not. But he’s still gay. Or bi. There aren’t any more gay people now. We have always been here. But we’re not afraid to say so anymore. At least not those of us who aren’t living under the heel of some absurd fairy tale.

To sum up, if you are anti-gay and struggling with homosexuality, you aren’t going through something everyone goes through. You’re gay. I used the masculine pronoun here both because it’s mostly men who get caught and because it saves me on typing. But switch the pronouns and change gay to lesbian and it’s still true. Ted Haggard is still at fault, but so is the absurd religion that allows people to bully and intimidate others into becoming complete assholes. If you’re gay, it isn’t Satan’s fault or the fault of anyone else. You’re just gay and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Why am I telling you this? Well, Jeff Wagg has recently found that he no longer has the time to maintain Indie Skeptics the way it was intended. So, a couple of weeks ago, I offered to take over. That’s right, we’re back in business! Any existing or new contributors are more than welcome to submit new content – there will be no change in the stated editorial policy – I will post anything that doesn’t break any laws without editing beyond spelling and grammar. You can log on to the site and submit draft pages if you know how, or you can just email your contributions straight to me. Let’s get this thing going again!

Furthermore, I did mention above that I have some podcasting experience. I have proposed to produce a podcast based on this blog. For more information, see the Indie Skeptics Podcast page – all details on becoming a contributor are there. I’m going to be looking for contributors in the next few weeks, so break out those microphones!

So that’s me – I’m eagerly anticipating your future contributions to this blog and to the podcast.

How are you Brian it is wonderful to hear from you.

[This is better than most already. Though the e-mail is in English and spelled correctly, it is grammatically incorrect.]

I appreciate you e-mailing us. In case the posting was not clear, the responsibilities of this position are as follows: you will be answering the phone and taking messages whenever applicable, you will be scheduling the company meetings, and running errands for the company for things such as purchasing supplies and making bank deposits (you will be provided with a company car). While you are running errands, you will also be given one of our company credit card(s)

[(?)]

for all business purchases.

[I admit, at this point I was cautiously excited. If this job were real, I think I might like it. Considering I had applied for a simple customer service job though, I was a bit suspicious.]

You seem definitely

[Grammar again]

qualified for our job opening, and more so than the other 16 applicants we received applications from.

[Here was my first real red flag. I'm better than the other 16 applicants? That's awfully specific.]

I would like to take the next step with you. However, before I am able to schedule a formal meeting, my company will require that you acquire a recent (past 14-21 business days) credit report.

[Any real company will likely require a credit report. But they always have the ability to do it on their own. They also require forms to be filled out by the applicant to prove informed consent.]

We started this because our company had some bad incidents with prior employees taking advantage of having access to a company credit card.

[A credit and background check would be normal here, but a real employer wouldn't need to qualify the request.]

Both myself and the company

[Grammar, again]

will prefer it that you use http://bit.ly/*******

[A URL shortener is a bad sign. Don't follow that link. I did in a sandbox and found the URL goes through several domains before resolving to a (possibly) real credit reporting agency. Again, you wouldn't need to do this. And you should never follow a shortened URL in this kind of e-mail, it's unprofessional at best, duplicitous at worst.]

to acquire your check as they are offering the check at zero cost to you (unlike other places). We also discovered that their scores always report back the most factual and accurate information.

[I didn't check to see if this credit reporting agency was real. If they are trying to get personal information a real one would work. Based upon the multiple domains and the fact that this is a clear scam, I have doubts....]

Once you submit all of the required information, they will show your personal report. Then, you need to email me the reported credit score, a phone number that you can be easily reached, and your availability schedule to arrange an interview.

I ask you to not email me the entire report, as it will have private content. If you have a lower than expected credit score, it will never prevent you from a position with us. I had a fairly low score whenever I started.

[This is interesting. These guys are smart, they expect me to be suspicious. What are they really after? If not personal information, what? But it still sounds like a scam....]

If you do not want to complete a recent credit check, unfortunately the company will require that I contact the second choice.

