Justice Dept. to appeal FDA order on morning-after pill

Less than a month after a federal judge tried to rectify the US government’s pointless mucking by striking down age restrictions on the morning-after pill, the meddlesome fools are at it again:

The Justice Department said on Wednesday that it would appeal a federal judge’s order to make the most common morning-after contraceptive available without a prescription for girls and women of all ages.

The announcement came a day after the Food and Drug Administration said that one well-known morning-after pill, Plan B One-Step, would be made available without a prescription for girls as young as 15 — instead of only to girls ages 17 and over, as has been the case.

The Justice Department’s action will not affect that F.D.A. decision. Rather, the department is seeking to overturn a much broader order by the judge that removed restrictions for all ages and for generic versions of the pill, not just Plan B One-Step.

This is ridiculous. The FDA first advised that the pill should be made available for all ages in 2011 after declaring it safe and effective. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius apparently took exception this, as she then overruled the FDA because “the pill had not been studied for safety in girls as young as 11”. Not yet clear is why Sebelius apparently finds fault with the findings from the government branch strictly dedicated to studying and certifying the safety of ingestible substances, nor why a pill that has no serious or lasting side-effects would somehow be perfectly safe for 15-year-olds but not 11-year-olds, nor why a drug that’s already been in use around the world for years with zero reported casualties of any kind suddenly requires further testing before we can finally be certain of its safety.

There’s a fine line between security-conscious pedantry and playing politics under the guise of medical rigor. Does anyone else detect a whiff of ideological resistance, here?

(via @BreakingNews)

Same-sex marriage sweeps across three more Brazilian states

Though the Brazilian government already allows same-sex couples to marry through a two-step process that involves entering a “stable union” and then petitioning a judge, a rapidly growing number of states are doing away with the needless complication:

Yesterday, marriage continued moving forward in Brazil when the Corregedor Geral de Justiça in two additional states - Paraíba and Santa Catarina (Articles in Portuguese) - authorized marriages between same-sex couples. Now, fourteen of the 27 jursidictions in Brazil (13 states and the Federal District) have approved the freedom to marry. Earlier this month, Rio de Janeiro and Rondônia saw similar developments.

[…]

In these states (and the federal district), couples can marry in Brazil without the two-step process: Alagoas (December 2011), Sergipe (July 2012), Espíritu Santo (August 2012), Bahía (November 2012), the Brazilian Federal District (December 2012), Piauí (December 2012), São Paulo (December 2012), Ceará (March 2013), Paraná (March 2013), Mato Grosso do Sul (April 2013), Rio de Janeiro (April 2013), Rondônia (April 2013), and now Paraíba and Santa Catarina (April 2013).

Now, nearly 60% of the population of Brazil live in states where same-sex couples can marry without the two-step process.

An increasingly large part of the rest of the world is looking at you, “Land of the Free”.

(via Joe. My. God.)

Daily Blend: 04/20/13

With that hurdle out of the way, time to play catch-up:

Only functioning abortion clinic in Mississippi gets a temporary reprieve from being shut down by anti-abortion legislators.
(via @breakingpol; RT: @BreakingNews)

Rio de Janeiro becomes tenth Brazilian state to legalize same-sex marriage.
(via Joe. My. God.)

Imagine that an eighth-grader gets suspended, arrested and charged for wearing an anti-gun shirt to school. Now, imagine it’s a pro-gun shirt. Any difference?
(via @radleybalko)

And finally, the Family Research Council gets busted for blatantly bullshitting about the Boy Scouts. Why, exactly, does anyone still take these pathological liars seriously again?
(via Joe. My. God.)

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Daily Blend: 04/12/13

Audrie Pott (15)

Understatement of the Day: “It turns out that the Obama administration has not been honest about who the CIA has been targeting with drones in Pakistan.”
(via @ggreenwald)

I just don’t have the patience (or stomach) today to write about the horrific Kermit Gosnell case, other than to affirm how it’s the perfect argument for why abortion should be fully legalized and easily accessible to ensure women never need to resort to such barbarity out of desperation.

Ditto with Vox Day’s predictably pathetic rant about how pro-choicers are all worse than Nazis and so on.

