Marquette Warrior: January 2010

Saturday, January 30, 2010

More Fraud on “Global Warming”

From The Times:
The chairman of the leading climate change watchdog was informed that claims about melting Himalayan glaciers were false before the Copenhagen summit, The Times has learnt.

Rajendra Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it. He failed to act despite learning that the claim had been refuted by several leading glaciologists.

The IPCC’s report underpinned the proposals at Copenhagen for drastic cuts in global emissions.

Dr Pachauri, who played a leading role at the summit, corrected the error last week after coming under media pressure. He told The Times on January 22 that he had only known about the error for a few days. He said: “I became aware of this when it was reported in the media about ten days ago. Before that, it was really not made known. Nobody brought it to my attention. There were statements, but we never looked at this 2035 number.”

Asked whether he had deliberately kept silent about the error to avoid embarrassment at Copenhagen, he said: “That’s ridiculous. It never came to my attention before the Copenhagen summit. It wasn’t in the public sphere.”

However, a prominent science journalist said that he had asked Dr Pachauri about the 2035 error last November. Pallava Bagla, who writes for Science journal, said he had asked Dr Pachauri about the error. He said that Dr Pachauri had replied: “I don’t have anything to add on glaciers.”

The Himalayan glaciers are so thick and at such high altitude that most glaciologists believe they would take several hundred years to melt at the present rate. Some are growing and many show little sign of change.
It’s clear that the anthropogenic global warming crowd does not consist of disinterested scientists, bureaucrats and citizens. It consists of crusaders.

But the crusaders aren’t people who have picked a random cause. A lot are liberals who are always looking around for an excuse to control the economy. And among the scientists the grants, prominence and influence that comes with global warming hysteria are a strong incentive.

Consider, for example, this:
Rajendra Pachauri’s Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), based in New Delhi, was awarded up to £310,000 by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the lion’s share of a £2.5m EU grant funded by European taxpayers.

It means that EU taxpayers are funding research into a scientific claim about glaciers that any ice researcher should immediately recognise as bogus. The revelation comes just a week after The Sunday Times highlighted serious scientific flaws in the IPCC’s 2007 benchmark report on the likely impacts of global warming.

The IPCC had warned that climate change was likely to melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 - an idea considered ludicrous by most glaciologists. Last week a humbled IPCC retracted that claim and corrected its report.
In this context, it’s hard to believe that things like ClimateGate are just the result of honest misunderstandings or innocent over zealousness.

Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Obama Opposed Spending Freeze

Bad strategy from Obama. Yes, limiting spending is a great idea. But this is the president who got an 800 billion plus dollar "stimulus" bill.

And the one that signed off on an Omnibus Appropriations Bill that is projected (over 10 years) to increase the national debt by over 9 trillion dollars.

It is, in other words, way too late for Obama to have any credibility on the issue.

Labels: , ,

Milwaukee Democratic Party: Amend the Constitution to Take Away Free Speech for Corporations

Of course, the left has been livid about the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case, in which a conservative majority on the Supreme Court ruled that corporations do have First Amendment Free Speech rights.

(Of course, Free Speech rights for the corporations that own the New York Times, NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN are something liberals fully believe in.)

But how do you reverse the effects of the ruling? A group called Move to Amend wants to amend the Constitution of the United States to take free speech rights away from corporations.

So what sort of people and groups are involved in Move to Amend?

Code Pink is there. So are the National Lawyers Guild and the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom. The two latter were, during the Cold War, flat-out Communist fronts (although we know little about their recent history). A perusal of the right-hand panel of their webpage will make it obvious that this is the moonbat left.

But then who locally is endorsing them?

The Milwaukee County Democratic Party!

They have sent an e-mail to a mailing list called “” E-mails to bad addresses go back to: “”

And yes, is the Democratic Party of Milwaukee County!

The e-mail, and the web page to which is links, are moonbatty to the extreme.

The e-mail, for example, suggests that citizens take action against the Supreme Court ruling.
Hold a Funeral for Democracy!

Organize a mock funeral outside your closest federal building, with mourners, music, speakers, and eulogies for democracy. Let everyone know that the U.S. judiciary has made democracy illegal by granting away our rights to corporations. Take video to post on YouTube, invite the media, and make sure your political officials are invited to speak in memory of democracy.
The web page linked in the e-mail has some other rather “interesting” suggestions for activism.
Do you live in the hometown or attend the alma mater of one of the Corporate Five?