[A time limit like this isn't unsurprising in a case like this, but the wording just strikes me as fishy.]

Personally, I am hoping to fill this position with a new friendly face and am looking forward to your quick response.

Have a fantastic Thursday,

Kind Regards,
Lois Freeman- HR

Below is the response I sent. Before you say I was too hasty, I did a search for both the body of the e-mail and the name “Lois Freeman” in Google. It didn’t take very long to discover that this is a mass e-mail sent all over the country. Since personal information is (at this stage, at least) unnecessary, I suspect this would have led to either increasingly personal questions as the scammer attempted to gain my trust, or an invitation into a multi-level marketing scheme.

Lois,

I will not be sending you a credit report or any other information.
Based on the wording of your e-mail, the URL you provided and some
basic research on my part, it seems clear this is a scam and not an
honest job offer. I have taken the liberty of reporting you and your
header information to both Craigslist and to the Federal Trade
Commission. Have a nice day.

I found this “job” on Craigslist. I don’t mention that site by name to implicate or admonish them, rather to point out the ease in which scammers can enter into our lives. Craigslist is a very popular site for job hunters, and for good reason. But like any tool it, and those like it across the Internet (and even the Internet itself) can and will host cons. Be careful. The con I posted above was not obvious at all. The scammers get better at this every day.

In your entry on EFF’s Deeplinks blog you have laid out a case for “Why We Need An Open Wireless Movement.”

I genuinely applaud the enthusiasm you have shown in the article calling for more open wifi routers. Many of your sentiments I share. However there’s one huge problem I see with gaining wide-scale public support in this endeavour.

Objections based on bandwidth sharing aside (I don’t personally care if others use my connection on a bandwidth basis, I can throttle/traffic shape my routers), the big issue I see is the FBI knocking down doors and confiscating equipment and rarely if ever returning it while also inflicting a huge cost on the accused both in money and time with no guarantees of vindication in the event of innocence.

I used to run an open network. It was completely segregated from the rest of my network at home and it was throttled. The problem I began to realise was that the idea of Safe harbor provisions in law aren’t even thought about when the FBI wants to publicly flog someone in a raid (whether the raid is even warranted or not.) I realised that I couldn’t afford in money, time and possible risk of my employment (since my employment depends on a background check usually) if some Government agent decided based on an ip address alone that I was (fill in the blank for internet bogeymen according to the Government/RIAA/MPAA etc.)

Safe harbors don’t get your home servers/laptops/desktops/iphones/ipods etc. back from the FBI any faster and they don’t stop people from assuming you are a paedophile when accused of it. The FBI/Secret Service/ICE/Judges presiding over these cases have a long history of misunderstanding technology at the expense of the accused and I don’t have the money or the resources to fight that big of a legal battle – even coming from a family with lawyers in it.

When that stops, I may consider an open wifi router. In the meantime while the Government is trigger happy it may be better to push for more public infrastructure for available open wifi. As a matter of practicality I have no ability or want to end up with a legal battle that could threaten my employment when the liability for the service provided in an open wifi looms above me personally. That’s more properly left to public-owned infrastructure.

Ultimately, I think that’s your biggest hurdle in convincing people to open their routers up. It’s not the social responsibility you need to convince people of, and I don’t even think it’s the inevitable cries of “but.. but… socialism!” that will be thrown against this idea. What needs to change is a fundamental approach to the Government’s view of technology and the rights of individuals. Ask any Government agent today if a private citizen enjoys the same safe harbours as an ISP and I am willing to bet their answer is no (whether that’s actually true or not.)

When the FBI stops breaking down doors and ICE stops seizing domains over civil matters (paedophile accusations are of course criminal, however) and when Law Enforcement stops acting as the strong arm enforcer for private companies over intellectual property while simultaneously demonstrating a marked misunderstanding of the technology they are dealing with you may be successful in this endeavour. The mere prospect of going through what the person in your referenced NPR story did is enough to chill any positive response to this.

Even Bruce Schneier (who is referenced in your article as a trailblazer in running an open wifi router) said as much:

“As I’ve written before, I run an open WiFi network. It’s stories like these that may make me rethink that.”