Another teenaged girl ^[pictured] commits suicide to escape persecution resulting from the publicization of her student gang-rape. Now to watch the rape-culture-soaked media fret over those poor arrested rapists. (Again.)
(via Pharyngula)

Appeals court denies Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli’s petition to bring back anti-sodomy law.
(via Joe. My. God.)

Uruguay becomes latest country to legalize same-sex marriage.

And finally, Cracked presents some popular online myths, revised for accuracy.

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Federal judge strikes down age limits for morning-after pill

It’s once again up to the courts to inject a little sense into what should be an open-and-shut affair:

A federal judge ruled Friday that the government must make the most common morning-after pill available over the counter for all ages, instead of requiring a prescription for girls 16 and younger. In his ruling, he also accused the federal government of “bad faith” in dealing with the requests to make the pill universally available, and said its actions had been politically motivated.

The decision, on a fraught and politically controversial subject, comes after a decade-long fight over who should have access to the pill and under what circumstances. And it counteracts an unprecedented move by the Obama administration’s Health and Human Services secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, who in 2011 overruled a recommendation by the Food and Drug Administration to make the pill available for all ages without a prescription.

In a decision in a lawsuit filed by advocates, the judge, Edward R. Korman of Federal District Court, ruled that the government’s refusal to lift restrictions on access to the pill was “arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable.”

Judge Korman ordered the F.D.A. to lift any age and sale restrictions on the pill, Plan B One-Step, and its generic versions, within 30 days.

It still boggles the mind that Secretary Sebelius ruled against the FDA’s previous recommendation at all. But then, maybe I’m just used to living in a country where sense and reason prevail over some (usually religiously-rooted) prudish delusion that all those sweet little youths wouldn’t possibly engage in any naughty playtime together behind their parents’ backs, so why would they need access to birth control, anyway?

Hell, I’m such an unabashed desecrator of “traditional values” that I’d like to see all forms of birth control made available over-the-counter for all ages, and free of cost to boot. I’d even do the same with abortifacients, albeit with an added screening process, even though they aren’t remotely akin to contraception. (Not that the usual ignorant wankers care the slightest about such details.)

(via Joe. My. God.)

The Onion on the Supreme Court on gay marriage

It seems someone at The Onion has discovered the ability to peer into an alternate reality where today’s Supreme Court hearings on California’s Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act took a more straightforward and commonsensical turn:

Ten minutes into oral arguments over whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry one another, a visibly confounded Supreme Court stopped legal proceedings Tuesday and ruled that gay marriage was “perfectly fine” and that the court could “care less who marries whom.”

“Yeah, of course gay men and women can get married. Who gives a shit?” said Chief Justice John Roberts, who interrupted attorney Charles Cooper’s opening statement defending Proposition 8, which rescinded same-sex couples’ right to marry in California. “Why are we even seriously discussing this?”

“Does anyone else up here care about this?” Roberts added as his eight colleagues began shaking their heads and saying, “No,” “Nah,” and “I also don’t care about this.” “Great. Same-sex marriage is legal in the United States of America. Do we have anything of actual import on the docket, or are we done for the day?”

Seriously, why is this still an issue? The same once went for interracial marriage, and will one day go for polygamy and any other form of interpersonal relationship based on consent. It simply isn’t the government’s business who loves or shacks up with who else, end of story.

I can only hope to see the day where articles like this are no longer considered satire, but fundamentally and obviously true.

(via Political Irony)

Daily Blend: 03/17/13

Card. Wilfrid Napier

Predictably, the Canadian Government’s decision to lay off all non-Christian prison chaplains has already resulted in a lawsuit.

Public Shaming offers these handy guides on how to thoroughly void your Decent Human Being card.
(via @MotherJones)

In the category of “a first for everything”, I defend a clergyman’s ^[pictured] remarks about pedophilia from someone who apparently can’t distinguish between a sexual paraphilia and the actual act of child abuse.