Organize a rally/circulate a petition and send a press release to the media declaring your town/college is disowning the Justice as an embarrassment and disgrace to democracy. Send the Justice a “Certificate of Disownment”.
Then there is this:
Present a Corporate Megaphone Award “for Calling the Shots”

Go visit with the CEO of a big corporation in your community and congratulate him/her on receiving all the power they need to set the agenda for America, to drown out the voices of everyday Americans and to take the pesky responsibility for self-governance out of the hands of We the People. Present a big oversized golden megaphone to make your point, and take a nice photo or video!
Of course we expect any Democratic Party organization to lean to the left. But we wouldn’t expect such an organization to embrace the radical left so openly, nor show such a fondness for guerrilla theater.

Of course, maybe they did not intend to do it “openly.” A search of their website turns up nothing about the drive to amend or the organization Move to Amend. But maybe it’s taking them a while to update the site. Or maybe they sent out the e-mail, hoping that it would not become known beyond a narrow cadre of hard leftists on their list.

An attempt to contact the Democratic Party of Milwaukee County for comment was not immediately successful.

Labels: , , , ,

Monday, January 25, 2010

Newsweek’s Evan Thomas: Obama “Not Fundamentally Honest”


Sunday, January 24, 2010

Marquette’s Lawyers: Not Understanding the Law on Politicians Brought to Campus to Speak

Political Science Department Chairman Barry McCormick has faced a bit of harassment from University officials, apparently originating in the Office of the General Counsel of Marquette University, due to the fact that two Wisconsin politicians are going to speak at a debate on campaign finance reform tomorrow night. McCormick will moderate the debate.

University officials have expressed the fear that Marquette will jeopardize its tax-exempt status by hosting politicians running for office.

The fellow in the Office of the General Counsel in charge of such issues is Doug Smith, and we yesterday published what we thought was a rather reasonable statement from him, the gist of which was that the forum will go on without harassment.

Taking It Back

Unfortunately, he sent us an additional e-mail last night, and that one seems far less reasonable. We will quote key passages.
I haven’t spoken with Steve [Schultz], so I don’t know what all of the conversations were about. I do know that the question arose as to whether State Senator Sullivan or State Representative Stone were “candidates for public office.” Since State Senator Sullivan, at least, is widely regarded as running for re-election, and he has a declared opponent, the conclusion was that he meets the IRS definition.

So, the Office of General Counsel advised that the disclaimer in the fact sheet be read at the presentation and that, at some point in the future, a comparable opportunity for the declared opponent to speak be extended. That way, everyone present would understand that no endorsement of either candidate is being made by the University and that fundraising at the event is prohibited. (While the event itself did not contemplate any fundraising, it’s important that those in the audience also understand that soliciting, or offering unsolicited, campaign contributions on University property is not permitted. It also helps to avoid putting University guests in a position of having to say no to unsolicited offers of campaign contributions.) [emphasis added]
Unfortunately, these demands fail to understand that the IRS distinguishes between politicians (including those running for reelction) brought to campus as candidates, and those brought for some entirely different reason.

In this case, the “entirely different reason” is the fact that the politicians in question are well-informed about, and have key decision-making roles in, the issue of campaign finance reform.

It’s not difficult to find the relevant IRS rules.

The rules start by stating:
Organizations that are exempt from income tax under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code as organizations described insection 501(c)(3) may not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.
This of course, begs the question of what “participating in” or “intervening in” a “political campaign” would be.

