If you think that anything off the shelf with the letters SPF on the front will protect you from sunburn and skin cancer, you may be dangerously wrong.

If you think that the FDA or any other government agency is doing rigorous scientific testing of sunscreens on the market to make sure that they are safe and effective, again, the data may not support that hypothesis.

The Environmental Working Group’s study of 1,097 sunscreens found only 15% to be both safe and effective.  Their gripes: many active ingredients in sunscreen either degrade in sunlight, or are themselves known or suspected carcinogens.   They also found that of “high-SPF” sunscreens, advertising an SPF of 30 or higher, only 7% protect against UVA rays.  EWG didn’t do experimental testing of the susncreen ingredients, but what they did do was read published, peer-reviewed research on various ingredients in sunscreens, and cross-reference ingredient lists against their research.

You can go to their web site, and look up your favorite sunscreen or their list of recommended safe-and-effective sunscreens.  For each sunscreen that they list, they go through the ingredients and provide citations to various studies on each ingredient.

Because this research activity appears not to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, I looked to see if I could find some intelligent criticism of their work, or something to suggest that they are wrong.  The best I found was from the industry, saying that they “obviously have a very low-level understanding of how sunscreen works.”  The industry comment did not elaborate any further or make any attempt to rebut EWG’s claims.  Then again, no scientific argument can hold a candle to calling your adversary stupid.  One thing the industry seems to be right about: this doesn’t mean you should stop using sunscreen.  It just means you should be a smarter consumer and not rely on the government to protect you.

I’m not a dermatologist or a chemist. I can read the language in these studies, but I’m not really qualified to evaluate the quality of the science.  My only concluding thought is this: most of the sunscreens in issue are synthetic chemical compounds, made in a lab, that I am asked to put in direct contact with my flesh in fairly high concentrations.  When a serious question is raised about their safety and effectiveness, I put the burden of persuasion on those who tell me that it’s safe.  Until such time as they meet that burden, I’m going to use one of the products that *everybody* agrees are safe and effective.

Yesterday I encountered Tofutti’s “better than cream cheese” at the grocery store, and decided to try it out.

See, I’m one of those people who believes that “omnivore” means “eat everything,” as long as it’s food.  But I’m picky about that last bit.  I’m a firm believer in “fake” food, though I don’t like the term.  I eat tofurkey Italian sausage, I drink silk, and I like veggie burgers.  I also occasionally eat pork sausage and hamburgers.  I don’t drink dairy milk, because lactose and I don’t play nice.  That’s where Tofutti comes in.

I will say first, “better than cream cheese” tastes roughly like cream cheese.  Most “fake food” doesn’t taste like what it’s named after.  You eat it because it’s tasty and can be used like its “real” cousin, not because it tastes the same.  Tofutti is merely a pale imitation of real cream cheese.  Passable, though.

EXCEPT:

IT’S MADE FROM TRANS FAT!!

That’s right, ingredient number 2 is “partially hydrogenated soybean oil.”  At least the nutrition label admits that of the 2 grams of fat per serving, 2 grams are from trans fat.  For those who haven’t been following along at home, trans fat is an unnatural kind of fat that’s very difficult for your body to break down, so it has nothing better to do than deposit in your belly, thighs, and oh yes, coronary arteries.  This shit is bad for you.  And because it doesn’t occur in nature and can’t be made in your kitchen:

Toffutti-brand “better than cream cheese” flunks the “made from food” test.

Update: I’ve been informed that Tofutti makes a trans-fat free version; but that it has been largely rejected by consumers because it is more expensive, tastes nasty, and is no good for baking.  But if you want nasty, expensive, unbakable soy-cream cheese, you can get it at Whole Foods.

That’s all, folks.

Please allow me to address some common arguments from opponents of Question 2.  None of these are “straw” arguments that I made up just to tear them down, they come from the statement of the President of the MA district attorneys association here [MA sec of state's webpage].