And finally, here’s another month’s worth of refutations to the claim that religious people are more moral:
(via Friendly Atheist)

Highlights: (click the [+/-] to open/close →)

[−]

African woman says that “everything bad should be done to” gays, including imprisonment and execution;

Former pastor Haden Conrad accused of soliciting sex with a 14-year-old girl;

Metro News: “Six new sex abuse charges for retired Catholic priest”;

Rev. Donald R. Jung accused of molesting his 9-year-old granddaughter;

Birmingham Mail: “Solihull priest Ted Simpson arrested over child sex accusations”;

Baltimore, CO Deacon William Albaugh busted for child porn possession;

The Irish Times: “Report finds Dutch religious abused ‘tens of thousands’ of girls”;

Archdioceses of New Orleans & Lake Charles, LA sued for allegedly harboring accused child-raping priest Mark Anthony Broussard;

The Times: “Papal frontrunner Cardinal Peter Turkson links sex abuse to homosexuality”;

Manitoba, CA school administration & local churches oppose anti-bullying law meant to stop anti-gay discrimination;

The Advocate: “Florist Tells Longtime Gay Customer That Jesus Won't Let Her Do His Wedding”;

Gay Star News: “Brazil elects racist, anti-gay pastor to be human rights boss”;

Kansas City Atheist Coalition blocked from participating in Saint Patrick’s Day parade;

The Raw Story: “Atheist cop sues after being demoted to car washer for refusing to pray”;

North Carolina considers forcing Bible study classes on public-high-schoolers;

The Telegraph: “Church school pupils will need baptism certificate to board school bus”;

Montana’s Pinehaven Christian Children’s Ranch accused of physically abusing troubled children;

Deccan Chronicle: “Attackers hack hand off 7-yr-old Tanzania albino boy for witchcraft”;

Fifteen-year-old Maldives rape victim sentenced to 100 lashes for consensual premarital sex;

Osun Defender: “Father ties, locks up six-year-old daughter for witchcraft”;

UN cancels humanitarian marathon after Hamas bans women from racing;

Toronto Star: “Muslims storm church in Egypt looking for woman suspected of converting to Christianity”;

Middle-Eastern Islamists riot, demand execution of bloggers accused of blasphemy;

The Independent: Pakistani mob torches Christian homes in Lahore over prophet Mohamed 'blasphemy';

Iran bans Buddha statues as “symbols of cultural invasion”;

Bella Naija: “Nigerian Nurse who Caused Baby’s Death after Botched Home Circumcision in the UK Walks Free from Court”;

Miami, FL imam accused by US Gov’t of funneling $50,000 to Taliban;

Global Post: “Cairo court affirms death for 7 Copts over anti-Islam film”; and

11 extremists stopped “weeks or days” before building bombs for “another 9/11”.

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Daily Blend: 03/15/13

Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH)

Catholic Church in Joliet, Illinois forced to release thousands of internal documents that “reportedly show every bishop since the 1950s has been aware of diocese priests sexually abusing children”. I can hear Bill Donohue preparing his “old news” stamp already.
(via @jennifurret)

Ironically named National Vaccination Information Center launches anti-vaccination billboards in four states. Not sure why Phil Plait expects the same company that proudly hosts Rush Limbaugh to apologize for, well, anything.

Why police officers shouldn’t be automatically believed (especially by the courts).

Republican Sen. Rob Portman (Ohio) ^[pictured] becomes latest example that the best way to get someone to drop their homophobia is for them to know a gay person.
(via Joe. My. God. & @BuzzFeedAndrew)

Information is Beautiful on the major causes of death in the 20^th Century. Is it just me, or does cancer seem disproportionately large?

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Daily Blend: Monday, March 11, 2013

Duane Gish

Win for liberty: New York Supreme Court blocks New York City’s ban on large sugary drinks, which was to enter effect tomorrow.
(via @BuzzFeedAndrew)

Condescending asshole tries so desperately hard to make the case that the skeptical movement is actually a religion-in-disguise for condescending assholes. It was less annoyingly tedious to sit through Al Stefanelli’s “atheist cult” tirade.
(via The Daily Grail)

There’s a special irony to seeing Vox Day, who’s spent the last several months smearing John Scalzi as “McRapey” over his own bizarre misunderstanding, accuse Scalzi of exhibiting “juvenile behavior”.

