The Kalamazoo Post

Sheriff Joe

2012-02-01T12:46:00.002-05:00

Sad news for Sheriff Joe Arpaio here in AZ. Instead of easing into retirement his tenure looks to be ending in a blaze of scandal and incompetence, such is the end of his cult of personality.

The Phoenix Human Relations Commission voted 13-0 to ask for his resignation on federal racial profiling charges.

In an unrelated issue, Arpaio admits to botching over 400 sex-crimes case...probably because his attention was trained too heavily on harassing restaurant and lawn care workers.

QOTD

2012-01-31T00:38:00.000-05:00

Quote of the Day:

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.

Bertrand RussellBritish author, mathematician, & philosopher (1872 - 1970)

Obama's jujitsu on health care: Using Catholic power for good

2012-01-30T01:35:00.001-05:00

Subtitle 1: "Where I agree with the Roman Catholic diocese..."

Subtitle 2: "The merciful end to employer-based health insurance."

President Obama's recent announcement that he would delay, but definitely require, religious organizations to provide health coverage for birth control, was a mystery to me. Why was he picking a fight with large employers like the Catholic Church who have the ear of millions of voters? Now the fog is starting to lift and I can see his rationale as the Catholic Church shows unease with the federal mandate.

Bishop Olmsted

Bishop Olmsted of Phoenix is renown as one of the more conservative office holders in the US; if you remember he was the outspoken critic of the nun who approved a life-saving abortion for a pregnant woman with pulmonary hypertension a couple years ago, winning the bishop the undying admiration of authoritarian orthodox Catholics everywhere. Now Olmsted is in the news for drawing a line in the sand over providing health care for his employees that includes birth control. From Mike Clancy in the Arizona Republic:

According to Catholic News Service, bishops in nine of the nation's 195 dioceses are preparing letters to be read at Masses on Sunday encouraging churchgoers to lobby against the measure....
Of the group that has gone public so far, Olmsted appears to be the only one who has said specifically that Catholics should defy the law, according to the Catholic news agency.
"Unless the rule is overturned," Olmsted wrote, "we Catholics will be compelled either to violate our consciences or to drop health coverage for our employees."
Olmsted added, "We cannot -- we will not -- comply with this unjust law." [bold mine-- Tony].

It's not surprising that a hard line bishop would take a hard line stance on the issue, after all he is merely honing to the standard Catholic dogma, and frankly, I can see Olmsted's point. Okay, but doesn't this emphasize that President Obama should not be picking a fight with a huge organization that influences so many people? Then I started reading the comments to the paper's on-line edition and the light bulb went off with this one comment from a Catholic:

JeffGannon:
Olmsted is an idiot and an embarrassment to the Catholic Church as a Catholic whose son and daughter attend BCP and Xavier [two local Catholic schools in AZ] he does not represent the thinking within the congregation his conservative socialist extremism would be better served with the other conservative communist teachings of Stalin. We within the Church support pro choice. We pray every day for his soul to be relieved of his conservative corrupt leanings.

What can I say? This particular Catholic commenter is just plain wrong. He doesn't understand Roman Catholicism. He's been basking in democracy too long and doesn't understand what a top-down authoritarian hierarchy is all about. Leila, on her conservative Catholic site , puts it best:

Oh, how I love our shepherd [ie, Bishop Olmsted]! He is a gentle, humble soul, but he has courage in abundance! A true disciple of Christ!

But isn't she the outlier? Almost every Catholic woman in the United States has used or is currently using birth control, 98%*. The Papal stance is very clear--- this is sinful-- and counting the men who have had vasectomies or have used condoms, well over half (if not close to all) of nominal Catholics are willfully defying the Catholic hierarchy and will go to hell. Period. Up til now the Vatican has seemed content on looking away from this travesty within it's power mandate and has happily accepted donations and financial support from sexually active hell-bound Catholic sinners.

Which brings us to President Obama. Why on earth would he insinuate his presidency, his legacy of health care mandates, into this primordial struggle over Catholic sexuality? Two reasons that I can see.

The first is the obvious but less likely: moderate and liberal Catholics may realize that their Church is still operating on the antique and medieval principle that women must bear 10 or 12 children to ensure the survival of 3 or 4 necessary to harvest the crops and do the household chores. Thomas Aquinas would be so proud. The Catholic Church has missed the whole 98.5 % reduction in infant mortality with which science has blessed us. Maybe Obama is hoping this battle will help the scales fall from the eyes of the the faithful and they will leave the Church altogether, since most have effectively left the Church long ago anyway. Frankly, I doubt Obama cares too much about the Catholic hierarchy.

The second reason is more likely: the destruction of employer-based health insurance . All employees, not just Catholics, will view this debate and begin to see the complete silliness of having your employer, any employer, make decisions about your health insurance. Does my employer provide my auto insurance? Let's face it, the Catholic Church is correct, it is unjust. If some law required that I furnish coverage for a service I felt was immoral, I'd be pissed too, and isn't that the ultimate point? The Affordable Care Act, like it or not, is a product of our democracy and reflects our essential view as a society that health care is 1) necessary for all and 2) should include certain things like hard-on pills and birth control as well as heart surgery and cancer treatment. We recognize human sexuality as equal to life-saving therapies, like a pursuit of happiness thing. Just ask Newt.

By making this an issue, President Obama is pushing us one more step to the eventual single-payer (or at least single payment) system we will one day enjoy. It will start next year when employees of Catholic organizations will be required to obtain health insurance outside their workplace, then others will follow and will realize how painless the process can be. Soon, the whole charade of employer-based health insurance will be seen as pointless. The government will regulate coverage on secular democratic principles, like they do all other necessary commerce, eschewing 16th century Church dogma spewed from men in dresses a world away. Obama is willing to have this debate.

President Obama is using the vast resources and power of the Catholic Church to undo employer-based health insurance coverage. Citizens overwhelmingly want health insurance and view it, correctly or not, whether they realize it or not, as a right...and if they cannot get it from their employer they will take it from the government. If the Catholic Church wants to fight this, they will be fighting Obama's battle for him.

And the good news: we become a tiny little bit more like Finland.

* this number seems improbable if you consider that 8-10 of women are homosexual and are likely engaging in other sins, but whatever, I'm confident the percentage is still high.

QOTD

2012-01-29T09:13:00.000-05:00

Quote of the Day:

"There are three things I like about being on an Italian cruise ship. First their cuisine is unsurpassed. Second their service is superb. And then, in time of emergency, there is none of this nonsense about women and children first” --Winston Churchill, remarking during his retirement why he frequented Italian cruise lines.

USAToday Candidate Quiz

2012-01-25T01:18:00.003-05:00

According to this quiz, my views are most consistent with John Huntsman [66%], Barack Obama [33%] and Rick Perry (!) [33%]. The first two are not surprising, but the Rickster?! Yikes.

Resolved: Liberals sing better than Conservatives

2012-01-20T11:47:00.002-05:00

Opening argument:

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

First Cross Examination:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Rebuttal:

QOTD

2012-01-17T13:59:00.004-05:00

Quote of the day. Happy birthday edition.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin, born January 17, 1706

Same-sex Marriage and Rick Santorum

2012-01-16T16:10:00.000-05:00

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

First a few of my own observations:
1. This hostile crowd is college Republicans so of course I wouldn't expect them to have a firm grasp of all the countervailing arguments concerning any issue, let alone one as nuanced as gay marriage.
2. Santorum is essentially un-electable even in these strange Tea Party times, coming off a landslide loss in his recent Senate race...so he lies at the extreme of an extreme wing of an increasingly extreme and irrelevant party. He is a piece of fuzz on the body politic.
3. I find his sanctimonious condescension annoying, but that's me.

Now for the answers to Ricky's specific arguments against same-sex marriage, from the LA Times editorial staff:

Boiled to its essence, his argument has three parts: First, the burden of demonstrating that same-sex marriage should be legalized falls on its supporters rather than its opponents, because the former group is the one that wants to change the law. Fair enough. Here's the reason, Rick: Because discriminating against a class of people by failing to grant them the same rights enjoyed by everyone else is unfair and unconstitutional. [Not unlike any civil rights argument-- Tony]

The second part of Santorum's argument is that many of the legal benefits of marriage, such as the right to visit a hospitalized spouse, can be obtained via legal contract, so why should gays insist on marriage rights? This is monstrously disingenuous, as Santorum the lawyer well knows, but it seemed to confuse the crowd, so apparently there weren't any law students among them. Santorum is correct that property and inheritance rights can be transferred to another via contract -- gay partners can leave their houses to each other in their wills, for example. But, as Oakland attorney and author Fred Hertz explains, public benefits -- tax advantages, health insurance and so on -- can't be transferred via contract, except in states that recognize domestic partnership agreements (and most states, including Santorum's native Pennsylvania, don't). Even in the domestic partnership states, no federal tax, Social Security or other benefits apply to such partners because of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. [This is the primary legal issue, and one that should endear college Republicans. It is the pursuit of happiness trope.-- Tony]

Finally, there is Santorum's third argument, which by now is pretty familiar to anyone following the same-sex marriage debate: If you allow same-sex couples to marry, why not allow polygamy? This one's tougher to refute because it gets to a truism that gay-marriage proponents don't like to discuss -- there is a social-values component to marriage. Religious conservatives see no distinction between same-sex marriage and incest or polygamy, because to them, all of these things represent sexual sins. Yet there are obvious differences.

Setting aside the ick factor of incestuous marriage, sexual liaisons between family members can lead to offspring with terrible genetic abnormalities. Polygamy is slightly less objectionable on its face, but in practice it causes enormous social problems -- polygamous societies inevitably create a surplus population of young, restive males who end up on the streets or fuel upheaval because they can't find wives, most of whom have been snapped up by powerful older men. Underage women are frequently forced into marriages with much older men, and there is an innate power imbalance built into any relationship between one man (or one woman) and multiple partners of the opposite sex. [Conversely, same-sex marriage has the benefit of adding more stability-- financial and social-- to an extant relationship. If marriage is valuable, then why not extend it more of the population? --Tony]

But more important than any of these distinctions is the fact that the entire comparison is irrelevant. There is no mainstream political movement in this country to legalize polygamy or incestuous marriage; when and if there is, we can debate whether it's appropriate. By dragging these things into the debate over same-sex marriage, Santorum and his ilk are simply playing reductio-ad-absurdem rhetorical games. This technique can be used to discredit nearly any position on anything: If we allow same-sex marriage, what's next, people marrying dogs? If we allow people to drink alcohol, why not let them snort cocaine? If we guarantee the right to bear arms, why not guarantee the right to build thermonuclear devices in one's garage?

The answer: Because it's ridiculous. Let's stick to the matter at hand -- whether consenting adults of the same sex should be allowed to marry. It's OK to agree with Santorum that they shouldn't, but let's not drag the cast of "Big Love" into the discussion.

Do we really buy everything from China?

2012-01-16T12:02:00.000-05:00

Barry Ritholtz sheds some light on the mythology that US consumers buy mostly from China. In fact, only 2.7% of our overall US consumption comes from foreign-made goods. Two point seven!

Perhaps a reason for believing China’s share of the US consumer market is [so high is] how often we see the Made in China label. They dominate the toys, clothing and electronics that get sold in stores like Wal-Mart and Target and Toys-R-Us.

Morgan Housel explained:
“A common rebuttal I got was, “How can it only be 2.7% when almost everything in Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT ) is made in China?” Because Wal-Mart’s $260 billion in U.S. revenue isn’t exactly reflective of America’s $14.5 trillion economy. Wal-Mart might sell a broad range of knickknacks, many of which are made in China, but the vast majority of what Americans spend their money on is not knickknacks.”

We also spend far more on others than we realize: Housing, Commodities (especially Food and Energy) and Services (Health Care, Financial, Accounting, Education etc.). Housel noted that in 2010, “we spent 34% of their income on housing, 13% on food, 11% on insurance and pensions, 7% on health care, and 2% on education. Those categories alone make up nearly 70% of total spending, and are comprised almost entirely of American-made goods and services.”

Gingrich's anti-Romney ad

2012-01-16T11:11:00.002-05:00

So much for Reagan's eleventh commandment.

When the GOP puts up guys like this, the Democrats don't really need to field much of a team to beat them. When the Republicans present such a dismal slate of contenders, the Democrats hardly have to get out of bed. In 2004, with the country at war and the economy doing okay, the Democrats put up two sitting Senators to run against George W. Bush, to provide a contrast to Bush's leadership. Now, it seems as though the Republicans have given up, none of their leaders are interested in entering the conversation about where we should go from here. They seem to be traingulating to keep out of the line of fire from the Tea Party or the more strident religious fundamentalists, always angling just to keep their power base.