So how do we approach fundamentally changing law enforcement’s views/actions? I don’t see their actions changing much since the days of Steve Jackson’s case against the Secret Service and in fact, one could argue they’re more invasive and more of a burden to the accused now that civil trials such as that of George Hotz are also imposing ridiculous confiscations of hardware and demanding the identities of everyone who viewed his video (whether that was awarded or not.)

In light of all these things, the average person is most certainly going to think “I don’t want to risk that.” It’s not bandwidth sharing, or possibly having your laptops/home servers hacked that is the major hurdle to public acceptance. John/Jane Q. Doe doesn’t have the ability to fight these legal battles, even with the ACLU and EFF’s existence, because the fallout is longer lasting than the outcome of the legal battle. This is especially true if the public accusations of the government are falsely placed and also engender community vitriol at the mere invocation of certain types of charges. Many of my jobs as a Systems Administrator/Engineer require a background check and were I to be targeted for investigation for my open wifi router I have no guarantee of exoneration (which puts future employment at risk) nor could I conceivably take the time off required to fight a legal battle.

My suggestions are to focus on more local-government-sponsored public wifi infrastructure. This would negate the liability to the private individual providing such a service. Were we to get very ambitious, we could lobby that this type of open wifi infrastructure be part of Obama’s proposal to get broadband to the entire country. I think this idea has a greater chance of success than asking people to possibly be raided by the FBI for things someone did while on their personally-paid for connection.

It is admirable to call for fundamental changes for the community better, but it may be problematic in today’s current realities in regards to Government Agencies and their views on law/IP enforcement to ask for people to open their wireless routers.

Cheers,

-D

(CC’ed to Peter’s listed email at the EFF.)

_______
Original article @EFF’s blog

I find this concept fascinating, because to me… skepticism demands ethics. And yet when I sit down and enumerate the two, I don’t find any specific overlap. There are certainly skeptics who are unethical (con-men) and I know that many non-skeptical people behave ethically. And yet skepticism has always seemed closely related to ethics in my mind.

If I were at a bar, I would have just begun a 90-minute, three-beer conversation.

Are ethics for a skeptic black and white? Are there shades of gray? In the absence of revealed morality, where do our ethics come from? What’s the goal of ethics? Any and all of these questions could be answered in an essay for this new blog.

It’s a pretty generous contest, with cash prizes going to the top five entries.

Contest guidelines

Essays can be any length.  They should cover some topic relating skepticism and ethics, but specifics are up to you. However, there are few things that we are not looking for:

• No academic discussions of moral philosophy.  This is not an academic endeavor, and essays should be understandable by general readers.
• No preaching of moral codes.  That is, we’re not looking for lists of do’s and don’ts.
• No essays comparing religious views (and that includes atheism vs. religion).  That’s not what we’re about.

Entries should be submitted by e-mail to contest@skepticismandethics.com.  They must arrive in our inbox no later than 12:00 noon PDT on 14 May 2011.  Please include your real name and at least one alternate way to contact you in case we cannot reply to your e-mail.

Limit one entry per person, please.  Entries must be original, owned by you, and should not have been previously published.  By submitting your entry, you grant us the right to publish your essay on our blog, with suitable attribution.  In addition to consideration for the cash prize, we may also invite some entrants to become regular blog contributors.

Prizes

Prizes will be awarded to the top 5 essays we receive by the due date.  Winners will be contacted no later than 30 June 2011 to make the arrangements to deliver the prizes.

• First prize: US$1,000.00
• Second prize: US$750.00
• Third prize:  US$500.00
• Fourth prize: US$250.00
• Fifth prize: US$100.00

There’s more information on the site, but those are the basics. I hope skeptics take advantage of this opportunity, and appreciate the sponsor’s generosity. Opportunities like this don’t come along very often.

And if you’d like to write an article and NOT be considered for a prize, you can do that too. Just let them know when you submit your essay.