Duane Gish ^[pictured], shameless Creationist liar famous for the popularizing the “Gish Gallop” style of “debating”, has died at 92.

And finally, just the thing to top off a Monday:
(via @EmergencyPuppy)

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Obama administration finally calls for demise of DOMA

It’s been a long time coming, but at last, the Obama administration is calling for the Supreme Court to put an end to institutionalized anti-gay discrimination under the Defense of Marriage Act:

Arguing that Section 3 of DOMA, which forbids federal recognition of same-sex marriage, violates the Constitution, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli writes that DOMA also deserves heightened scrutiny because of the history of discrimination faced by gays and lesbians.

"Section 3 of DOMA violates the fundamental constitutional guarantee of equal protection," the brief reads. "The law denies to tens of thousands of same-sex couples who are legally married under state law an array of important federal benefits that are available to legally married opposite-sex couples. Because this discrimination cannot be justified as substantially furthering any important governmental interest, Section 3 is unconstitutional."

The brief also slaps down the Republican DOMA defense’s claims about how the federal gay marriage ban supposedly works to protect children from some vague homosexual threat. Because that canard has served them so well in court this far, hasn’t it?

For all its (many and serious) faults, LGBT rights is one domain the Obama administration has generally been quite excellent in, though it does have a tendency to drag its feet for no good or clear reason at times. But from killing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to the President’s (personal) endorsement of same-sex marriage, it’s been nothing but hit after hit lately, for which they certainly deserve kudos.

(via @BuzzFeedAndrew)

Daily Blend: Friday, February 22, 2013

Diana Medley

Ontario top appeals court rules it just fine if police want to snoop around a suspect’s cellphone – so long as there’s no password, or then they have to ask permission.

Indiana Republicans agree: One government-sanctioned rape by medically pointless transvaginal ultrasound just isn’t enough for women seeking an abortion.
(via @jennifurret)

I’m not sure what’s remotely surprising about a study that links childhood bullying to psychological disorders in adults (except to those “it’s normal/harmless for kids to pick on each other” assholes).
(via RT: @jennifurret)

Sullivan, Indiana teacher ^[pictured] suspended over anti-gay remarks, universally suspected of being special educator Dianne “gays have no purpose in life and I don’t understand it” Medley.
(via Friendly Atheist)

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

AZ court: DUIs don’t require actually being “under the influence”

It’s all too often that I find myself both astounded and depressed at the almost cartoonish stupidity and injustice exhibited some courts of law in the US, particularly when any form of drugs are involved:

An Arizona appeals court has ruled that marijuana users don't need to be actually impaired to be successfully prosecuted for driving under the influence. The ruling came Tuesday in the case of a man who tested positive for an inactive marijuana metabolite that remains in the body for weeks after the high from smoking marijuana has worn off.

The ruling in Arizona v. Shilgevorkyan overturned a decision by a superior court judge who said that it didn't make sense to prosecute people for driving under the influence if they're not actually under the influence.

The ruling turned on a close reading of legislative intent in writing the state's DUID law. The legislation specified the presence of "the metabolite" of THC, and Shilgevorkyan had argued that lawmakers meant "hydroxy-THC, the metabolite which would indicate current impairment, not carboxy-THC, an inactive metabolite that indicates only usage some time in the past.

The appeals court disagreed, citing its decisions on earlier challenges to the DUID. "The legislature intended to create a 'per se prohibition' and a 'flat ban on driving with any proscribed drug in one's system," the court noted. "We determined that the legislative ban extends to all substances, whether capable of causing impairment or not."

In other words: It doesn’t matter how long it’s been since you’ve taken a substance, how much of it is present in your system, or if it’s actually affecting you in any way, shape or form – or if it’s even possible for it to affect you – because, well, drugs are bad, m’kay?

I’d say there has to be some sort of legal principle against any rationale that ridiculously hackneyed and overbroad, but the fact that none was brought up to prevent this ruling would indicate that there isn’t. And that’s one damning condemnation against the legal system and its agenda-driven puppets all on its own.