This is why Obama doesn't need to respect civil liberties or be even close to fiscally responsible-- there is is no other choice. Who else are you going to vote for, Gingrich? Romney? Huntsman, arguably the most sane candidate of the GOP lot, is now gone and supporting someone who, just last week, he said was unqualified to be president, and Huntsman flushes all his criticism down the memory hole.

This is a two party system, we need both parties to pay attention. We need a loyal opposition, instead we get 'vulture capitalists', psychopaths and sons of billionaires.

Remember, he's a pro

2012-01-16T10:59:00.000-05:00

Don't you just hate when bad things happen to good people?

Always the trial attorney, now he's plying for the jurors' sympathy. I would pretty much have to personally review his medical record before believing one word of this professional bullshitter's 'heart condition' story; and even then, so what?

QOTD

2012-01-16T02:47:00.002-05:00

Quote of the day

“We need a tax system that takes very good care of people who just really aren’t as well adapted to the market system, and to capitalism, but are nevertheless just as good citizens, and are doing things that are of use in society." -- Warren Buffett, January 2012

TED: Animations in molecular biology

2012-01-13T04:26:00.001-05:00

The God of Mind: Neurotheology

2012-01-13T04:01:00.002-05:00

Why do some individuals believe in God and others do not? From Nirmukta:

Neuroscientists have discovered curious truths about religious experience and their potential enhancement through drugs, disease or even practice. In this article I explore the implications of the apparent malleability and non-universality of religiosity.A relatively new area in neuroscience gaining momentum rapidly is neurotheology – a field which investigates the notion that within the brain are neural structures which give rise to the potential for religious experience. More studies are beginning to show not only that neural correlates exist, but that they have susceptibility to pharmacological and pathological modification and potentiation, much as the same as we have found for many of the complex emergent properties of the brain.

The neuroscientist VS Ramachandran has extensively investigated a curious condition known as temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE). Studies have shown that after TLE patients undergo an epileptic seizure, they uniquely describe having a profound “spiritual” experience. They claim to understand their place in the cosmos, and how everything suddenly becomes saturated with significance and meaning. Such experiences occur independently of prior beliefs held by the patient. Ramachandran has explained that the phenomenon is not evidence for “God module” as the media initially popularised. Rather that there are perhaps a variety of structures which work together to give rise to such spiritual experiences, which is the case with other specific systems of the brain. The visual system for example has many quite distinct components (colour, movement, object recognition, facial recognition) working together to produce vision, rather than a “vision module” located in a single area. TLE patients also show a reduced response to normally provocative images (such as sexual images), but a heightened response to religiously-loaded words or imagery.

The serotonin (5-HT) system has long been of interest in biological models of human personality. Psychopharmacological research has investigated the effect of psychedelic drugs in relation to religious experience. The drugs which have been studied include adrenaline derivatives (e.g. mescaline) and serotonin derivatives (e.g. LSD, psilocybin, DMT). It has been found that these drugs cause transcendental or spiritual experiences as well as intense visual hallucinations. The remarkable finding is that all of these drugs act on one specific type of neuroreceptor called serotonin 2A (or 5-HT2A) receptors, which are found all over the cortical surface of the brain. 5-HT2A receptors are stimulatory, which means when these drugs acts on them they increase production of serotonin in the brain, and this gross overstimulation of the 5-HT2A receptors leads to what are interpreted as religious experiences.

[snip]

The most significant question that arises from these discoveries is the implications on the theistic account of free will in choosing faith. In other words, the typical monotheistic description of a God who gives us the ability (free will) to choose to worship him becomes problematic, since we find that the capacity for religious experience seems to be as varied among the population as any other personality trait, individual characteristic or innate ability. Some people are simply born with a brain that has a greater chance of finding God, as they are “wired up” that way. We are restricted in our choice, much the same as we are restricted in our choice to prefer chocolate or vanilla, Bach or Mozart, men or women. Neuroscientific studies have consistently shown that all the choices we make in life are far more greatly influenced by genetic makeup, rather than our environmental influences. In this regard, we are certainly not equal in finding pathways to God.

This issue dovetails with the book I recently reviewed called The "God" Part of the Brain, by Matthew Alper, which is much more complete thesis on the neurotheology or "biotheology." Morality has a biological basis, free will is an illusion.

Newt's Iran policy

2012-01-12T01:00:00.001-05:00

Maybe I watch too many spy shows on TV, but is this really what you want your presidential candidate to say on TV?

The operative line: Newt says, "First of all, maximum covert operations to block and disrupt the Iranian [nuclear] program, including taking out their scientists, including breaking up their systems, all of it covertly, all of it deniable. Second, maximum coordination with the Israelis..."

Before that Newt says he certainly wouldn't do what Obama is doing, "Both the answers you just got are superior to the current administration."

Firstly, how does Gingrich know what the Obama administration is doing? How does he know the US was not behind the recent attacks on Iranian scientists? If Obama were panning to target foreign scientists all along, wouldn't it be much more prudent to publicly denounce these acts, or at least keep quiet as he has done? Isn't that what covert is?

Secondly, and more importantly, do we really want a future president on record saying that he would take covert steps to illegally target foreign scientists and make sure it was all deniable? Really? Does Newt think that Iranians don't own televisions, or their public opinion doesn't matter? Is this Newt's master plan for the re-working of civilization?

(from C&L)

Woody Guthrie's 1943 New Year's Resolutions

2012-01-12T00:02:00.000-05:00

QOTD

2012-01-11T06:08:00.000-05:00

Quote of the day:

“I don’t believe Iowa is representative of America." It is “91 percent white and 90 percent Christian. They have never elected a woman to the Congress or Senate or as governor. The largest city is 200,000.” "You have [Mitt] Romney and [Rick] Santorum claiming victory when they only have 30,000 votes. What is this? It’s nothing. That’s not representative of anything. Iowa is a small state that is losing one representative. This is crazy.” --Stephen Bloom, professor of journalism

Book Review: The "God" Part of the Brain, by Matthew Alper

2012-01-11T04:50:00.001-05:00

Four out of five stars.

This is a book-length essay with references to support the author's point of view. Easy to read and covers topics about neuroscience in enough detail to make it interesting but accessible to the lay person. Alper begins by reviewing how we have come to our understanding of physics, chemistry and biology-- very accurate and well-written. He continues by discussing the brain and how our proclivities toward God-belief are hard-wired into our biology. His ideas about sociobiology are consistent with E.O. Wilson, who is quoted extensively.

I recommend this book to anyone who wonders why some people believe in God and others do not. Why are we moral? Where does altruism come from? Alper presents the scientific non-theistic view very well and tries to show where the field of "bio-theology" will go in the future. Not a definitive work on the subject nor is it a scientific treatise, but this book's themes stimulate lots of thought and he provides plenty of references. I can see why it has acquired a cultish following among the young and irreligious.

Vindication: New Years baby edition

2012-01-08T12:50:00.001-05:00

Phoenix presented two New Years babies since they were born so close together, one from Mesa and one from Glendale.

WWJLD: What Would John Lennon Do?

2012-01-02T09:24:00.000-05:00

Usually I like New Years for no other reason than I get a 45-week reprieve from the constant drone of fatuous Christmas music. So imagine my consternation when this special day was marred by the criminal butchery of one of the great secular songs of all time.

Imagine. Cee-Lo Green changed the lyrics of the Lennon classic from "No religion, too" to "All religions, too." Aside from the obvious question, why would anybody change the lyrics to any song that is perennially at the top of any "Best Song Ever" list, but why change the lyric to mean the EXACT opposite of the writer's intention?

Lennon wrote "Imagine" as a secular, pacifist, socialist theme, like it or not. Imagine indeed. And I would add that Lennon was a better songwriter than any lyricist who would ever think to construct a Christmas carol. Imagine the heart-rending furor that would erupt if someone changed the lyrics of one our beloved Christmas carols and switched the word "Nature" for God or Jesus? The horror!

The redeeming issue here, however, is that the public has risen up to denounce Cee-Lo Green for his misstep and he has even been forced to remove his Twitter account over the bruhaha. Writers should write, and performers should perform. Remember that, Mr. Green.

Heres the infamous video from New Years Eve (Fast forward to 3:55 for the song):

And Cee-Lo in one of his better moments, gotta love the pink zoot suit: (explicit lyrics):

Phoenix' New Years baby?

2012-01-01T04:59:00.002-05:00

Picture stolen from the internet. Simon was actually cuter.

It's been 20 years since I've worked New Years, but here I am. In my old practice in Michigan I always offered to take call on Christmas or Christmas Eve since I didn't have kids and we didn't have enough Jews in town. But this year, it's a new state, new partners, new priorities and I was asked to work New Years. No problem.

I forgot about the drama, the overriding theme of who will have the first baby of the New Year. Every patient who comes in to be evaluated is hoping to have the New Years baby. "I hope I'm in labor." Well, what do you know, about 4pm a couple wanders in, she's contracting regularly and changing her cervix. The board is full of multips in various stages of labor, all destined to deliver before midnight, but Agnes and Donald (names changed) are here with their first and the timing seems right...a centimeter per hour, plus some pushing, puts her close to delivery by midnight.

The hours pass, the epidural is placed, the baby is doing fine. She's 8cm at 10pm, hmmm. Others are delivering and I'm back doing a c-section at 11:15 PM on someone who came in dilated who was scheduled for a repeat c-section in a couple weeks. Agnes is making more progress and the nurses call in to the OR for me to go directly to the delivery room when I'm finished. As I enter, the nursing house manager is present (usually not a good sign, but tonight is different) with a camera and words of encouragement. Agnes is pushing like a trooper and the baby is crowning on the perineum.

"Push it up slowly, everything is going well," I say. Donald is excited, holding the video camera with one hand and his wife's leg with the other, learning to multitask early.

Another nurse sticks her head in the delivery room, "Desert [hospital, across town] has someone about to deliver, too. They're asking how close we are."

"Close," three of us say in unison. Two RN's, a baby nurse and the manger, with all our attention trained on the laboring patient.

And there it is. Happy New Year, little Simon comes out and gasps his first breath! Desert had a delivery at 11:57 PM and ours was at 12:01AM. The New Years baby! We got the New Years baby! A city of 4 million, and it's us. Can that really be?

Congratulations, pictures, phone calls, texts, bubbly grape juice. A celebration to remember. Now we wait for the newspaper reporters and TV crew in the morning.

As I'm doing the paperwork, one of the RN's comes up, "Did you hear what Desert did?"

"No," I say.

"They said their clock was off by 3 minutes and their "official" clock said exactly midnight when their baby was born."

"Huh? That makes no sense."

"I know," she says, "but that's their story. They got the New Years baby."

Agnes and Donald don't really care, they have a beautiful boy and that's all that matters. I have to say that it never really meant much to me to deliver the New Years baby, I never really wanted to even work on this holiday, but when it looked like it happened I definitely felt the excitement, the rush. The cutthroat world of obstetrics... victory was snatched away by the Desert hospital demons.

The White Sox need Tebow

2011-12-22T14:57:00.003-05:00

...or Adam Dunn (aka, Done) needs to find Jesus. Something.

Here is the redux on Dunn's dismal season:

Strange but truest player of the year

Did Adam Dunn's season really happen -- I mean, in real life? I've seen the numbers, printed on actual paper, so apparently it did. But really, friends, it ought to be impossible to do all this:

• On his road to hitting a mind-rattling .159, this guy had more trips to the plate when he DIDN'T put a ball in play (256) than trips when he did (240).

[+] Enlarge

Eric P. Mull/US PresswireAdam Dunn batted .159 and struck out 177 times in 415 at-bats in 2011.

• He had 52 multi-strikeout games but only 12 multi-hit games. Seriously.

• He got six hits all season -- six -- against left-handed pitchers (in 94 at-bats). Just for comparison's sake,Adrian Gonzalez (who also bats left-handed, last time we looked) got six hits off left-handed pitchers in one SERIES (June 20-22 against the Cubs).

• Other than May, when the Dunner hit a not exactly Ty Cobb-esque .204, he never had a batting average higher than .160 IN ANY MONTH.

• You realize that Dunn went into this season with a higher career slugging percentage (.521) than Gonzalez, Paul Konerko and Troy Tulowitzki (among billions of others), right? You can look that up. He then went out and slugged an incomprehensible .277. That was 50 points worse than Juan Pierre, 63 behind Willie Bloomquist, 69 back of Aaron Miles and 82 lower than Elvis Andrus. You can look that up, too.