Happily, the IRS rules give some pretty concrete guidelines about what would not run afoul of regulations.
Candidate Appearances Where Speaking or Participating as a Non-Candidate

Candidates may also appear or speak at organization events in a non-candidate capacity. For instance, a political candidate may be a public figure who is invited to speak because he or she: (a) currently holds, or formerly held, public office; (b) is considered an expert in a non-political field; or (c) is a celebrity or has led a distinguished military, legal, or public service career. A candidate may choose to attend an event that is open to the public, such as a lecture, concert or worship service. The candidate’s presence at an organization-sponsored event does not, by itself, cause the organization to be engaged in political campaign intervention. However, if the candidate is publicly recognized by the organization, or if the candidate is invited to speak, factors in determining whether the candidate’s appearance results in political campaign intervention include the following:

• Whether the individual is chosen to speak solely for reasons other than candidacy for public office;

• Whether the individual speaks only in a non-candidate capacity;

• Whether either the individual or any representative of the organization makes any mention of his or her candidacy or the election;

• Whether any campaign activity occurs in connection with the candidate’s attendance;

• Whether the organization maintains a nonpartisan atmosphere on the premises or at the event where the candidate is present; and

• Whether the organization clearly indicates the capacity in which the candidate is appearing and does not mention the individual’s political candidacy or the upcoming election in the communications announcing the candidate’s attendance at the event.
These guidelines are from pp. 1422-1423 of the relevant IRS document.

So where did the “comparable opportunity” and “disclaimer” things come from? These would be relevant for politicians appearing as candidates, rather than as experts, or legislators or activists.

The “disclaimer” business seems bland enough, although it’s insulting to insist that the moderator of a forum read a statement that “the views expressed here today are those solely of the speaker and not of Marquette University.” That sounds foolish, since nobody in his or her right mind would think any different. Especially when radically different views are expressed.

But moderator Barry McCormick has agreed to read the disclaimer, saying “That isn’t too painful.” In other words, why fight over trivial issues? Fair enough.

The “comparable opportunity” business is far more mischievous. For example, who at Marquette University has to arrange a “comparable opportunity?” If Political Science sponsors a debate (as it sponsors this one) is Political Science responsible for seeking out and inviting to campus the opponent of every candidate brought to campus? As we have suggested, the opponent may be somebody whose expertise is not on issues of pressing interest to the campus community. And how could we ever guarantee an opponent an audience of comparable size?

No one in the Marquette administration should have ever raised any of these issues. Not only was the forum designed to produce a vigorous and fair discussion of an important public issue, nothing about what was planned runs afoul of any IRS rules. While there might be some extreme cases where a real problem exists — flat out endorsement of a particular candidate, for example — Marquette bureaucrats should be in the habit of standing back and letting free speech happen.

Labels: , ,

Inviting Politicians to Campus: More

From Daniel Suhr, a response to our post detailing how Marquette has a rather illogical and ill-thought out policy on bring politicians (including those who may be running for reelection) to campus.
Not only is your post about campaign finance right on point, let me add an additional consideration: the university bureaucrats seem to underappreciate the fact that these are incumbents still in legislative session. Sen. Sullivan just voted earlier this week on an important campaign finance law regarding disclosure of independent expenditure donors. As Mr. Heck points out, both hold leadership positions on committees of jurisdiction in their respective houses.

From the context, it is clear that these two invitations were issued to current state legislators with particular knowledge of the issues that the panel will tackle, not to two “candidates for public office.”

Labels: , ,

Saturday, January 23, 2010

Monday Election Finance Forum: Marquette Counsel Responds

Marquette University Counsel Doug Smith has taken the lead role in dealing with issues involving Marquette’s tax-exempt status.

One controversial aspect of this has been resistance to a forum scheduled for Monday night which has two participants who are in the state legislature, and of course running for reelection in November.

We wrote Smith about this, and he kindly supplied the following response.
As you could tell from the “fact sheet,” which is not a formal University policy, it was created to provide guidance to student organizations that wish to participate in political activities on campus involving candidates for public office. It’s an important part of the educational process for students, especially as part of their own student organizations, to be able to do so. Nevertheless, because they often use University facilities and funds in their activities, it’s important that students have clear direction as to what is, and what is not, permitted. The fact sheet is intended to provide student organizations with the broadest possible latitude to undertake whatever political activities they wish, consistent with the applicable IRS rules and guidance.

The rules are stricter with respect to activities that are “sponsored” by the University itself, a tax-exempt entity that is prohibited from using its funds or other resources to support candidates for public office. I know from past experience that some tax-exempt entities prohibit visits by candidates for public office entirely, so that they do not have to deal with the issue at all. Others may not attempt to monitor or to impose any requirements on appearances by candidates for public office. For example, state-owned universities and for-profit universities are not subject to these IRS requirements. There are many reasonable ways in which a private tax-exempt educational institution may approach this issue. Marquette University has elected not to implement formal policies in this area but to provide written guidance for reference by those who are involved with activities on campus that include candidates for public office.