• Question 2 is an endorsement of substance abuse
  Substance “abuse” is a level of use that compromises the user’s physical and mental health, or the welfare of others.  While it is true that any use has some incremental health effect, to conclude that all marijuana use is abuse would require you to conclude that having a glass of wine with dinner or a cup of coffee with breakfast is “abuse” of alcohol or caffeine, respectively.
• MA law already requires judges to seal the records of first-time offenders
  A sealed record is not the same as a non-record.  Records are sealed, rather than destroyed, because they are still accessible to DAs, probation officers, judges, and some others in the future.  For example, when applying to law school or applying to sit for the bar, one is often required to disclose sealed convictions.  Under existing law, a bar applicant who has a first-offense possession conviction would have to disclose that fact to the Bar Examiners.  Under Question 2, the violation would never be entered in the criminal record database, and would not be a “conviction” that the applicant would have to disclose.

  Furthermore, some casual users get caught more than once.  Even under the current law, a person who is caught with a joint for a second time will have a wide-open criminal record.

• “Decriminalization emboldens and enables drug dealers”

  Question 2 would maintain the current criminal penalties for distribution or possession with intent to distribute.  No free passes for dealers here.

• 40% of criminal arrestees test positive for marijuana

  Without inquiring into the accuracy of that figure, I bet a similar number of non-arrestees would test positive too.  And let’s not forget, many of those people were arrested for possession and use of marijuana.  In order to have a truly useful and persuasive number, you would have to show that marijuana users are actually more likely to commit non-marijuana crimes than non-marijuana users.  That’s an inference the DAs would like you to make from the 40% number, but it’s wholly unscientific.

  Let me put it another way: how many criminal arrestees test positive for oxygen?  100%!  Let’s ban oxygen!

• Marijuana use “is a primary factor in juvenile hospital admissions”

  What on earth does that even mean?  What’s a primary factor?  This isn’t data, it’s propaganda.

Pro bono work primarily is an “antisocial” and self-serving activity lawyers use to develop their skills, firms use to recruit and “give solace” to associates, and nonprofits use to further a political agenda, Judge Jacobs argued.

In particular, litigation against the government and government officials and impact litigation are attempts to improperly expand the courts’ reach in legislative matters, the judge said.

These were his remarks to a gathering of the Federalist Society in Rochester, NY.  More at The Daily Record, Legal Blog Watch, and the American Constitution Society blog.

Judge Jacobs then goes on to deride pro bono practitioners for “honor[ing] each other, sometimes over and over.”

I’m sorry.  I guess the 400 hours that I spent in New Orleans helping indigent families clear title to their damages homes were purely for my private benefit–and perhaps their private benefit.  No public good (or bono publico) arose from that work.  It certainly didn’t improve property values in New Orleans by allowing neighborhoods to be cleaned up and rebuilt.  Nor did it improve overall morale in the city.  It definitely didn’t reduce homelessness or overcrowding in the city’s residential areas.

Oh, and all those indigent criminal defendants?  If they really needed representing, they’d hire somebody.

Gross Ventre Campground, Grand Teton N.P. 

This is my first real chance to write so far on the trip.  A recap so far:

August 3: Our 5 AM departure became a 9 AM departure.  We were planning to drive 13 hours today and camp at Badlands National Park, SD, where buffalo roam freely through the campgrounds.  Instead, we found a motel in Murdo, SD–population 612.  It was hard to find a room due to the huge population of bikers en route to the rally in Sturgis.  We got the “family suite” in a little hole in the wall motel there, and breakfast in a beautiful little diner–also full of bikers.  

Every town in SD has some little bit of kitsch to stop for: Wall Drug, the Corn Palace, etc.  We stop for none of it, but Adrienne remarks of the Corn Palace, “what else do you do in a state that doesn’t exist besides go see things that shouldn’t exist?

I took no pictures on the third–nothing was very photogenic that day, and what there was we didn’t stop for.  You’ll have to read below the cut to get to the first picture.  