• This man had 111 more strikeouts (177) than hits (66). So how many other American Leaguers in history have had 100 more whiffs than hits in a season? That would be nada, obviously.

• And one more thing: If you ignore little technicalities like decimal points, Dunn's batting average (.159) was lower than his strikeout total (177). Other than Mark Reynolds, who pulled that off in 2010, no position player has ever done that in a season where he got more than 40 -- yes, 40 -- plate appearances. And with good reason!

And the best part: we have him for TWO more seasons!

The Spielberg Face

2011-12-20T15:38:00.002-05:00

Paul Ryan about to implode

2011-12-16T16:31:00.000-05:00

Rep. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, has taken up the mantle of enlightening the Republican party about health care and taxes. He is using Wisconsin Republican Rep Raul Ryan has the vehicle. Wyden and Ryan have teamed up to fix Medicare and health care "premium support" and there are enough changes to Ryan's original plan to make it work. The caveats: it will provide universal coverage and it will entail higher taxes to pay for it. In effect, Ryan is signing on to Obama's Affordable Care Act provisions and even includes a public option.

As Matt Miller says in the WaPo:

With this new plan, Ryan has signed onto the idea of subsidizing people to buy coverage from well-regulated health exchanges that must take all comers and charge them similar premiums regardless of health status (provisions that did not exist in Ryan’s previous premium-support plan). If that framework sounds familiar, it should — it basically describes the dreaded Obamacare! And here’s the kicker: Wyden-Ryan has a public option to boot, because fee-for-service Medicare would remain an option for seniors.

[snip]

Wyden has put Ryan in a box where he can be forced to admit that there’s no way to get our long-term fiscal house in order without higher taxes as the boomers age. (I know it must seem crazy to get excited about forcing a politician to admit the obvious, but that’s the kind of breathtaking intellectual dishonesty on taxes we’ve been dealing with). If the media are smart and persistent enough to force this question of Ryan’s endless debt, Wyden will have set in motion a Republican “uncle” on taxes that could fundamentally alter policy debate in the years ahead.

I can see how this plays out. The Republicans will say that they are forced to raise taxers because of the irresponsible spending under Obama. It will be a lie of course. The huge and growing debt is a result of the discretionary spending for wars, coupled with irresponsible tax cuts. In time, to provide the promised health care and Social Security for seniors, the coffers will need to be replenished with the stolen money. Maybe Ryan's acquiescence will serve as the beginning of that realization, but don't expect it to all happen magically without partisan rancor.

Given the hysterics demonstrated within the GOP about taxes, I cannot envision Ryan, with his reaching across the aisle, surviving this episode intact.

MLB: Milwaukee Franchise to Change name

2011-12-14T14:11:00.001-05:00

Breaking News:

Ryan Braun sporting the new uniform for the Milwaukee Juicers

Book Review: Fall of Giants, by Ken Follett

2011-12-13T12:43:00.002-05:00

This genre, historical fiction, is outside my usual reading preferences, but Fall of Giants is an excellent synopsis of the war and class struggle that changed Western civilization a hundred years ago. Follett constructs an intricate plot of believable characters that accurately portray likely traits of the various classes in the lead up to and during the Great War. The fall of the European aristocracy and the rise of the working class is played out by representative protagonists from nations of England, USA, Russia and Germany.

Reminiscent of Gone with the Wind, this novel is an epic that brings us through a world war instigated by arrogance that informed a derelict world view. Young men died as old men lied to cling to their failing grasp of power and the resultant socioeconomic disaster hastened the universal rise of the proletariat. Characters easily garner our sympathy-- princes and paupers alike-- as Follett shows us how their motivations affected their actions and how the outcomes, in retrospect, seem unfortunately predictable.

This is the first of the Century Trilogy and I look forward to the second installment in Summer 2012. Highly entertaining and easy to read despite it's nearly 1000 pages.

Rick Perry wears the jacket

2011-12-12T19:58:00.001-05:00

(h/t GoodDoc01 )

How are God and Newt different?

2011-12-12T16:20:00.001-05:00

Answer: God doesn't think He's Newt Gingrich.

Newt Links:

Newt the transformational figure in cartoon form.

Newt takes a "no-adultery pledge". You cannot make this stuff up.

Where was war-hawk Newt stationed during the Vietnam War? Come on, you know the answer.

During a recent debate Newt realizes that he is saying he, himself, should go to jail. Video shows the moment at 1:40 mark.

And I quote: “See, when I smoked pot it was illegal, but not immoral. Now, it is illegal AND immoral. That’s why you get to go to jail and I don’t.”

Conservative radiotalker Michael Savage offers Newt $1 million to drop out of race. And another righty makes the case against "globalist Newt."

Own your very own pet Newt!

Gingrich spokesman outs Newt as "anonymous source." With loyalty like that, who needs Democrats?

Ron Paul's anti-Newt attack ad video.

Adopt a Catholic!

2011-12-11T22:53:00.001-05:00

Bill Donohue of the Catholic League is asking his members to adopt an atheist in time for Christmas:

If we hurry, these [Atheists] can celebrate Christmas like the rest of us. As an added bonus, they will no longer be looked upon as people who “believe in nothing, stand for nothing and are good for nothing.”

Biologist Greg Laden, in excerpt:

Oh. Bill. It makes me feel bad when you say things like that about me.

I “believe in” quite a few things, at least by my use of the phrase. I believe in my Christian friends, and my Atheist friends, as people, in that I trust them and hold them as important in my life. I stand for many things. I stand for a progressive society, and I stand for making a difference in this world. So, I hope I’m good for something. I feel that my main role in life is to carry out acts that improve the lives of those I love, sometimes by making them laugh, sometimes by helping them stop hurting themselves, sometimes by standing up for them, sometimes by leaving them alone, sometimes by doing stuff for them, sometimes by doing stuff with them so they know they are not alone.

Damn. I suppose that makes me a lousy Atheist.

Pujols to Angels

2011-12-08T14:49:00.001-05:00

for 10 yrs/ $254m

He rejected the Cards' 10 yr/ $220m offer. Mark my words, this is a mistake. He will fail in the American League, certainly he will not be the mega-star he was in St Louis and at the end of the day his reputation and endorsements will suffer more than the nominal $34m he will make over 10 years. The one advantage is that he can evolve into a designated hitter in he AL, which I'm sure is part of the calculation, but by that time he'll be decrepit and fans will resent paying a DH $25m/yr.

The big winner is Prince Fielder who is next up in the free agent wars. To offer the 32 yr-old Pujols a 10 year contract is generous to the point of silly and sure to mean that the 28 yr-old Fielder will get an even better offer. If he's smart, he'll stay in the National League.

Book review: Catching Fire, by Richard Wrangham

2011-12-07T07:38:00.001-05:00

Five Stars.

This book was recommended by an evolutionary biologist and is written by an evolutionary biologist and primatologist but the Dewey decimal system in the library categorizes it as a cooking book. Admittedly, I was a bit disconcerted to find it next to Anthony Bourdain's latest tome, but Catching Fire is a gem: easy to read and presents a simple hypothesis with exquisite supporting evidence regarding the social and physiological evolution of hominids.

The basic premise is that Australopithecines developed the ability to process food by mashing and pounding 2.5 million years ago which led to the transition to Homo habilis, the "handyman", who had a larger brain and shorter gut. The evolution was effected by easier digestion of food which enabled habilines to extract more energy from food sources. Homo habilus learned how to control fire about 1.9 million years ago which brought about relatively rapid evolution to Homo erectus, a robust species marked with even greater cranial size and short, efficient gut. This efficiency of calorie extraction allowed greater cognitive ability but also the ability to travel long distances. Fire affects food in ways that make it easier to digest and therefore more calories are available.

We are evolved to eat cooked food as evidenced by our short gut and the development of taste for cooked food. Other primates such as chimpanzees also prefer cooked meat although they have not evolved specifically to eat cooked food. Wrangham hypothesizes that this is due to the easier digestion and the higher caloric extraction from cooked and processed food versus raw food. He gives a fairly detailed and worthwhile description of how various food sources are affected by mashing and cooking...take that Bourdain!

Fire also allowed hominids to live on the ground since it afforded greater protection from predators and led to migration across savannahs, increasing the available habitat. Homo erectus was a robust and long-lived species that survived over a million years in harsh, predator-filled environments. They lost their hair/fur since they were able to sit and sleep by fire; this enabled them to dissipate heat when running and allowed long distance running. Fire changed the social relationships between sexes and communities enabling beneficial division of labor and shaping the roles we still have to some degree today. It all started with the control of fire.

Darwin recognized the control of fire as "probably the greatest [discovery], excepting language, ever made by man," and Wrangham develops this thesis with strong supporting evidence from anthropological studies of hunter-gatherer societies as well as observations of lower primates.

Wrangham discusses the biochemistry of food calorie availability and remarks that the current system of calorie determination is flawed since it does not take into account the processing of food. Cooked meat contains denatured protein which is easier to digest than raw meat. Likewise, cooked vegetables and seeds are easier to digest and therefore contain more available energy than raw food. Wanna lose weight? It's simple, eat raw food which burns more calories in digestion for the fewer calories that are liberated.

Catching Fire is an intriguing, well-written book which answers a lot of questions about how and why we enjoy food and how fire affected nearly every aspect of our physical and social evolution. It's a short readable book, and gets my highest recommendation.

Packers selling more shares

2011-12-06T15:02:00.001-05:00

The Green Bay Packers are offering new stock through February, which will dilute those shares owned by current shareholders.The new shares will mostly be sold to to the unwashed masses to fund new boxes that will allow millionaire season box-holders to have a more pleasant game experience.

The reason stated in the article that Personal Seat Licenses (PSL), the usual way most franchises pay for stadium improvements, won't be sold is that PSL's might lose money for the seat-owners. Heaven forbid the titans of industry don't put their asses in soft cushy heated seats subsidized by working stiffs! The cost of stadium upgrades instead is borne by poor folks who shell out $250 per share for... nothing-- no dividend, no tickets-- nothing. The least they could do is rotate some seats in the end-zone for shareholders so that once in a lifetime the sawmill jockey from Fon-du-Lac can grope Kuhn's ass.

If anyone chooses to waste money on Packers shares-- which by the way cannot be re-sold, thus making them worthless-- they should make damn sure that they've first 1) paid all their health care premiums for life, 2) funded their retirement with real investments and 3) covered their kids' education. Only then is it allowable to throw your hard-earned money away so that CEO's can have a temperature controlled buffet and warm totties in front of the Jumbotron. What is it that PT Barnum didn't say?

Interestingly, from the article: "...only two franchises, the Toronto Maple Leafs and Chicago Bears, where PSLs were selling at a premium to their initial sale price." That's called free-market capitalism, but why try it when you can get the hoi polloi to willingly give you money?

Prof Newt, educator-in-chief

2011-12-04T05:40:00.001-05:00

Bonus! If elected president, Newt Gingrich will teach an on-line course from the White House!

"The idea would be, why wouldn't you want a president in the age of social media to methodically in an organized way share with you what they're going to accomplish so that those people who really won't understand it can understand it," Gingrich said.

Number 1: Who are you calling "those people"?

Number 2: Newt, how would you find the time to design a "social media" course when there would so many staffers to fornicate with in the White House?

How much raging narcissism does Newt have coursing through his veins to think that the American people would benefit from , as Miranda Celeste says, the "Sleazy, ethically bankrupt, thuggish, pompous, painfully unlikable Newt Gingrich" as president?

Religion changes its “morality” based on secular considerations

2011-12-03T12:50:00.001-05:00

From Jerry Coyne:

Religious morality appears to change under only two conditions: either secular morality moves ahead of religious morality, causing it to change... or scientific advances show that the scriptural basis of religious morality is simply wrong (e.g., there’s no Adam and Eve and hence no Original Sin).

If a religion’s moral dictates remain fixed in stone for centuries, even under the press of secular advances, then that religion loses adherents. This, of course, is what is happening to Catholicism in so many places.

My comment: I agree. Consider that the vast majority of nominal Catholics do not adhere to the fundamental behavioral teachings of the Church: 98% use artificial birth control and abortion rates among Catholics are the same as society in general. Church leaders seem to look the other way in order to keep the “faithful” in the flock, although this remains a sore point among conservative, ie, orthodox, Catholics whose numbers are dwindling.

Believers, of course, will maintain that any changes in morality are "inspired" by divinity while all the observable evidence is otherwise-- that moral behavior is determined by very human desires and secular considerations.