(via @BuzzFeedAndrew)

Obama DoJ: Bankruptcy still a fair price for filesharing

The Obama administration doesn’t seem to mind reaffirming the validity of “rebellion” as a reason for why people chose to pirate media:

This shouldn't be seen as much of a surprise at all, given that the Obama administration previously supported the $1.5 million verdict against Jammie Thomas-Rasset for sharing a mere 24 songs. However, now that an appeals court has reverted back to the original $220,000 ruling (procedural reasons...), and Thomas-Rasset has filed to ask the Supreme Court to hear the case, the Obama administration is back again, saying that there is nothing wrong with $220,000 for 24 songs. The argument is basically what you'd expect. In short: Congress set the statutory rates, the record labels asked for statutory damages, and thus nothing in that range should be considered too high.

Any system that favors mandatory minimum punishments (be they prison sentences or monetary fines), particularly minimums so egregiously disproportionate to any alleged harm caused, is a system invested in public spectacles rather than anything resembling true justice. There is simply no valid sensible or ethical (if not, sadly, legal) justification for throwing someone into insolvency over the “offense” of downloading or sharing a few tunes (or videos, or games, or anything else). The very most they can – or should – be accused of is displaying a lack of support for the artist(s) or right-holder(s), which ought to be punishable by furrowed eyebrows rather than criminal sentencing.

There is undeniably merit to the concept of copyright in itself (not to use the silly term “intellectual property”), as affording content creators legal protections against plagiarism and other unscrupulous behavior is evidently the right thing to do. But no rational mind can argue that the current system is anything other than categorically broken when it’s seen as a sign of leniency for a court to hammer an average citizen with crippling sanctions over an act that simply cannot be reasonably said to cause any harm to anyone (especially given the patent absurdity of “lost sales”^*).

* There is no such thing as a “lost sale”, which implies that a transaction was actually conducted before somehow being undone. What “lost sales” really means is that fewer potential customers are committing to handing out their money in exchange for content, which is simply a failure in marketing (and possibly PR – hint, hint, EA.) The blame for that rests squarely on publishers.

EDIT: 02/14/13 1:20 PM ET – Made a few minor phrasing edits.

Daily Blend: Tuesday, January 29, 2013

[full size (584×764)]

Good: Federal judge stops DEA’s attempt to seize a rural Massachusetts motel after a few guests there committed crimes without the motel owner’s knowledge. ^[pictured]
(via Uzza)

PZ Myers handily dismantles the tired anti-abortionist claim that science proves that personhood begins at conception.

Meanwhile, the anti-abortion fetal “heartbeat bill” makes it to Arkansas.

Creeping Creationism in Missouri.

Ray Comfort: Surgeons can’t reconstruct chimp attack victim’s face, ergo, Evolution is dummy-dumb-dumb.

I’m 96% humanist! Take that, 2009 Humanist of the Year PZ Myers and your paltry 90%!

And finally, here’s a bunch of Christians I could have a drink with (if I drank):
(via Joe. My. God.)

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

DEA wants to illegally snoop in private medical records

Never content with its current laundry list of privacy violations in its zeal to prevent the next great (imaginary) drug craze, the DEA is now trying to get permission to snoop around in private patient medical records without a warrant. Cue the ACLU:

The Drug Enforcement Administration is trying to access private prescription records of patients in Oregon without a warrant, despite a state law forbidding it from doing so. The ACLU and its Oregon affiliate are challenging this practice in a new case that raises the question of whether the Fourth Amendment allows federal law enforcement agents to obtain confidential prescription records without a judge’s prior approval. It should not.

[…]

In 2009, the Oregon legislature created the Oregon Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP), which tracks prescriptions for certain drugs dispensed by Oregon pharmacies […]. The program was intended to help physicians prevent drug overdoses by their patients and more easily recognize signs of drug abuse. Because the medical information revealed by these prescription records is highly sensitive, the legislature created robust privacy and security protections for the PDMP, including a requirement that law enforcement must obtain a warrant before requesting records for use in an investigation. But despite those protections, the DEA has been requesting prescription records from the PDMP using administrative subpoenas which, unlike warrants, do not involve demonstrating probable cause to a neutral judge.