August 4: Due to again getting a late start, not making expected progress yesterday, and multiple stops along the way, we realize that we won’t make Grand Teton NP tonight–at least, not in time to get a campsite.  I note that we are passing LOTS of National Forest campgrounds, and we agree to stop in one of them.  We identify Shoshone NF, near the park, as a potential target.  The road passes through the Wind River Indian Reservation, including the gorgeous natural wonder of Wind River Canyon–made slightly less beautiful by the fact that most of the inner cañon outside of the river is taken up by the freeway and the railway.  This is typical of US Indian policy, and must be supremely insulting to the folks who live there: we, the beneficent United States, will “allow” the Natives to keep nominal sovereignty over their cañon, but we shall “improve” it for them by paving it and running smoky trains through it.  They should thank us.  Really?  There’s no other route that I-90 could have taken?  That cañon would have made for such wonderful hiking and backpacking!  Now, admittedly, it makes for very nice driving…

We stopped in the town of Riverton for Ice Cream.  Yum!  But, more time lost.

Coming off the rez, Marj is interested in finding the earliest possible camp, due to worries about bear activity at night.  We try to reassure her that the bears do not think we are food, either at night or during the day.  But nothing short of getting a tent pitched and herself into it (bear-free) will calm her.  We turn off the road at a brown sign for a state campground around dusk, but we’re not sure how far back from the main road it is.  A very Western man in a felt hat with a big dog reassured us that it existed and wasn’t far, but after a couple of miles the majority of the party agreed to turn around and proceed to Shoshone N.F.    More daylight lost.

We stop in the town of Dubois, WY, and ask at a motel for directions to the nearest campground.  The proprietor gives us directions to the KOA campground, and a map that shows the Brooks Lake area of Shoshone NF being not-far-off.  I expressed my feeling of profound distaste for commercial campgrounds, and we proceeded to Brooks Lake.

We finally arrive in the National Forest around 2130, and after a tense trip up dark forest roads, we arrive at the Pinnacles Camp.  We are all too exhausted to eat, so we make camp and go to sleep with little fanfare.

Have I teased you enough yet?  Anxious for a picture?  So was I!  And now, I present the view from Brooks Lake the next morning:

Panoramic View of Brooks Lake: Continental Divide in Background

Those who have never studied law may find some of these funny, but I make no warranties.

Best wishes to all who must endure what this week brings–and if anybody reading this took the Louisiana bar, you are already done, and I do not want to speak to you for the next week (except Ariel.  And Josie.  Okay, I do want to speak to you, just not about the bar exam.)  But you may still enjoy the quotes.  I apologize for the lack of usufruct jokes–we don’t have those up North.

And because this post contains some statements of positive law, and because Paul Lisnek tells us to presume non-lawyers are morons for professional responsibility purposes, I feel compelled to tell you that you would have to be a moron to think that anything in this post (or elsewhere on this blog) is legal advice.  If anything here seems to speak to your particular situation (for example, if you have been having sex with a seventeen year old in MA and filming it), do not rely on these quotes.  For the gods’ sake do not comment about it or contact me.  Get a lawyer.

Michael Simons–Criminal Law and Procedure

Death by lightning is not a natural and probable consequence of a mugging

You can’t burglarize your own house, but it happens with some regularity on the bar exam

In Massachusetts it is legal to have sex with a seventeen year old, just don’t take any pictures. That’s child pornography.

The last thing you want is for a Mass essay grader to think you’re from New York!

Drugs.  Yes, they’re illegal.

We’ve been at this for two hours, and so far what have you learned? BAR PREP IS BORING!!

Eye rape is not a crime, thank goodness!

Bob Cohen (you know him)

I’m a covenant, I’m a covenant, I’m running with the land!
–New York Bar examinee

I used to ask myself, should I go to my dentist and get a root canal today, or should I study property? The root canal usually won out.

If you think he’s in the closet and he’s not, but in the closet is a baggie labeled “fleeing felon’s heroin,” you can take it”

Paul Lisnek (you had him for the MPRE.  You may have also seen him on CNN)

What is the most severe thing the bar can do to you for violating its rules? We fill in number four, “lethal injection.”