World's Largest Model Train Set

2011-12-01T21:54:00.001-05:00

The World's Largest Model Train Set - Watch MoreFunny Videos

Fight The Power

2011-11-27T08:51:00.001-05:00

Music by the Isley Brothers, used without permission.

A nation of victims

2011-11-24T07:42:00.001-05:00

Susan Jacoby has an excellent piece in the WaPo about the Republican's recent Iowa Thanksgiving Family Forum in which she notes the tendency for politicians nowadays to call attention to their hardships as a simplistic means test for the office of president. A family member's affliction or a personal trauma can be presented as a totem that qualifies one for president, and of course, there is a heavy dose of hardly believable religiosity.

Jacoby points out that both Democratic (John Edwards) and Republican candidates do this, in sharp contrast to, say, FDR, who went to great lengths to downplay his disability in public appearances, yet he championed the cause of the less fortunate in public policy. Jacoby:

The Iowa forum was a triumph of the union of psychobabble and public religiosity that has come to dominate American politics. President Obama’s refusal to engage in this kind of faith-infused psychological exhibitionism is one of the main reasons why the media (and not only conservative media) have tagged him as a cool professorial type who does not know how to make a connection with ordinary people. Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney, who were not present at the faith-and-suffering group therapy session, are also bad at exploiting whatever sorrows lie in their past to advance their candidacies. That’s probably one of the reasons Republican voters aren’t enamored of Romney and barely register Huntsman in their polls.

To really get the full flavor of the Iowa Family Forum, you have to watch the video, complete with 36 minute introduction containing religious and patriotic claptrap. Then the candidates-- Perry, Gingrich, Paul, Santorum and Bachmann-- amble onstage to bare their souls of their deepest, most meaningful personal traumas, failures and triumphs. I cried...I almost cried...I DID cry! Read Jerry Coyne's site (contains embedded video) for another excellent review. I got through the video of the freak show but not without some personal trauma myself...I'll have to tell Frank Luntz about it the next time we're both in front of a camera.

Nothing new was learned. These people are not like me; they are so unlike anything that would appeal to me that I don't know that I would hire them to change a furnace filter let alone run my country. Such histrionic appeal to the lowest common denominator, simplifying complex coping skills, and belief in supernatural bogeymen and saviors, all seem counterproductive to tackling any remotely involved job, especially that of president of the United States, which is, as Rick Perry says, "the most difficult job in the whirl."

I don't have a problem with individuals trying to sort out their problems, but is it necessary to do it with Frank Luntz in front of millions of onlookers?

UC Davis: Assault and battery?

2011-11-19T00:02:00.001-05:00

I'm no lawyer, but this looks like a felony.

via KagroX: "UC Berkeley's policy on tear gas & pepper spray says: Use of tear gas or a tear gas weapon, EXCEPT in self-defense, can be a felony."

Barry's righteous rant

2011-11-18T10:45:00.001-05:00

From Barry Ritholtz' Big Picture, an excerpt

In America, we are too busy dropping the kids off at soccer, running around looking for sales and bargains, racing to keep our heads above water. We seem to forget to get outraged. Our control over our once Democracy — the one we had a revolution against a monarchy dictating decisions from afar — slips away from us. Not with a bang, not even with a whimper, but with a 1000s acts of gradual ceding of power to the new Monarch. We have given up hard won rights to a coordinated attack from all three branches of government; Our Congress has become the legislative branch of eBay — Congressmen are auctioned off to the highest bidder; they even have a Buy It Now button to get specific legislation passed. The executive branch has fallen under the sunk cost fallacy, afraid to prosecute banks because we spent so many billions bailing them out. It turns out that even our once venerable Supreme Court is just as corrupted, with lobbyists partying with Justices and backdooring ethics by hiring their wives.

In short, our new overlords are enormously well funded, well connected, relentless and perhaps most of all, patient. This new King was not appointed by primogeniture, or even Divine Right, but by acquiring enough profits in the free market that they can buy control over society, even as they thwart that free market ideal for their own ends. We have become, in short, a Corporate Monarchy.

The right question isn’t why am I angry, sad and outraged. The proper question is, why aren’t you?

Go read the whole thing, and the comments, too. And for the full discussion, read his excellent book Bailout Nation.

QOTD

2011-11-17T23:37:00.001-05:00

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

--- Mahatma Gandhi

Occupy Wall Street:

Evolutionary Tree of Life

2011-11-17T22:48:00.000-05:00

For a larger gif, go here.

Newsflash: You are ALREADY mandated to buy health insurance

2011-11-17T11:04:00.001-05:00

From the NYT:

But not only is there a precedent for this, there is also clear support for it in the Constitution. For decades, Americans have been subject to a mandate to buy a health insurance plan — Medicare.

Except that this health insurance is for other people, and the 65 y/o version of yourself. So it is the hallmark of insanity to buy this necessary product for other people but not for yourself. Would you buy an iPad for every senior citizen but not for yourself?

Links to Drink By: Wednesday AM

2011-11-16T07:35:00.001-05:00

I know this is the lazy man's way to blog, but this is what I'm reading:

Newt Gingrich took $1.6 million from Fannie and Freddie. What, you mean it's not Barney Frank's fault!!?

Six reasons why young people leave Christianity, especially in Ireland...

God's power presented graphically.

Businessweek: Americans won't do dirty jobs.

"Fathoming Amazon"

Charles P. Pierce: 2012 election field is an embarrassment to democracy

Jimmy Fallon as Jim Morrison

Links to Drink By

2011-11-14T19:45:00.001-05:00

Irish billionaire goes bust: the biggest individual loser of the current financial meltdown. Why didn't he just buy bonds and retire 20 years ago?

John Corzine is another case for the rich just buying municipal bonds and retiring: now Corzine's fortune is up for grabs.

John Feinstein: Paterno is not the victim, and...

Jeffrey Pollard: What Paterno could do now to promote healing

Former Vice-Chair of the Federal Reserve Alan Blinder: The Folly of the Flat Tax

WE ARE: PENN STATE!

2011-11-13T18:38:00.001-05:00

Um, no, we aren't.

I've read a lot of opinions on this scandal but none is more chilling than Christopher's at the conservative Catholic website Christopher's Apologies. He made a video drawing the accurate analogy between this child abuse scandal and the Catholic Church's priest abuse scandal, and he makes a mild leap to the Gosnell case where a doctor was killing newborn infants and calling it abortion. Okay, a gratuitous, albeit obtuse and inaccurate, jab at abortion, but I'd agree that Gosnell's office was also a similar hierarchy that eschewed outside oversight and covered up crimes. Fine.

Christopher, for some unknown reason, goes on to draw a direct line from anal intercourse with a 10 year-old to consensual sex between adults, as in the Tiger Woods and... wait for it... the Bill Clinton peccadilloes. Bill Clinton analogies never get old for conservatives. But Christopher gets whacky when he equates failing to report child sex abuse to keeping an extra hamburger that was mistakenly placed in your McDonalds bag. Is this what goes for Catholic morality these days?

If Christopher is to be believed, we are all Penn State, we are all lax in our duties as citizens and human beings. Not!!! I was trying to imagine how graphic the image would be of witnessing an adult male raping a 10 yr-old in a shower, especially witnessed during an otherwise ordinary day at work. The graduate assistant, Mike McQueary, had seen such a thing in 2002 when he was 28 years-old, certainly an age of knowing right from wrong. Is it really within reason to merely report such an occurrence to Joe Paterno and then go about your career within the coaching hierarchy of a university for another nine years, never questioning why the cretin Sandusky is not just out of prison, but still working at the university!?

McQueary's grand jury testimony says that he told Joe Paterno the graphic details of the incident and then went about his career. Paterno, for his part, told the athletic director but found nothing untoward about Sandusky, his long time former assistant, continuing to work at the university.

There are surely enough WTF moments in this saga to boggle the mind. At no time did any member of the Penn State University athletic department or administration have empathy for the victims and future victims of this pedophile. Does this sound familiar? Is the Catholic Church's priest abuse scandal analogous? You bet it is.

Nittany Lion

And the common denominator is that both institutions are examples of top-down hierarchies with little or no outside oversight. One law enforcement officer in Pennsylvania remarked that nobody from the coaches to the athletic director to the university president himself-- nobody-- ever thought to notify the police of the crimes that were being witnessed and discussed. Protection of the university and Coach Sandusky's reputation became paramount, with no apparent consideration for the victims. Even JoePa's final statement "I wish I had done more" seemed more a plea for his own personal reputation than for any justice or empathy, echoing similar sentiments from various bishops.

Anyone who could for a minute analogize child abuse to keeping an extra nickel of change from a restaurant, as ersatz Catholic moralists seem to be doing, needs to do some re-evaluation.

QOTD

2011-11-03T19:22:00.002-04:00

Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions.
Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
– Thomas Jefferson

Your health care dollars hard at work

2011-11-03T01:51:00.002-04:00

I'm sure this guy is worth it. Not.

Fortune magazine lists the highest paid executives under 40 years-old, and there are the expected wunderkinds of the tech world, or communications or entertainment, but then there are the guys (and almost all are guys) in the insurance business, and specifically the health insurance industry. What possibly can a 39 yr-old, or anyone really for that matter, do in health insurance to earn $6.5 million per year? Did he invent a magic weight loss pill or figure out how to cure cerebral palsy? No. More likely he came up with some novel foolproof approach for denying claims on necessary medical care.

I can truly understand paying individuals who add value to a product or create wealth within society or can play shortstop, but health insurance executives do none of this. They are useless middlemen who shuffle money around and take a huge cut. I know of no highly trained physician who comes close to making a tenth of this Howdy Doody look-a-like's salary. Atrocious.

Catholic theologian relents and allows release of video [UPDATE]

2011-11-02T13:59:00.001-04:00

[UPDATE]: The video is up at the Gaines Center site. I guess I don't really see the point of Dr. Haught's drama. Dr. Coyne was vociferous, but polite and on point. He makes the case that Christianity and science are not compatible and having read one of Haught's book (The New Atheists), I can say that his talk was similar in style, obtuse and without any substantive claims. His Christianity is emotional, ie, an emergent phenomenon of his material being. Coyne's site has some comments to read as well.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Under pressure from the blogoshpere, John Haught has agreed to the release of the video of his recent debate with evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne. The kerfuffle ensued when the sponsor of the event, the University of Kentucky, announced that it would honor Haught's unilateral request to nix the release of the video. Coyne's website has been abuzz with comments which have boiled over to reddit and other sites, and even an on-line petition. Haught himself has provided a comment as to why he initially vetoed the video's release.

My own personal experience is consistent with this high sensitivity of the faithful when their beliefs are challenged. I agree with Coyne's approach that our society-wide deference given to religion should be challenged with facts and reason at every turn. Now, we must wait and see if the video really is released.

We should vote on what's true, it's the American way

2011-10-29T04:07:00.001-04:00

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Panel recommends HPV vaccine for boys

2011-10-26T11:32:00.000-04:00

From the NYT:

Boys and young men should be vaccinated against human papillomavirus, or HPV, to protect against anal and throat cancers that can result from sexual activity, a federal advisory committee said Tuesday.
[snip]
Parents of boys face some uncomfortable realities when choosing whether to have their child vaccinated. The burden of disease in males results mostly from oral or anal sex, but vaccinating boys will also benefit female partners since cervical cancer in women results mostly from vaginal sex with infected males.

For the record, The Kalamazoo Post made a similar proposal in 2007:

My modest proposal is to make the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine mandatory for boys and optional for girls. Frankly, I'm hesitant to make the HPV vaccine mandatory for anyone, especially for the first five years of use until unforeseen problems can be studied. My bias is to keep such things optional for all, but if mandatory vaccination is to be instituted, I would argue that boys should be required before girls.

Newer data on the increase in males acquiring HPV related anal and head/neck cancers makes the recommendation more compelling.

Did WikiLeaks end the Iraq war?

2011-10-24T19:50:00.006-04:00

From Glenn Greenwald:

From a CNN report on why the Iraqi Government rejected the Obama administration’s conditions for keeping U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the 2011 deadline:

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other top brass have repeatedly said any deal to keep U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the withdrawal deadline would require a guarantee of legal protection for American soldiers.
But the Iraqis refused to agree to that, opening up the prospect of Americans being tried in Iraqi courts and subjected to Iraqi punishment.
The negotiations were strained following WikiLeaks’ release of a diplomatic cable that alleged Iraqi civilians, including children, were killed in a 2006 raid by American troops rather than in an airstrike as the U.S. military initially reported.