I normally do not post much of a personal nature – I don’t mention every time I go out of town, I don’t tweet about everything I eat (unless I have a really cool or unusual meal, then I post a picture), I don’t use Foursquare. Most of my tweets are news stories I think will be interesting to my friends. Although I’m not a big user of Facebook, other than to converse with my friends and family, I  have friended people  involved in the skeptical community.

Last year, I wrote a blog post on this site “A Bigger Tent” about the need for our community to not make assumptions about the political or religious beliefs of people who attending TAM or other functions. A close friend of mine reviewed it, and asked that I make sure I didn’t mention his name in relationship to atheism. Clients and business associates don’t always take kindly to Godless Infidels in the South and Midwest.After the comment, and thinking about my online presence, I reacted by temporarily deactivating my Facebook account and making my Twitter account private. My thinking goes along these lines: I post or link articles about skepticism and atheism. My name and my various online nicknames, some of which I’ve had for 20 years, are on many of my blog posts. Unfortunately, sometimes my posts appear next to other posts that I don’t particularly want my name associated with. I’ve had to ask the site editor to make up a fictional handle for those, and have declined to contribute further. My name can also be found on searches related to my work and my employer, our company website, and so on. It doesn’t take a rocket science to link all those things, and I became more concerned about possible negative repercussions to the work-related issues. If I post on women in engineering, and the next blogger posts on something like, say, bestiality (for a fake example), my customers or co-workers might not make the distinction that I didn’t write those. Thank you, Bible Belt.

Several good friends asked me about the Facebook account, and my dad called me and asked why I had ‘blocked’ him from seeing my Twitter. Apparently, he’s a fan. Not running away, I decided I needed to go through and make sure that I wasn’t posting things that might bother other people. I’ve scrubbed them a bit. We’ve all Googled our own names and can see everything:  all the towns we lived in, how much our property taxes are, if our names has appeared in the newspaper (no obituaries, I hope), and technical conferences we’ve registered for. I found, on line, a fan letter I had written to the software company who developed ZORK (back when it was strictly text), which was published in their monthly newsletter in 1987. Why this defunct company put its paper-based newsletters online years after the fact, I have no idea. Fortunately, it’s my old married name so I can be spared the embarrassment of that silly thing turning up.

I don’t post anti-religious screeds; I have declined to further post on some blogs. But, I am still conscious of the appearance that might be interpreted by those clients, customers, and co-workers. The bottom line is that, no matter how much you try, you are on the Internet whether you like it or not. You cannot erase your presence. Therefore, you need to remember that everything you post or write will follow you around. That’s the sad reality in a world where we are often judged negatively about our views.

He’s also responsible for three very controversial projects.  The village bought Clow Airport, in 2004, and it has yet to break even. He approved construction of a luxury golf club that opened in 2002, and a high end subdivision.  The golf course has only made money once, and The subdivision consists of McMansions, surrounded by empty lots.  These projects are one of the major reason the village is millions in debt.

So when I heard that Bonnie Alicea was going to run against Claar, I was intrigued. She was a homemaker, a mother of two, a business consultant, and she had a PhD abd.  (More about that later.)  After turning in her petitions, she kicked off the ballot by an election panel headed by Claar and his supporters.  Some tried to frame her story as a that of a normal person standing to the Claar machine.

As a former Bolingbrook resident, I bought into the story too.  It was great to finally see someone try to break Claar’s control over Bolingbrook.  Before I lived in Bolingbrook, I lived in a college town where the residents were very involved in politics.  So when I moved to Bolingbrook, it seemed wrong that the board consisted what someone once called “Roger’s Robots.”  I thought maybe she could bring democracy to Bolingbrook.

She campaigned as a write-in candidate, and won over a quarter of the vote.  A record for a write-in candidate.  Following her defeat, she helped found Citizens for a Better Bolingbrook.  (Now known as The Watchdogs of Bolingbrook.)  The group published a web site, and later a blog, attacking Claar and his allies.