For purposes of the bar exam, laypeople are morons

Once dead, the world is on notice that you’re probably not practicing anymore. Except where I live in Chicago, where we’re never quite sure.”

Ambassadorships are permanent even when the country is temporary

Law professors are like dead lawyers

David Epstien

Armadillos from Texas Play Rap Eating Tacos

If you have an unlimited number of people, an unlimited number of chainsaws, and an unlimited quantity of beer, you can level any stand of trees within a year

He’s got my damn grits!!!

There is no masturbation in contract law!!!

Misspelling parol is going to cause whoever is grading that exam to turn off the Sox game and pay more attention to what he is reading. We don’t want that to happen!!!

Maybe parol is how people in early England said “oral.” Maybe they went around having parol sex!

You cannot simply see two numbers on the bar exam and say, ‘aha, I am subtracting!’ Read the damn question!

What is the point of this hypo other than another gratuitous, cheap shot at Conviser? Well, that’s about it…

As luck would have it, they have recenty extended the internet so it reaches all the way into Texas!

Chemerinski

Congress may have thought having a national bake sale would be a good way to raise a lot of dough!

Paula Franzese

This is a time in your life that you deserve to be feeling some happiness. But this right now, this is not about happiness”

The person we have to thank for all of this is named, appropriately, William the Bastard

Gawd bless you. Gawd bless all of you.

“…and in any event, all of that is irrelevant.”

“An ounce of history is worth a pound of logic”

“We wrote the statute! That’s why they hate us!”

“I live for property. I’ve been teaching property for 22 years. This is my life. And even I’m bored!”

“This too will pass. And so will you.”

“Golf clubs in your hands would be consumer goods. Golf clubs in the hands of Tiger Woods would be equipment. Golf clubs in the hands of Golf Emporium would be inventory. Golf clubs in the hands of a deviant farmer would… never be a good thing.”

Richard Freer

We’re going to assume here that Elvis is dead

It just feels good to say to the bar examiners, “hey, FQ pal!”

We never remember how many c’s and how many r’s in occurrence anyway!

In recent years, the Mass examiners have shown no interest in Erie, so we have something in common with them.

Watch for Hypo #2. It’s the only sexy thing left in venue!

I bet number two is on the next page. Should we look?

Supreme Judicial Court. Because people were going to confuse it with the supreme racquetball court!

Mike Sims

The California Supreme Court has ruled that it is not malpractice to not understand the Rule Against Perpetuities

If you have a pulse and a conscience, you should be able to handle the PR questions.

If you are not the one person in the world who understands commercial paper, let me give you my guide to faking it.

You know what lawyers do, right? We fling paper at each other!

If you don’t know any law, learn some. It will help you.

Wanna have some fun with the bar examiners? After you get done inventing your rule, invent an exception! Then move from your rule to your exception

You did what we all did! You got some Gilberts and some Emmanuel’s and you got drunk! But you couldn’t tell anybody, it would ruin the mystique!

Michael Kaufman

As you know by now, I am very very weird!

I’ve got a hunch—a very strong hunch—a hunch that this is coming soon to a bar exam near you!

Stanley Johanson

Neither presumption arises if will was last seen in the possession of someone adversely affected by its contents. Then the presumption is hanky panky.

You gotta use human lives! You can’t use cats, that wouldn’t be fair! They got nine of ‘em!

Making her money the old-fashioned way—she married it!

It’s not nice to kill your father—especially with a dull ax!

Faust Rossi

All they could come up with was the tort of seduction of a previousy-chaste female. That’s obsolete. The tort, that is.

You leave that kind of wild speculation to law professors who are drafting examination fact patterns while on cocaine.

(See also the Spring, 2007 edition of Professor Quotations.  Those that were repeated are omitted here)

Roger Schechter

You could learn this subject out of the national enquirer!

Prostitution is illegal. Just because you structure it as a requirements contract doesn’t change the analysis.

I suggest Susan’s approach. If you see that same-sex marriage question and you can’t deal with it, answer it as if it’s a corporations question!

*Previous installments were published only to Cornell Law students