That description from CNN of the cable’s contents is, unsurprisingly, diluted to the point of obfuscation. That cable was released by WikiLeaks in May, 2011, and, as McClatchy put it at the time, “provides evidence that U.S. troops executed at least 10 Iraqi civilians, including a woman in her 70s and a 5-month-old infant, then called in an airstrike to destroy the evidence, during a controversial 2006 incident in the central Iraqi town of Ishaqi.” The U.S. then lied and claimed the civilians were killed by the airstrike. Although this incident had been previously documented by the U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the high-profile release of the cable by WikiLeaks generated substantial attention (and disgust) in Iraq, which made it politically unpalatable for the Iraqi government to grant the legal immunity the Obama adminstration was seeking. Indeed, it was widely reported at the time the cable was released that it made it much more difficult for Iraq to allow U.S. troops to remain beyond the deadline under any conditions.

This is in contradistinction to the run up to the war in 2002-03 when the news establishment-- and especially the NYT's Judith MIller-- were abetting the Bush administration's case for war with obfuscations and outright lies.

Greenwald continues:

History is filled with examples of those who most bravely challenged and subverted corrupted power and who sought reforms being rewarded with prison or worse, at the hands of those whose bad actions they exposed. If Bradley Manning did leak these cables, his imprisonment is a prime example of that inverted justice.

Links to drink by

2011-10-22T03:55:00.000-04:00

David Foster Wallace was a dick...or had a very dry sense of humor.

112,000 owners make the Packers unique.

The illusion of skill, read Kahneman's entire piece.

Qadaffi, just another dead asshole who spent his nation's wealth. Take my word for it, don't even bother with the link...it's too depressing.

No due process for American citizen Awlaki, or his 16-year-old son.

Spain's stolen babies.

Did alternative medicine kill Steve Jobs?

2011-10-22T03:25:00.000-04:00

Short answer: we'll never know.Orac has the best discussion.

Dunkashein

2011-10-22T03:23:00.001-04:00

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Moment of Zen - Wayne Newton Endorses Michele Bachmann

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog

The Daily Show on Facebook

Why is this so damn hard to understand?

2011-10-19T14:51:00.004-04:00

...and why is she the only one saying it?

The evolution of self-deception

2011-10-17T13:36:00.002-04:00

British evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers has a forthcoming book entitled The Folly of Fools (US) in which he calls for a "new science" dealing with the how and why of self-deception, mainly because it's so prevalent and psychology has not come up with a theory. From an interview in the New Scientist:

You argue that we deceive ourselves all the time, but why do we do it?

One reason is to better deceive others. Deceiving consciously is cognitively demanding. I've got to invent a false story while being aware of the truth, it's got to be plausible, it cannot contradict anything you already know or are going to find out and I've got to be able to remember it so that I don't contradict myself.

This takes concentration and I may give off cues that I'm lying. If I try to slip something by you I may not be able to meet your gaze. For linguistic cues, there are more pauses and fillers while I try to come up with my story. I'll choose simple action words and avoid qualifiers. Another thing that gives us away us is the effort to control ourselves. Let's say I'm coming to a key word in a lie. I tense up, but tensing up automatically raises my voice. That's a very hard thing to fight.

So believing the lie yourself can help with this cognitive burden?

Yes. If I can render all or part of the lie unconscious I can remove the cues that I'm deceiving you. So that's one kind of general reason to practice self-deception: to render the lie unconscious, the better to hide it.

Trivers says that such self-deception can lead to better social success and thus more offspring, the hallmark of any genetic benefit. Of course there are costs as well, but the overall effect must be that self-deception has net benefit.

In your new book you get into some quite serious stuff about how self-deception fuels warfare and other evils...

Regarding warfare, if you can get the group believing the same deception, you have a powerful force to impose group unity. And if you've sold the population a false historical narrative, say "the German people need room in which to live", then it's relatively easy to couple marching orders to the delusion.

Tell me about the relationship between self-deception and religion.

It's complex. At one extreme you could say religion is complete nonsense, so the whole thing is an exercise in self-deception. I was raised as a Presbyterian and I occasionally attend. I stand back and I read the creed that I was taught as a child and it's utter, utter nonsense. But could it have spread so far by self-deception alone? Religion has been selected for. It has given many benefits to people - health benefits, cooperative benefits. So I take an intermediate position.

Again, my bete noir... he does not define religion! But I'll assume he means the organization of communities around sacred ideas. Trivers is a quirky, eccentric scientist but this latest is sure to promote some thought. My question is how we come up with more universal ideas of what is sacred that all human communities can agree upon and leave out the supernatural mumbo jumbo, ie, a secular religion. I realize Trivers probably will not delve into this topic but the first step is certainly realizing that humans are masters of self-deception and religion-- the prototype of human self-deception-- is certainly part of our biology.

Should Romney embrace his Mormonism?

2011-10-16T22:19:00.003-04:00

An interesting "Open Letter to Mitt" from the WaPo Faith section, an excerpt:

The Mormon story is a quintessentially American tale. Joseph Smith, the prophet of the Mormon Church, was a farmer’s son, persecuted for his interpretation of the Christian story and assassinated in 1844. After his death, 70,000 of his followers eventually took a grueling overland trek from the Midwest to Utah’s Salt Lake Valley. The faithful undertook this six-month journey, often in covered wagons, at great personal risk of injury, illness and death. Proud of their pioneering ancestors, Mormons tend to value self-reliance, grit, optimism, hard work. Your faith may be the source of your most defining personality traits.

Leave out the magic underwear and it's not much different than other faith communities.

Aaron Task defends Occupy Wall Street

2011-10-11T16:25:00.000-04:00

Well done.

Bruce Bartlett: "CEO's are full of crap"

2011-10-05T12:50:00.001-04:00

Former Reagan administration official on the demand destruction of a deflationary cycle:

Okay, it's a bit long but well worth it to hear someone who really understands the economic problems we are enduring, and how to fix them. I'll make a few points:

1. It's the demand, stupid. D'uh.

2. I love how Kernin carries the water for CEO's who are whining about regulation. Newsflash: everyone complains about regulations in whatever field they are in, and the complaints ALWAYS become louder when demand falters and businesses suffer. If demand is good, then regulations actually benefit the better-run entities.

3. Bartlett calls out Paul Ryan and GWB for their promotion of Medicare part D-- always a favorite topic of mine because 1) Part D is emblematic of the hypocrisy of the GOP on their budget, 2) Part D has literally gutted Medicare and is the major, if not sole, cause that it's in ruinous financial shape.

4. As an aside, Bartlett has said elsewhere that the annual doc-fix on Medicare should be eliminated, and as destructive as I think it would be to physician pay, I cannot disagree--- as long as it is accompanied with other reforms of Medicare. Reducing health care costs cannot be accomplished solely by reducing physicians' reimbursement. Eliminating the doc-fix would effectively throw a boulder in the pond and, yes, doctors en masse would immediately stop seeing Medicare patients... then the REAL conversation would start about where all this f**king Medicare money is going. Trust me, Big Pharma and Big Insurance don't want that conversation.

Memo To The Media: It’s Not ‘Anti-Capitalist’ To Protest An Industry That Was Saved By Trillions Of Taxpayer Dollars

2011-10-04T15:45:00.000-04:00

Offered without comment, because none is necessary.

Erin Burnett enters the media elite

2011-10-04T15:28:00.000-04:00

I had high hopes for Erin Burnett, after all she was mentored by my favorite curmudgeon, the late Mark Haines at CNBC. So when her new show on CNN debuted last night, I had my bowl of popcorn ready for some righteous indignation and some calling bullshit on the Masters of the Universe. Result: disappointment.

Seriously? No mention of AIG and the massive counter-party risk that was covered by taxpayers that 1) saved the biggest banks at the expense of the smaller ones, and 2) will never be paid back? Erin knows this argument but chose instead to ignore it while bullying some 20-something with her supposed airtight argument about "who made money on the bailouts". Burnett also failed to mention that more wealth is now concentrated in fewer banks than before the crash, leaving us more vulnerable than ever. No mention of the lack of regulation to prevent another disaster. Burnett gave no voice to the angst of people who lost their homes, their jobs, their pensions while the assholes running Wall Street firms-- the guys who caused the crisis-- are still there. Only one bank CEO from the major institutions was fired, and he was replaced by his next-in-command.

Do the hipsters have reasons to brood? Sure. Does Burnett have a responsibility to understand those reasons? I suppose not (and feel free, Erin, to giggle; it gives you that much more journalistic credibility.) Are the hipsters required to have a developed agenda for fixing a completely fucked up system? No.

I also like her quip at the end of the segment about the protesters wearing Lululemon clothing and using Apple products, implying some evidence of hypocrisy because these companies trade on the NASDAQ. Since when does Wall Street claim credit for the creativity of Apple, based in Cupertino, CA?

Protesters don't have a valid reason to be angry? Seriously? Mark Haines would be ashamed.

Obama's lost opportunity

2011-10-04T14:53:00.002-04:00

Printed in it's entirety, from Walker Todd:

Obama’s First 100 DaysWalker ToddOctober 3, 2011

The first 100 days of the Obama Administration were a golden opportunity wasted for ending the financial crisis and laying a base for sustainable growth with less governmental subsidy than we actually experienced.

First should have been a thoroughgoing stress test of the banks on a mark-to-market basis, excluding derivatives (which should not have been spared a full test in the bankruptcy courts), followed by a recapitalization of banks (but not bank holding companies) proven solvent or nearly solvent on a basis analogous to the Reconstruction Finance Corporation of the 1930s. Deposit insurance should have been limited to protecting the payments system and depositors, not large creditors or bank holding companies. The limited recapitalization under TARP was a weak imitation of 1930s policies.

Next should have been the stabilization of household finances, with across-the-board, fixed-rate refinancing of borrowers as much as 25 percent below zero equity as long as they could prove capacity to maintain debt service on the new basis. The analogy here is the Home Owners Loan Corporation of the 1930s. Elizabeth Warren's consumer protection agency should have been created on a stand-alone basis and given a two-year emergency powers warrant to restructure all credit terms, other than principal owed, for household and consumer credit.

Finally, a public works program to create jobs after 13 weeks of unemployment would have been preferable to providing nearly two years of unemployment assistance. Between TARP and the first stimulus bill, nearly $1.5 trillion was appropriated. In addition, the Federal Reserve created nearly $1.2 trillion out of thin air to bail out the banking system, much of it for foreign banks, and about one-half of that assistance was issued after Election Day.

The agenda described here could have been accomplished for probably not more than one-half of the $2.7 trillion marshaled for the policies actually followed.
We’re not in the end of the world camp quite yet...

The Obama presidency has shown us more than anything the important leadership of FDR in the last century. We lived under the protection of Depression-era regulations and programs that have been slowly whittled away over the last two decades.

The other lesson is that we obviously need more pain.

My White Sox fantasy: Pete Mackanin

2011-10-03T20:08:00.001-04:00

This has been a brutal year as a White Sox for no other reason than the immense expectations that greeted the season a few months ago. NOw the team is in tatters with Ozzie Guillen gone and the payroll full of mediocre performers locked into top salaries. What the Sox need is a total management overhaul. Yes, Ozzie needed to go, but so does Kenny Williams and from interviews it seems apparent that Williams will not be GM next year and likely will get bumped up the role of President of the organization. Fine, he may be an excellent businessman but his hand a picking talent has gone cold-- if ever it was hot in the first place.

Ozzie roaming SS in the 80's

The emotions of seeing Ozzie go are decidedly mixed. His history with the White Sox is full of positives: a long career, beginning with Rookie of the Year (at left) and peaking with the only World Series win in Chicago for a century. But his demeanor grew as tiresome as was his handling of pitching staff puzzling. In Ozzie's defense, was he responsible for trading Daniel Hudson and JJ Putz away for Edwin Jackson? Did Ozzie sign huge contracts for struggling Jake Peavey and the incomparably bad Adam Dunn? No and no. And I'll just mention briefly the brainstorm of releasing Aaron Rowand in favor of Brian Anderson in centerfield, and then doubling down by taking on Alex Rios' heavy contract as yet another questionable centerfielder. Maybe none of these transactions could have been foreseen to be miserable, but certainly at some point a GM needs to be held accountable for lack of results. Williams needs to do something else in or out of baseball. Booking National Anthem singers might be more within his skill set.