To answer your first question, I saw no description of Monday’s event that would lead me to believe that it is, in and of itself, either “electioneering” or a “campaign event” under IRS rules. To answer your second question, I don’t believe that there is an “equal time” rule described in the fact sheet. The principle described is that the University is not permitted to evade the intent and purpose of the IRS rules by permitting some candidates for public office to gain opportunities to speak to University faculty, administrators, and students, using University resources, while denying that opportunity to their opponents, irrespective of how the presentations may be characterized. The last thing that the Office of General Counsel would want to do is to try to determine whether or not a specific presentation was or was not an “endorsement” of a candidate for public office. Some would argue that allowing any appearance is an endorsement; others would contend that anything short of the President explicitly saying “Elect him!” or “Elect her!” would not constitute an endorsement. Drawing that line would be difficult.

I’m not at the office today and not in a position to check my reference materials, but it is my recollection that offering a comparable opportunity to oppose candidates to express their views is not a “black letter” rule. This approach does, however, eliminate any argument that the University is providing a prohibited endorsement by providing its facilities for a particular candidate for public office to express his or her views to prospective voters. If, for example, the University were to permit one candidate for Governor to appear at monthly forums on issues of public concern during the campaign season, while denying all other announced candidates for Governor comparable opportunities, the effect would widely be regarded as an implicit endorsement by the University, contrary to the intent and purpose of the IRS rules. “Comparable opportunities … to express their views” provides great flexibility to the University to offer opposing candidates an opportunity to address issues of public concern and to avoid any perception that the University is using its tax-exempt facilities to favor one candidate for public office over another, without limiting in any way the academy’s ability to fulfill the University’s educational mission in the manner it deems appropriate.

In many cases, opposing candidates express no interest in coming to campus. In others, student organizations have sponsored activities by opposing candidates on campus, eliminating any need for the University itself to offer comparable opportunities to opposing candidates (while providing the opposing candidates more flexibility in their presentation). “Comparable” does not mean at the same time, in the same location, or on the same topic. It means a chance to speak under circumstances that would allow the opposing candidate to reach roughly the same number of people on campus as the original candidate could have reached. The Office of General Counsel has never recommended, requested, or directed that additional persons be added to an academic forum or that any part of the academy be required to offer forums that it did not wish to undertake.

In the past, where the Law School has invited candidates for public office to participate in the “On the Issues,” it is my understanding that opposing candidates have been given the opportunity to participate in “On the Issues” as well, and many have (for example, both Judge Gableman and Justice Butler participated during the Wisconsin Supreme Court race). You might wish to check with Mike Gousha or Joe Kearney to confirm that. Of course, other presentations on issues of public concern that are not made by or on behalf of candidates for public office are not subject at all to this guidance.

So far as I am aware, the advice in the fact sheet has not in any way served to limit the debate that has been undertaken by faculty, students, or those invited to speak on campus, whether by student organizations, faculty, or administration. The Office of General Counsel offers its opinion based on IRS regulations and guidance derived from applicable cases and enforcement actions, as well as commentary from academic experts and practicing attorneys. The objective is to provide consistent, practical advice so as to assure compliance with IRS regulations, while permitting faculty, administration, and students the broadest possible latitude to undertake activities that fulfill the University’s educational mission. I believe that the advice in the fact sheet accomplishes that objective.

If you have any other specific questions, just let me know, and I will respond as soon as I can.


Bottom line: there will be no interference with the forum Monday.

Then the question becomes: why did Steve Schultz, Marquette’s Manager of Government and Community Affairs, have extensive conversations with Prof. Barry McCormick, who will moderate the panel? Those conversations were based on the premise that there was a problem.

And why does the University “fact sheet” seem to imply that there is an “equal time” rule that the University should comply with?

Has the Office of the General Counsel backed off its position? If so, let’s let this be a precedent. And let’s rewrite the “fact sheet” to make it clear that an academic unit at Marquette, clearly not trying to get anybody elected, can stage a discussion without worrying about University policies that have no basis in IRS rules.