Probable cause? Constitutionally-mandated due process? Never heard of it.

(via @radleybalko)

Homophobes present the argument from shotgun weddings

Whenever you think same-sex marriage opponents can’t possibly make bigger fools of themselves:

Marriage should be limited to unions of a man and a woman because they alone can "produce unplanned and unintended offspring," opponents of gay marriage have told the Supreme Court.

By contrast, when same-sex couples decide to have children, "substantial advance planning is required," said Paul D. Clement, a lawyer for House Republicans.

Lawyers defending California's Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act want the high court to decide it is reasonable for the law to recognize only marriages between opposite-sex couples.

So in their world, the fact that gay couples put thought and effort into family planning is why they shouldn’t be allowed to marry, whereas accidents are a good excuse for being forced into matrimony.

One can only hope the justices aren’t as completely ass-backwards as these people are.

(via The Words on What…)

Daily Blend: Wednesday, January 23, 2013

An important reminder that repealing DADT ^[pictured] doesn’t mean full equality until DOMA is also gone.
(via Dispatches from the Culture Wars)

Catholic Church: Fetuses are people, except when it’s legally expedient that they aren’t.

Latest from Arizona wingnuts: High school students shouldn’t be allowed to graduate until they swear their loyalty to the U.S. Constitution.
(via @radleybalko)

And finally, another victory for free speech: Federal appeals court nixes Indiana law banning sex offenders from Facebook.
(via @BreakingNews)

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Daily Blend: Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Pres. Barack Obama

Sorry for the repeated link dumps, only there’s this awesome story I just … must … finish …

President Obama ^[pictured] finally proposes some basic, obvious, commonsensical gun control regulations.
(via Pharyngula)

… Which, of course, means he’s out to disarm Americans to make it easier for the government to kill them all! (Seriously, Vox, take a toke.)

California lawmakers present bill to fix ridiculous legal loophole used to exculpate rapists posing as someone’s partner.

Radley Balko has a great write-up about the inordinate and dangerous amount of power and immunity granted to U.S. prosecutors.

And finally, I don’t agree with everything in it, but Robert Brockway at Cracked has an interesting piece about the U.S.’s culture of glorified violence and the role of videogames as a symptom.

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Daily Blend: Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Stephen Colbert

I think we’ve officially reached the point where the NRA is doing to gun rights what PETA does to animal rights.

New York police get even creepier, now fighting war on prescription painkillers by hiding GPS trackers in fake pill bottles for unsuspecting pain patients druggies.
(via Joe. My. God.)

California judge blocks overbroad law that would destroy sex offenders’ free speech rights to anonymity online.

Good gawd are MRAs/PUAs pathetic. How grimly amusing that these silly little boys presume to call themselves “men”.
(via @jennifurret)

Oh, and Wonkette also has some fun with the sex-obsessed little toad.

And finally, following Jon Stewart’s lead, it’s Stephen Colbert’s ^[pictured] turn to shine on gun control [no time for a transcript, sorry]:

Non-U.S. readers: Click here to learn how to enable Comedy Central videos (Firefox only)

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Daily Blend: Wednesday, January 09, 2013

Vox Day

Quick notes: I made a few minor changes to the commenting rules and revamped the Dungeon. That is all.

Another ACLU win: Federal judge rules key part of NYPD’s “stop and frisk” unconstitutional, orders them to stop immediately.
(via @ACLU_NorCal; RT: @radleybalko)

Ohio’s Jackson Middle School administrators are willing to waste a whole lot of money losing in court rather than comply with the law.

Vox Day ^[pictured]: Sloppy thinker, lazy photoshopper, and all-around terrible person. (Originally planned to devote a full post, but then I realized I just don’t care anymore.)

Public Policy Polling: “While the Democrats in Congress aren't popular (-12 at 38/50) their approval rating is a net 48 points better than their Republican counterparts (-60 at 15/75).”
(via @BuzzFeedAndrews)

And finally, just in case you thought the Freethought Blogs/A+ haters couldn’t get any more pathetic.
(via @DaylightAtheism; RT: @pzmyers)

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.