Pete Mackanin, Brother Rice HS alumnus

Here's my fantasy: The White Sox hire Terry Francona, not as field boss, but as General Manager. Nobody knows the talent around the league better than Tito and he might benefit from one layer of management away from the day-to-day machinations. And the new manager would be current Phillies bench coach Pete Mackanin who has been tutored by greats such as Charlie Manuel and Joe Maddon. The former has been in baseball forever managing dozens of Hall of Famers and the latter has done nothing but bring some of the lowest payrolls of young players into the playoffs year and year. Mackanin is a Southside native who would be a solid addition and supplement Francona's stature.The White Sox ownership is dedicated to winning as evidenced by the consistently high payrolls, and Reinsdorf needs to put better management in place to make it all happen. Who knows, miracles could happen...maybe Dunn can hit .200 next year.

A War Criminal Writes a Book

2011-08-27T00:38:00.000-04:00

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

What happened to Obama?

2011-08-12T14:24:00.005-04:00

One of the most erudite appraisals of the past couple years. From the NYT (read the whole thing, but I'll borrow liberally):

... Americans needed their president to tell them a story that made sense of what they had just been through, what caused it, and how it was going to end. They needed to hear that he understood what they were feeling, that he would track down those responsible for their pain and suffering, and that he would restore order and safety. What they were waiting for, in broad strokes, was a story something like this:
“I know you’re scared and angry. Many of you have lost your jobs, your homes, your hope. This was a disaster, but it was not a natural disaster. It was made by Wall Street gamblers who speculated with your lives and futures. It was made by conservative extremists who told us that if we just eliminated regulations and rewarded greed and recklessness, it would all work out. But it didn’t work out. And it didn’t work out 80 years ago, when the same people sold our grandparents the same bill of goods, with the same results. But we learned something from our grandparents about how to fix it, and we will draw on their wisdom. We will restore business confidence the old-fashioned way: by putting money back in the pockets of working Americans by putting them back to work, and by restoring integrity to our financial markets and demanding it of those who want to run them. I can’t promise that we won’t make mistakes along the way. But I can promise you that they will be honest mistakes, and that your government has your back again.” A story isn’t a policy. But that simple narrative — and the policies that would naturally have flowed from it — would have inoculated against much of what was to come in the intervening two and a half years of failed government, idled factories and idled hands. That story would have made clear that the president understood that the American people had given Democrats the presidency and majorities in both houses of Congress to fix the mess the Republicans and Wall Street had made of the country, and that this would not be a power-sharing arrangement. It would have made clear that the problem wasn’t tax-and-spend liberalism or the deficit — a deficit that didn’t exist until George W. Bush gave nearly $2 trillion in tax breaks largely to the wealthiest Americans and squandered $1 trillion in two wars.

What happened in 2008 was clear evidence to anyone paying attention that Bush de-regulation and Laffer economics was a complete failure. Despite ultra-low taxes and deficit spending we never really recovered from the 2000-01 recession. Job growth sucked, wages stagnated, deficits soared. The fall of 2008 was the crowning blow to allowing markets to self- govern. The election of 2008, IMO, represented the starkest differences in worldviews of any elction in my memory, yet now I cannot imagine how a McCain presidency would be substantively different than the one we have now. Wars, tax cuts, anemic stimulus, lack of accountability for the banksters, even more wealth concentration... this is an effectively Republican administration.

In similar circumstances, Franklin D. Roosevelt offered Americans a promise to use the power of his office to make their lives better and to keep trying until he got it right. Beginning in his first inaugural address, and in the fireside chats that followed, he explained how the crash had happened, and he minced no words about those who had caused it. He promised to do something no president had done before: to use the resources of the United States to put Americans directly to work, building the infrastructure we still rely on today. He swore to keep the people who had caused the crisis out of the halls of power, and he made good on that promise. In a 1936 speech at Madison Square Garden, he thundered, “Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me — and I welcome their hatred.”

The Democrats tell us that government can solve our problems, yet our current president signs on to defeatist appeasement from the GOP, a party that has always rejoiced in the failure of government. WTF? To paraphrase the Rude Pundit, Obama could never have been elected as a Republican, so if he is a Democrat, if he believes in government, he should start acting like it.

When Dr. King spoke of the great arc bending toward justice, he did not mean that we should wait for it to bend. He exhorted others to put their full weight behind it, and he gave his life speaking with a voice that cut through the blistering force of water cannons and the gnashing teeth of police dogs. He preached the gospel of nonviolence, but he knew that whether a bully hid behind a club or a poll tax, the only effective response was to face the bully down, and to make the bully show his true and repugnant face in public.

Maybe it's because Obama is not a child of the civil rights movement, is not progeny of slaves, but if blasted with a firehose or chased by a K-9 force, I could only imagine Obama apologizing for not getting out of the way fast enough. Maybe unfair, but my truthful thought.

Like most Americans, at this point, I have no idea what Barack Obama — and by extension the party he leads — believes on virtually any issue. The president tells us he prefers a “balanced” approach to deficit reduction, one that weds “revenue enhancements” (a weak way of describing popular taxes on the rich and big corporations that are evading them) with “entitlement cuts” (an equally poor choice of words that implies that people who’ve worked their whole lives are looking for handouts.) But the law he just signed includes only the cuts. This pattern of presenting inconsistent positions with no apparent recognition of their incoherence is another hallmark of this president’s storytelling.

[snip]

Had the president chosen to bend the arc of history, he would have told the public the story of the destruction wrought by the dismantling of the New Deal regulations that had protected them for more than half a century. He would have offered them a counternarrative of how to fix the problem other than the politics of appeasement, one that emphasized creating economic demand and consumer confidence by putting consumers back to work. He would have had to stare down those who had wrecked the economy, and he would have had to tolerate their hatred if not welcome it. But the arc of his temperament just didn’t bend that far.

Double ouch. I'll refrain from psycho-analysis, but... ya.

The average voter is far more worried about jobs than about the deficit, which few were talking about while Bush and the Republican Congress were running it up. The conventional wisdom is that Americans hate government, and if you ask the question in the abstract, people will certainly give you an earful about what government does wrong. But if you give them the choice between cutting the deficit and putting Americans back to work, it isn’t even close.

And I'll add that the average borrower of US debt is little worried about our deficit-- given the record lows in US Treasury interest rates. If our lenders are concerned, as S&P ratings would have us believe, then why do they keep buying our debt?

But the arc of history does not bend toward justice through capitulation cast as compromise. It does not bend when 400 people control more of the wealth than 150 million of their fellow Americans. It does not bend when the average middle-class family has seen its income stagnate over the last 30 years while the richest 1 percent has seen its income rise astronomically. It does not bend when we cut the fixed incomes of our parents and grandparents so hedge fund managers can keep their 15 percent tax rates. It does not bend when only one side in negotiations between workers and their bosses is allowed representation. And it does not bend when, as political scientists have shown, it is not public opinion but the opinions of the wealthy that predict the votes of the Senate. The arc of history can bend only so far before it breaks.

And then we get true class war. I'll add that FDR's New deal likely saved us from bloodshed and eventual communism, ala a Bolshevik-type revolution in 1930's America. This next collapse in the US economy is occurring in a nation angry and fully armed. read the whole NYT piece, or better yet, forward it to the President.

FDR: "I welcome their hatred"

2011-08-05T12:55:00.001-04:00

No compromises, no "hoping that they'll do the right thing." No 12-dimensional chess.

When presidents were presidents and not faux Jedi Masters.

Stockman: The case against the bank bailouts

2011-07-05T11:36:00.000-04:00

White Sox Rant

2011-06-26T17:47:00.004-04:00

Adam Dunn sucks, but he didn't lose this game, Ozzie did. This is a management issue. A guy has 96 strikeouts in 227 at-bats, so when do you sit him down? I have no doubt that at one time Adam Dunn was a good hitter, I see the stats, I hear the legend, but this guy on the 2011 White Sox is not the Adam Dunn on the back of his bubble gum card. Sure, he's wearing #32 and his uniform says "Dunn", but we're halfway thought the season and he has 7 home runs. Seven. So, no, he's not going to hit 40 home runs this season. I could live with the 200 strikeouts every year, if he hit 35 or 40 home runs.

Word is Dunn is a "great clubhouse guy", then leave him in the clubhouse. He's a nice guy who strikes out a lot at the plate. So is Gavin Floyd, put him in to DH. Today's game against the Nationals is a case in point of how Ozzie does not know how to manage. In the eighth inning, Sox down by one run and Dunn is due up, after having struck out three times already today against righti pitching. The Nationals bring in lefty Sean Burnett just to pitch to Dunn who has waht 2 hits against against lefties all year, and has not ever gotten a hit against Burnett in 5 lifetime appearances. What are the chances Dunn will get a hit now? 0.0005%? The cameras pan over to Ozzie who is looking down at his scorecard (presumably, but it could have been iPad Scrabble, who knows) with his $2 Walgreen reading glasses. He-e--elloooo, Ozzie.... how about a pinch hitter, the game's on the line here, buddy.

No pinch hitter, three pitches, three strikes. Dunn is done, takes the collar the the umpteenth time this year. Oh-ferfour with 4 strikeouts. It's not Adam Dunn's fault. Sit him down, send him to Charlotte to work on stuff. Something. But losing games by giving away outs is insanity.

Where the rich are keeping their money

2011-06-24T09:00:00.003-04:00

The next time your broker or 401(k) adviser tries to talk you into aggressively investing your retirement, consider the results of the latest Merrill Lynch- Gap Gemini survey of high net worth individuals:

The core of the rich portfolio is surprisingly conservative. The wealthy have, on average, 43% of their holdings in low-risk assets. That's 29% bonds and a thumping 14% in cash. So much for the idea that the more you have, the more risk you can take. (It matters, of course, that the rich are typically much older than the rest of us, and are therefore more likely to be risk-averse for that reason.)
They still only have 33% of their money in equities — a slow climb back from the 25% lows seen at the end of 2008. Ominously, while that 33% figure does not seem very high, it nonetheless equals the levels seen just before the crash. And the rich told surveys that they are planning to ramp up their equity holdings pretty substantially this year.

Real estate makes up 15% of the average allocation and gold and other alternative investments are down to 5%. The lesson learned 3 years ago is that real estate can be a risky investment (although housing is probably near a generational low price now at the moment), and for most small investors this has entailed a disproportionately large percentage of savings, even to the point that most of us are leveraged with a mortgage.

Your job is the best place to earn income-- learn a skill that is valued by society-- investments should be primarily for wealth preservation. Three lessons: 1) cash is an allocation, 2) not everyone should necessarily own a house, and 3) everyone is trying to sell you something, even your 401(k) adviser.

Jon Stewart was correct about Fox News

2011-06-23T19:16:00.000-04:00

Fox News has spent the past week defending itself against the claims of Jon Stewart who

Bill Gross and Bill Clinton: we need more stimulus!

2011-06-21T15:01:00.007-04:00

With economic pain lingering and our leaders flailing about looking for solutions, two stalwarts from the financial and political worlds have chimed in. Bill Gross, founder of PIMCO, one of the premier bond mangers-- and notably stationed in California well away from Wall Street-- has called for Congress to increase direct federal spending to stimulate employment by investing in our ailing and archaic infrastructure.

Likewise, former President Bill Clinton has laid out a 14-point plan to bring smart jobs and increase energy efficiency with direct federal spending. The only question I have is why so little of this has been done to date. A crushing deflationary recession and increasing needs for fuel, food and functional jobs... this is a screaming call for stimulative Keynesian spending.

Clearly the increase in Federal Reserve liquidity alone has not increased jobs and we need direct federal spending on a massive scale. We learned this lesson in the 1930's and 40's, the last deflationary cycle that didn't end until Europe, Japan and the US put everyone back to work killing each other. It would be nice if we had learned that lesson well enough to obviate another world war. If Obama doesn't do something very soon to get unemployment below 8.5% his legacy will be of a one-term president who was elected with a mandate for change from a devoted and vibrant base, and instead he squandered his presidency on the status quo appealing to the tired tropes of endless war and wall street fat cats.

Obama could have been Marcus Aurelius and instead he chose to be Vitellius; could have been FDR, but opted alternatively to serve GWB's third term. It's really unbelieveable to me.

[One note: Bill Gross at PIMCO has been short Treasuries, so he's talking his book in wanting more deficit spending... but that doesn't make him wrong.]