Labels: , ,

Friday, January 22, 2010

Will Marquette Allow a Free Debate on Campaign Finance?

Coming up Monday night, a debate on campaign finance reform.

We will be on the program, along with one Republican, a couple of liberal Democrats, and former D.A. E. Michael McCann, who probably also counts as a liberal.

But here is the rub: as of this writing, the Office of the General Counsel of Marquette University is worried that Marquette will jeopardize its tax exempt status by hosting the debate because two of the politicians on the program (State Representative Jeff Stone, R-Greendale and State Senator Jim Sullivan, D-Wauwatosa) will be running for reelection in the fall, presumably with an opponent.

We have been unable to reach Doug Smith in the Office of the General Counsel, the university lawyer who handles cases like this.

Steve Schultz, Marquette’s Manager of Government and Community Affairs, raised the issue with Prof. Barry McCormick (who will moderate the panel) last night. Reached earlier today for comment, Schultz made reference to a document from the General Counsel titled “Political Activities on Campus Involving Candidates for Public Office.” It reads:
Subject to specific limitations, the University may sponsor speeches, forums, question-and-answer sessions, debates, and other similar activities in an academic setting on campus at which candidates for public office may offer their insights on issues of public importance and controversies that affect the electorate and society as a whole. The purpose of such activities must be to advance the educational mission of the University. When a candidate for public office or a surrogate is provided the opportunity to speak at University-sponsored speeches, forums, debates, and other similar activities on campus, the University is obligated under these circumstances to offer comparable opportunities on campus to opposing candidates to express their views.
Apparently, this issue arose when one of the student organizations cosponsoring the event asked Student Development whether they needed to register it, and an e-mail about the event went to the Office of General Counsel and the staff of the Alumni Memorial Union.

What Are They Thinking?

This, of course, falls into the “what are they thinking?” category.

For the moment, nobody has said that the debate can’t happen, but there is talk of extending an invitation to the electoral opponents of Stone and Sullivan. This would be a rather meaningless pro forma invitation, extended in the hope it will be declined.

A tax-exempt organization like Marquette is not supposed to engage in “electioneering.” That is, more or less, fair enough. And the rules the Office of General Counsel has posted say that Marquette (as opposed to student organizations) my not sponsor “campaign events.” These are defined as “any event at which individuals are solicited to support a candidate for public office, with financial contributions, endorsements, volunteer activities, or votes.” Fair enough. But the event Monday in no way resembles a “campaign event.”

But the “equal time” rule is bizarre, and out of left field. We know of no IRS requirement that educational institutions have to offer “equal time” to different candidates. It would be fair to do so, if the candidates were giving a campaign speech. But these two candidates will not be giving campaign speeches.

Of course, one way to stifle free speech, as liberals who want to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine know, is to impose excessive burdens on it. Requiring Marquette (or a part of Marquette, like the Political Science Department which is sponsoring this debate) to rigorously include every opponent of any candidate who appears on campus would make organizing any sort of event prohibitively unwieldy.

And in a typical case, if a particular candidate is well-qualified to talk about (say) health care, there is no reason to believe that the candidate’s opponent will necessarily have anything much to say about the issue. Indeed, in some cases the opponent may be a hack with no chance of winning and nothing to say worth listening to on any issue.

The net effect would be to ban anybody running for political office from campus — at least from any event sponsored by Marquette.

Jay Heck, Executive Director of Common Cause Wisconsin who arranged the debate, noted that “we’ve been doing these forums for three years, and we’ve always had legislators and of course they’re up for election, they always are. . . . ” Heck explained that he picked Stone because he is the ranking Republican on the Campaign Finance and Elections Committee in the Assembly, and he picked Sullivan because he’s the Vice-Chair of the Campaign Finance Committee in the Senate. “They were chosen for their expertise and their activism on the issue. . . ,” said Heck.

This appears to be an example of extreme bureaucratic risk-aversion on the part of the Office of General Counsel. Given the choice of defending academic freedom or protecting against a very far-fetched hypothetical legal problem — and indeed any such “legal problem” could almost certainly be successfully fought in court — they have come down against speech.

That’s not the orientation lawyers working for a university should have.

Labels: , ,

Where Is the Global Warming?

