Westport, Connecticut, has set up a system to help its police department deescalate confrontations with people who are freaking out. The system helps them quickly find friends or relatives to calm someone down, rather than a cop who is a stranger.

Some churches pressure members to install spyware so the church can shame them for what they look at on the web.

California now gives all school students gratis breakfast and lunch. Students, no longer going hungry, are doing better.

It seemed to me that lunch in my schools in New York City was gratis in the 1960s. I certainly was never asked to pay for lunch. Could it be that my mother bills paid for my school lunches? It never occurred to me to wonder about this before, and it is too late to ask her now.

A Russian about to be drafted shot the official that was trying to draft him.

Setting a sad precedent: a museum has bowed to the pressure of an indigenous group that demanded the "return" of four artifacts that the museum legitimately owns.

The group agrees that these artifacts were not stolen; that the anthropologist who gave them to the museum had acquired them legitimately. Why should the museum feel an obligation to give in? What justification can the group present for demanding to get them back? The article does not present any, it only cites someone who takes this for granted. The people in that group are not the only ones concerned here.

In general, should anthropologists obey demands to discard part of anthropological knowledge? I contend this should require a reason stronger than, "These artifacts are related to us so only we can have them."