Why academics tend to be Democrats

2011-06-20T22:02:00.011-04:00

Jason Rosenhouse discusses the simple reasons that academics tend to be liberal and eschew the Republican Party for its "war on expertise":

The power brokers in the Republican party are primarily Wall Street barons and other members of the super rich. On domestic policy they care almost exclusively about redistributing wealth upwards and in creating an entirely unregulated
environment for corporations. The flip side is that anything that might benefit
poor or middle class people they oppose. That is why they will fight tooth and
nail to oppose the tiniest tax increase on millionaires, but will then turn
around and accuse schoolteachers (!!) of being greedy. It is why they openly
despise the public schools, and propose ludicrous, unworkable tax schemesthat
overwhelmingly benefit the super rich. It's why they are so horrified by the
idea that the health care system might be reformed to make it possible for
millions of uninsured to obtain insurance. (It's certainly not that they had a
better idea for reforming the system. And notice that when they controlled both
Congress and the Presidency from 2000-2006, they never even mentioned the health care crisis. As far as they are concerned, forty million people without health
insurance simply isn't a problem.)

The trouble is that if they actually said any of this clearly and publicly then no
one would vote for them. So instead they throw around incendiary decoy issues.
Behind closed doors they are perfectly happy to laugh at evangelical Christians,
but in public they will toss them a little red meat, say by appointing a crazy
judge or by cutting off funding to Planned Parenthood. (After all, it's mostly poor
women who are hurt by such cuts, and who cares about them?) Or they produce an
endless string of boogeymen only they can protect us from. (It's the gays! It's
the Muslims! It's the illegal immigrants!)
On the issues where they openly defy the scientific consensus, it is easy to see
why they do so. The sorts of things we would do combat global warming might hurt
certain corporate interests, so they have to oppose global warming. Evolution is
quite correctly seen as menacing to religious belief, which means they must
oppose it too. The power brokers couldn't care less about science education or
whether homosexual couples are given the benefits of civil marriage, but their
religious supporters do, so they pretend to care when speaking publicly.

They tend to have success with these approaches first because there is a very large
moron vote in this country (the technical term is “low-information voters”) that
is easily scared and doesn't actually know anything about anything. But they are
also successful because on these issues they are largely telling people what
they want to hear. If liberals were selling the message that you can eat ice
cream all day long without getting fat, then all the right-wing think tanks in
the world would not be able to defeat them. It's just that, on the issues where
science and politics tend to meet, the right-wingers are defending the more
pleasant position. Liberals are the ones saying our way of life is
unsustainable, conservatives are saying we can just keep doing what we're doing.
Liberals are the ones saying that we evolved from lower orders of animals,
conservatives are saying the local preacher understands these subjects better
than the eggheads. Liberals are saying that gay couples should have the same
rights as straight ones, conservatives are saying homosexuality is icky and
unnatural. In each case they are affirming what large segments of the population
already want to believe.

[Emphases mine] There was a time not too long ago that Republicans could be intellectually honest and not kow-tow to the extreme right-wing. Bill Buckley dressing down the John Birchers comes to mind, something that would never happen today. Rather, we have Newt ostracized because he got lax on message discipline and stated the facts about the unworkability of Paul Ryan's fantasy Medicare fix.

Remember when Nixon signed the EPA into existence? Something else that would never happen today. The GOP has moved into the farthest corner of silliness and the power brokers are laughing all the way to the bank. But the corollary effect is that the Democratic Party, while marginally better, has also moved further toward silliness. After all, they only need to appease enough of the middle to get re-elected while still remaining loyal to the plutocrats, therefore we still have "health reform" written by insurance companies, endless wars that enrich defense contractors, and bailouts that protect Wall Street bonuses while we tear apart our social safety nets-- and there are no checks on the power (Why that is is another issue, but see Jon Stewart's interview with Chris Wallace for a clue.).

Jon Stewart on Fox

2011-06-20T10:43:00.004-04:00

Chris Wallace interviews the Daily Show host.

In his sternest moment, Stewart refers to the misinformed Fox viewers, which is the main point-- indeed, the only point-- of this entire discussion about the media. Representative government is the only political system that relies on a well-informed populace, and the fourth estate has a well-defined part in the drama. If you are not educating the viewers then you are either entertaining or propagandizing. Period. Those are the only 3 choices. Next time you watch the evening news, MSNBC, CNN or FOX ask yourself:

Am I being educated, entertained or propagandized?

And before the false equivalence comes down, look at the chyron in the lower left corner of Fox News to see what they purport to be doing.

NEJM: Dutch experience shows limits of competition in health care

2011-06-18T15:00:00.004-04:00

From New England Journal of Medicine:

Discussions about U.S. health care reform are often parochial, with scant attention paid to other countries' experiences. It is thus surprising that in the ongoing debate over Medicare, some U.S. commentators have turned to the Netherlands as a model of regulated competition among private insurance companies.1 The Dutch experience is particularly relevant given the proposal by Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) to eliminate traditional Medicare and instead provide beneficiaries with vouchers to purchase private insurance. (The Republican majority in the House passed the Ryan plan as part of the 2012 budget resolution, but it was defeated in the Senate.)

It is easy to understand why Dutch health care — which does rely on regulated private insurance — would appeal to advocates of Medicare vouchers. Indeed, U.S. ideas about managed competition helped to shape health care reform in the Netherlands.2 But careful examination of the Dutch experience shows that insurance competition has not produced the expected benefits and in fact has created new problems, calling into question the merits of this reform model and its suitability for Medicare.

[snip]

The myth that competition has been key to cost containment in the Netherlands has obscured a crucial reality. Health care systems in Europe, Canada, Japan, and beyond, all of which spend much less than the United States on medical services, rely on regulation of prices, coordinated payment, budgets, and in some cases limits on selected expensive medical technologies, to contain health care spending.5 Systemwide regulation of spending, rather than competition among insurers, is the key to controlling health care costs. The Netherlands, after all, spent much less on medical care than the United States with virtually universal insurance coverage long before it began experimenting with managed competition in 2006.

The Dutch experience provides a cautionary tale about the place of private insurance competition in health care reform. The Dutch reforms have fallen far short of expectations — a reminder that policy intentions should not be confused with outcomes and that managed competition is hardly a panacea. The idea that the Dutch reforms provide a successful model for U.S. Medicare to emulate is bizarre. The Dutch case in fact underscores the pitfalls of the casual use (and misuse) of international experience in U.S. health care reform debates.5 Before we learn from other countries' experiences with medical care, we first need to learn about them.

Mulch-a-Matic will destroy it

2011-06-18T02:03:00.001-04:00

The Bifurcation of society: Chumps and Hustlers

2011-06-10T15:26:00.007-04:00

The Cunning Realist has a story from TAC pointing out that we have become a nation of Chumps and Hustlers:

The world is becoming much more of this hustlers game. The conservative folk, who survive by playing it straight, see rules change and bend before their eyes....

The old and unworldly had the worst of it. Many were driven to begging, many to suicide. The young and quick-witted did well. Overnight they became free, rich, and independent. It was a situation in which mental inertia and reliance on past experience were punished by starvation and death, but rapid appraisal of new situations and speed of reaction were rewarded with sudden, vast riches. -Sebastian Haffner on the early 20's Weimar economy in Defying Hitler

Another story from Marketwatch outlines a scam where unscrupulous real estate agents convince sellers to take a loss on their property in a sale to a pre-arranged buyer with the agent and buyer splitting the profits. Illegal? Unethical? Who cares? It's the wild West and the honest folk lose their life's savings.

What we are slouching toward is not the result of true conservatism, it is the result of a decade where the grifters wrote the rules and carried away or destroyed the wealth that had taken three generations to build. We lack the vigilance needed to protect our cherished institutions and now they are in shambles.

Congress cannot or will not appoint the necessary watchdogs because their corporate paymasters dictate otherwise, yet these same Congressmen have ample time to exhibit their genitalia on social media and airport bathrooms. We fight unnecessary wars and ignore the health, welfare and education of our own people; we operate out of irrational fear of Islamic terror while the real threat is from financial terrorists within our own borders and institutions.

I'm a firm believer that the complex dynamic system will correct eventually, but I am absolutely amazed at how much pain the common citizen is willing to endure in order to protect a status quo that is lining the pockets of charlatans at the expense of working folks. When the bureaucrats scream "We're broke", we readily entertain the elimination of Medicare and health care for each other yet allow the military-industrial complex and the banking industry to wallow in unregulated and unfettered greed.

If you're not the hustler, then you must be the...

Greenwald: Weiner and repressed titillation

2011-06-09T12:01:00.008-04:00

From Glenn Greenwald:

Yes, Anthony Weiner lied -- about something that is absolutely nobody's business but his and his wife's. If you're not his wife, you have absolutely no legitimate reason to want to know about -- let alone pass judgment on -- what he does in his private sexual life with other consenting adults. Particularly repellent is the pretense of speaking out on behalf of his wife, as though anyone knows what her perspectives on such matters are or what their relationship entails. The only reason to want to wallow in the details of Anthony Weiner's sex life is because of the voyeuristic titillation it provides: a deeply repressed culture celebrates when it finds cause to be able to talk about penises and naked pictures and oral sex while hiding behind some noble pretext. On some level, I find the behavior of the obviously loathsome Andrew Breitbart preferable; at least he's honest about his motive: he hates Democrats and liberals and wants sadistically to destroy them however he can. It's the empty, barren, purse-lipped busybodies who cannot stay out of other adults' private and sexual lives -- while pretending to be elevated -- that are the truly odious villains here.
In The Atlantic, Conor Friedersdorf argues that the private consensual sexual activities of politicians are none of our business, and in reply, Megan McArdle insists that "society has [an] interest in whether people keep their vows" in marriage and thus it's a good thing "to use a few of our precious news hours to say, 'Hey, not okay'!" Except McArdle has absolutely no idea what vows Weiner and his wife have made to each other, and she shouldn't know, because it's none of her business, despite her eagerness to learn about it and publicly condemn it. Even if she had any idea of what she was talking about -- and she plainly doesn't -- nothing is less relevant than Megan McArdle's views of the arrangement Anthony Weiner and his wife have for their marriage and whether each partner is adhering to that arrangement. That a journalist at The Atlantic wants to talk about this, and dig into the details, and issue judgments about it, says all one needs to know about our press corps.

Yes, this is really none of our business and I agree that investigative journalists could use their time better looking into more important matters, but I disagree that this is only about voyeuristic titillation. The Republicans, such as Rep Cantor, who have asked for Weiner's resignation are more correct than the few Democrats who have downplayed Weiner's shenanigans. The GOP has fallen into the crevice of political dialog where they have taken the side that all government is bad and Anthony Weiner can be used as yet one more example of the decrepitude of the institution of Congress. The Democrats are the ones who have always made the case that federalization of things such as health care, bank regulation and retirement Social Security can make for better society, so when their members are wanking their... er.. members on Twitter instead of ironing out solutions to our economic and social ills, it is especially poignant. If government is so necessary, then for chrissakes let's take it seriously.

Sure, Sen. John Ensign was screwing his best friend's wife and paying hush money, but he's a Republican and isn't that expected? Sure, Sen. David Vitter was prancing around in diapers in probably illegal (uninvestigated) trysts with prostitutes. Sure, Sen. Larry Craig was getting his balls washed by male consorts in airport bathrooms until he was arrested. But these guys have never made a pretense that government is anything but counterproductive and have always maintained that all federal employees are bums. Hasn't the GOP always been the party of taking it to us without even the courtesy of a reach around? And what could be more emblematic of that than such lewd behavior, all worse than Weiner's by the way?

While I may agree with Greenwald that engaging in titillation is a distraction, I would say that Democratic voters should be aware that behavior such as Weiner's only emboldens Republican voters in their belief that government is unnecessary and evil. We are in the midst of a fundamental discussion of what and how much of our lives we should entrust to government.

I happen to believe that the federal government should be, needs to be, recruited to manage and regulate and ensure our well-being on various important issues, and therefore I hold Democrats, who are elected to serve the people by forming a more perfect government, to a higher standard. I don't need to see pictures of Weiner's dick, but I can say that New York voters need to speak against their Representative's behavior... by not re-electing him. We need individuals in Congress who are awake and paying attention in order to counter-act the fixed number of cynical clowns who will always be there to represent their corporate overlords.

Is there an epidemic of mental illness? UPDATE

2011-06-07T07:13:00.007-04:00

Marcia Angell, MD, the often critic of the pharmaceutical industry, has reviewed three books that address the status of psychiatry. From the New York Review of Books:

It seems that Americans are in the midst of a raging epidemic of
mental illness, at least as judged by the increase in the numbers treated for
it. The tally of those who are so disabled by mental disorders that they qualify
for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI)
increased nearly two and a half times between 1987 and 2007—from one in 184
Americans to one in seventy-six. For children, the rise is even more startling—a
thirty-five-fold increase in the same two decades. Mental illness is now the
leading cause of disability in children, well ahead of physical disabilities
like cerebral palsy or Down syndrome, for which the federal programs were
created.