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Lecture on China

This is a last-minute notice, unfortunately, but our colleague Barry McCormick will be giving a lecture on China at 5:00 p.m. today.

It’s important to note that the room has changed. It’s now 401 Cudahy.

Labels: , ,

Hitler Finds Out that Scott Brown Won Massachusetts Senate Seat

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Hate America Sociology Exam

Happily, this was not at Marquette, but it probably could have been.

An example from “an introductory sociology class found lying in a room at a public college in the east.” Obviously, the identification has to be vague, due to the likelihood of retaliation. The provenance is clear, however.
Question: How does the United States “steal” the resources of other (third world) countries?

Answer: We steal through exploitation. Our multinationals are aware that indigenous people in developing nations have been coaxed off their plots and forced into slums. Because it is lucrative, our multinationals offer them extremely low wage labor that cannot be turned down.

Question: Why is the U.S. on shaky moral ground when it comes to preventing illegal immigration?

Answer: Some say that it is wrong of the United States to prevent illegal immigration because the same people we are denying entry to, we have exploited for the purpose of keeping the American wheel spinning.

Question: Why is it necessary to examine the theory of cumulative advantage when it comes to affirmative action?

Answer: Because it is unfair to discredit the many members of minority groups that have been offered more life chances through the program.

Question: What is the interactionist approach to gender?

Answer: The majority of multi-gender encounters are male-dominated. for example, while involved in conversation, the male is much more likely to interrupt. Most likely because the male believes the female’s expressed thoughts are inferior to his own.

Question: Please briefly explain the matrix of domination.

Answer: the belief that domination has more than one dimension. For example, Males are dominant over females, whites over blacks, and affluent over impoverished.
The exam received a grade of 100%.

Labels: , , , ,

Saturday, January 16, 2010

Global Warming: The Other Side

Check the video here, on the website of Newsbusters.

Some of the material is a bit fluffy (interviews with people on the street), but also some solid material.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, January 05, 2010

Google Blocking Recommendations For “Islam Is”

From an atheist website:
Why is Google Blocking “Islam Is” Search Recommendations?

Notice when you start typing in the Google search field that it shows recommendations below the field? The recommendations are based on popular searches and a rather nifty algorithm that tries to determine what it is you are searching for.

But Google is intentionally blocking these recommendations for “Islam is…”

Try it for yourself. First, establish exactly what Google should be doing.

In the search field type “Christianity is” and you will see recommendations of “bullsh*t, not a religion, a lie, false, a cult, wrong, fake, dying, Jewish, and not a religion t-shirt.”

In the search field type “Hinduism is” and you will see recommendations of “monotheistic, false, polytheistic, the majority religion of, the oldest religion, not a religion, fake, most commonly found, characterized by, and wrong.”

In the search field type “Buddhism is” and you will see recommendations of “not a religion, wrong, not what you think, bullsh*t, polytheistic, a religion, false, based on what concepts, the best religion, and atheism.”

In the search field type “Judaism is” and you will see recommendations of “false, not a race, not a religion, a race, a religion of the book, not Jewish, a gutter religion, monotheistic, a cult, and a religion.”

Try typing “Atheism is” and you will see recommendations of “a religion, dead, not a religion, wrong, the new fundamentalism, growing, a non-prophet organization, so senseless, illogical, a religion supreme court.” Clearly they are not holding back on the Atheists.

Now, let’s try Islam. Type in “Islam is” and you will see. . .

Absolutely nothing. That’s correct. Google makes no recommendations based on searches of “Islam Is.”

Why is Google blocking search recommendations for “Islam is?”

So why is Google blocking the search recommendations? Are they afraid of offending Muslims who will likely retaliate against Google? Or is it as one person suggested on Facebook, an attempt by Google to simply ignore Islam?
There is an image of the results described in the blog entry here.

We just tried the search for “Islam is,” and sure enough, no recommendations are shown.

Google won its top position among search engines fair and square, but monopolies, especially information monopolies, are a dangerous thing.


Our query to Google about this produced the following response from Nate Tyler, one of their PR people:
Thanks so much for the inquiry. This is an issue we take very seriously and, like you, when we saw the reports this week we looked into the issue and discovered that it is indeed a bug and we’re working to fix it as quickly as we can.

Hope this helps.

Labels: , ,