Following her political career, I began to notice things.  During the campaign, she claimed that there was a drive by shooting by Bolingbrook High School.  When pointed out that there were no eyewitnesses or police reports of this shooting, she responded that the shooting was covered up.  She also said that there were communities that didn’t have a property tax, yet refused to post a list of these communities.

I later found out that PhD abd really meant, PhD in all but dissertation.  In other words she dropped out of a PhD program.  True, she completed all the classes, and it is understandable why she stopped work on the dissertation to raise a family.  Still, the dissertation is the most important part of a PhD, and until she successfully defends her dissertation, she should not claim to have a PhD.

After the election, she was injured in a car accident.  Some of her supporters claimed that Claar was behind it.  They noted that Orange Crush, an asphalt company that does work for the village, donated money to Claar’s campaign.  The company is barred from accepting state and federal funds because the owners plead guilty to failing to pay overtime and failing to fund their employee’s pensions.  Somehow, some of Alicea’s supporters believe this relationship gave Claar the ability to put a “hit” on Bonnie.  Though the owners were never accused of being tied to the Mafia, and Orange Crush wasn’t involved in any criminal prosecution.

In a later article posted on the CFBB web site, they claimed that a trustee tried to run over Alicea as she was walking back to her car following a trustee meeting.

I also noticed that her supporters weren’t receptive to critical comments online.  They pulled down two public discussion boards because too many “Claar Trolls” were making comments.  While there were true trolls on those boards, most of the so-called trolls were users who made comments critical or questioning of Alicea.  Her supporters have also denigrated Topix’s Bolingbrook discussion board.  On the board, anyone who disagrees with Alicea is called a “Kool-aid” drinker.  One of her supporters even went as far as saying that you shouldn’t question her because, “Bonnie has or best interests in mind and some of us feel no need to question her actions.”

Another telling moment for me occurred during a village board meeting I attended.  At a previous meeting, Alicea claimed that there was a call to the police to report drug deal.  At this meeting, the police chief read off a list of calls from that neighborhood, none of them about a drug deal, and very few were criminal related.  She responded that it seemed like an excessive number of calls, and added that she made the call about the drugs.  Then the CFBB web site had an article claiming that this neighborhood was dangerous because of all the calls to the police.  Never mind that most of the calls were not reporting crimes.  This story twisted what was really said.

Over the time, I began to realize that I had initially supported her because she said what I wanted hear.  I wanted Bolingbrook to have an alternative to Claar.  Even though I wanted to continue to support her, the more I looked at the facts, I couldn’t escape the feeling that she wasn’t the right person for Bolingbrook.

To me, it seems like her active online supporters not only like what she says, but will not listen to any contrary viewpoints.  That reminded me of many anti-vaccine activists, creationists, and conspiracy theorists.  They believe that they know the truth, and any evidence to the contrary is ignored, or dismissed as propaganda from a grand conspiracy.

I believe that politics involves value judgements, and there is no absolute right answer.  Skepticism cannot tell us which political ideology is the correct ideology to hold.  Still, there is a role for critical thinking in politics.  Just as we should be critical of paranormal claims, we should also be critical of the claims of our political leaders.  Because those leaders may not be acting in our best interests, or may not be the best person for the job.  Even if they say what we want to hear, that is when it is most important to be critical.  It cannot not be said enough, that we are entitled to our opinions, but we are not entitled to our own facts.

I can’t say I’ve always been successful in that regard, but it is something to strive towards.

As for Claar, I am still not a supporter, and I probably never will be.  I will, however, not blindly support someone just because they claim to be fighting against him.  The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.

Alicea attempted to run for village trustee this year.  She was removed from the ballot when the election board ruled that had not been a resident in Bolingbrook for one year before election day.  At first she pointed out that the election board consisted of Claar and two members of his party.  The Watchdogs later posted that she only ran to distract Claar so other opposition candidates could get on the ballot.

While the three candidates she supported lost, Alicea is running for mayor in the 2013 election.  Whether she and her supporters will change their approach to politics remains to be seen.

William Brinkman is the blogger behind The Bolingbrook Babbler, a satirical blog, and is involved with the Chicago Skeptics.