Read the whole article. Our society is medicated beyond belief and the efficacy and long term effects of these psychoactive drugs are suspect, especially in children. The conflicts of interests among doctors, patients and industry is examined.

____________________________
UPDATE

Part two of the 2-part article:

At the very least, we need to stop thinking of psychoactive drugs as the
best, and often the only, treatment for mental illness or emotional distress.
Both psychotherapy and exercise have been shown to be as effective as drugs for
depression, and their effects are longer-lasting, but unfortunately, there is no
industry to push these alternatives and Americans have come to believe that
pills must be more potent. More research is needed to study alternatives to
psychoactive drugs, and the results should be included in medical
education.

In particular, we need to rethink the care of troubled children. Here
the problem is often troubled families in troubled circumstances. Treatment
directed at these environmental conditions—such as one-on-one tutoring to help
parents cope or after-school centers for the children—should be studied and
compared with drug treatment. In the long run, such alternatives would probably
be less expensive. Our reliance on psychoactive drugs, seemingly for all of
life’s discontents, tends to close off other options. In view of the risks and
questionable long-term effectiveness of drugs, we need to do better. Above all,
we should remember the time-honored medical dictum: first, do no harm (primum
non nocere).

So much of medicine is unscientific-- one of the glaring disappointments I've always had with the profession-- but few things are less scientific or more reckless than treating kids with antipsychotics.

Firms to halt health insurance coverage

2011-06-06T17:13:00.003-04:00

From Marketwatch:

LOS ANGELES (MarketWatch) — Once provisions of the Affordable Care Act start to kick in during 2014, at least three of every 10 employers will probably stop offering health coverage, a survey released Monday shows.

While only 7% of employees will be forced to switch to subsidized-exchange programs, at least 30% of companies say they will “definitely or probably” stop offering employer-sponsored coverage, according to the study published in McKinsey Quarterly.

The survey of 1,300 employers says those who are keenly aware of the health-reform measure probably are more likely to consider an alternative to employer-sponsored plans, with 50% to 60% in this group expected to make a change. It also found that for some, it makes more sense to switch.

My comment: This is not a bad thing, employer-based health insurance is an anachronistic inefficiency left over from the wage-control era of the last century. It was bound to be destroyed with the next deflationary cycle in the employment market-- which is now. This will allow individuals more mobility and choice, and my prediction is that it's one step closer Medicare-for-all basic national health insurance which can be supplemented by private policies.

Rosalyn Yalow, Dead at 89

2011-06-03T00:04:00.003-04:00

One of the first female Nobel Laureates, revered alumna of the University of Illinois at Urbana, discoverer of the radioimmunoassay among other things. From the NYT:

World War II and the draft were creating academic opportunities for women; to her delight, Dr. Yalow was awarded a teaching assistantship at the College of Engineering at the University of Illinois. She tore up her steno books and headed to Champaign-Urbana, becoming the first woman to join the engineering school’s faculty in 24 years.

Dr. Yalow received her doctorate in nuclear physics in 1945, and went to teach at Hunter College the following year. When she could not find a research position, she volunteered to work in a medical lab at Columbia University, where she was introduced to the new field of radiotherapy. She moved to the Bronx Veterans Administration Hospital, now the James J. Peters Veterans Affairs Medical Center, as a part-time researcher in 1947 and began working full time in 1950. That same year, she began her 22-year collaboration with Dr. Berson.

In their work on radioimmunoassay, Dr. Yalow and Dr. Berson used radioactive tracers to measure hormones that were otherwise difficult or impossible to detect because they occur in extremely low concentrations. They went on to use the test to measure concentrations of vitamins, viruses and other substances in the body.

I remember passing her portrait at the Illini Union on the many nights I spent there studying. An inspiration.

A Guide to the Good Life, by William Irvine

2011-05-27T03:41:00.004-04:00

The author, a philosophy professor, appropriately subtitles his book The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy.

This is unlike any book I've read and presents philosophy in an entirely practical way. Sure, we've all read the standard Plato, Aristotle and Aquinas, but Irvine begins by putting the study of philosophy into context. The ancient Greeks were the very first members of Western Civilization to have been afforded the luxury of time to actually think about the big questions of existence, happiness and metaphysics. As such they sat down and codified the nature of the human condition and it's relationship with the natural and the divine. Irvine points out that a leap occurred in human understanding in the 6th century BCE and over the intervening centuries philosophers had every intention of solving the mystery of why we were here and what makes us happy and fulfilled. To me, they were like the Google and Apple engineers of their day.

Various systems, or schools, were developed: the Stoics, Aristotle's Academy, the Cynics, the Epicureans, etc. They competed for followers by presenting true philosophies for living and not just presenting ivory tower psychobabble. Irvine concentrates on the Stoics and points out that the goal of this system was to eliminate or mitigate negative emotions, only in the modern vernacular has stoicism (small S) come to mean the elimination of all emotion. In jargon-free prose, Irvine presents a readable synopsis of philosophy and puts it into a context that makes it real.

Irvine says that humans are programmed to seek pleasure and this is a constantly increasing urge that saps our enjoyment of the world. He terms this adaptive hedonism: that no matter how comfortable or pleasurable our lives become, we soon adapt and need more, more, more. Without breaking this cycle of ever-increasing hedonism, we become miserable. Buddhists would call this attachment. Irvine presents psychological techniques developed by the first Stoics that are designed to increase our satisfaction with our current situation.

The first technique is negative visualization. The ancients would instruct their students to visualize, or imagine, the very worst case scenario or outcome. No matter how gruesome or disturbing, we should picture losing everything: our family, our job, our home, our health. This prepares us for the absolute worst and when these negative situations do not materialize, we gain more satisfaction and gratitude for the things we have. I would note that this is anathema to the usual teaching of modern Western society which instructs us to think positive! and avoid negative thoughts. Irvine points out that this attitude only increases our desire for more, and decreases our enjoyment of what we have.

Irvine admits that negative visualization seems counter-intuitive, but such active techniques are important especially in kids who can become jaded as they compete for the latest trendy consumer items or experiences. Just as a near-death catastrophe, such as a car accident or illness, can temporarily jolt someone out of their jadedness and put things into a cleaner perspective, negative visualization can do the same thing-- only it's actually more effective because it is done regularly, consciously and with discipline.

There have been several famous Stoics, including Zeno, Epictetus, Cicero, Seneca and the Marcus Aurelius. The Greek schools fell out of favor for various reasons as Christianity rose to political prominence in the first centuries after Christ.

The Stoics also advocate a program of voluntary discomfort, such as fasting or wearing too little clothing in the cold, or making other physical sacrifices-- a practice which is done by many if not most religions in some manner. The Stoics taught that such practices have positive consequences on levels of happiness and satisfaction in life, and it also prepares us for the times when such sacrifices are necessary. As such, we become more confident that we could withstand hard times, if they ever were to come our way, thus increasing our joy and satisfaction in our current plentiful situation.

Irvine also points out the power of self-deprecation, self-denial, concentrating only on factors that we can truly control (very few as it turns out), and eschewing worry about things we cannot change. The ultimate goal of the practice of Stoicism is to increase tranquility in our lives ... and to increase joy. Some individuals have natural tendencies toward Stoicism, while others would fight these techniques and view them as counter-productive or silly. Irvine points out that most, if not all, of Stoicism can be perfectly consistent with other religions and can easily be incorporated into Christianity, Buddhism and other faiths.

Personally, I tend toward many of the Stoic ideals already, and always have. Reading this book was refreshing... to know that some of my crazy behaviors have actually been codified by ancient philosophers and that more modern psychological techniques describe some of my behaviors; negative visualization does not lead to pessimism, and has been invaluable to me in my job. Irvine gives examples of meditations and practices that follow this philosophy-- and it is way to live your life. True happiness does come from living within your means, knowing your limitations and practicing self-control, and as Irvine says, the most amazing-- truly amazing-- thing is that sometimes out of the blue a burst of unrestrained joy will come when you least expect it.

My review has not done the book justice. Irvine is a gifted writer and philosopher and this book gets my highest recommendation.

Stand-Up: Long Story Short, with Colin Quinn

2011-05-27T03:34:00.003-04:00

Funny. If you have HBO on Demand, watch it... if not then rent it.

Preview

Documentary: Inside Job, Director Charles Ferguson

2011-05-27T03:11:00.007-04:00

An excellent documentary on the 2008 financial meltdown that brought down the world economy. It exhaustively outlines all the factors involved: the massive compensation packages, the lousy debt ratings, malicious financial engineering, lax regulation, outright theft and massive conflict of interest. Anyone who thinks the system is now okay is delusional.

One exchange:

Charles Ferguson interviewing John Campbell, Chairman Harvard Economics Department:

CHARLES FERGUSON: Does Harvard require disclosures of financial conflict of
interest in publications?
JOHN CAMPBELL: Um, not to my knowledge.

CHARLES FERGUSON: Do you require people to report the compensation they’ve
received from outside activities?
JOHN CAMPBELL: No.
CHARLES FERGUSON: Don't you think that's a problem?
JOHN CAMPBELL: I don't see why.
CHARLES FERGUSON: Martin Feldstein being on the board of AIG; Laura Tyson going
on the board of Morgan Stanley; uh, Larry Summers making 10 million dollars a year
consulting to financial services firms; irrelevant.
JOHN CAMPBELL: Hm, ye-, well – yeah; basically irrelevant.

CHARLES FERGUSON: A medical researcher writes an article, saying: to treat this
disease, you should prescribe this drug. It turns out Doctor makes 80 percent of
personal income from manufacturer of this drug. Does not bother you.
JOHN CAMPBELL: I think, uh, it's certainly important to disclose the, um – the, um. Well, I think that's also a little different from cases that we are talking about
here. Because, um – um –

Yeah, right. Whatever faults the medical profession may have, we have not sold our soul for a house in the Hamptons. Ferguson interviews many of the big players and provides lengthy clips of poignant moments. The entire movie is well-done, if you can stomach it.

Catholics make stuff up...

2011-05-23T00:08:00.004-04:00

Jerry Coyne gets theological:

The Assumption—the Catholic “truth” that Mary was assumed bodily into Heaven—was proclaimed an official dogma of the Church by Pope Pius XII in his Munificentissimus Deus on November 1, 1950. This was announced ex cathedra, so it’s an irrefutable truth coming directly from God. The Pope said:
For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

{snip}

Now the Bible says exactly nothing about Mary’s death or fate. As the Catholic Encyclopedia states, “Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady’s death, nothing certain is known.” The doctrine of the Assumption was made up centuries after the supposed death of Jesus. As usual, this fabrication rested on dubious interpretation of the Bible, Church “tradition” (i.e., stuff that Church fathers made up), and “reason” (i.e., theological “logic”).

Coyne reviews the dubious "evidence" used to corroborate this belief: spurious passages from Psalms and Revelation, and letters from various saints from the 5th century CE. Not convinced yet?

Finally, to Pope Pius, Mary’s assumption must be true simply because it makes sense:

Among the scholastic theologians there have not been lacking those who, wishing to inquire more profoundly into divinely revealed truths and desirous of showing the harmony that exists between what is termed the theological demonstration and the Catholic faith, have always considered it worthy of note that this privilege of the Virgin Mary’s Assumption is in wonderful accord with those divine truths given us in Holy Scripture.

When they go on to explain this point, they adduce various proofs to throw light on this privilege of Mary. As the first element of these demonstrations, they insist upon the fact that, out of filial love for his mother, Jesus Christ has willed that she be assumed into heaven. They base the strength of their proofs on the incomparable dignity of her divine motherhood and of all those prerogatives which follow from it. These include her exalted holiness, entirely surpassing the sanctity of all men and of the angels, the intimate union of Mary with her Son, and the affection of preeminent love which the Son has for his most worthy Mother.
That’s about all the “evidence” for a bedrock doctrine of Catholic faith. In fact, it’s considered such a solid truth that if you deny it or scoff at it, you’ll go to hell!

The presentation of "evidence" for the Assumption tries to mimic empiricism. I always find it interesting when various religions try to give a veneer of respectability to their beliefs by presenting “evidence” that their mythologies are real. They torture logic and reason and call their fantasies logical and reasonable. I would have more respect for them if they’d just just chalked it up to an article of faith and moved on. Instead their leaders say with a straight face that the Assumption makes sense.

Good stuff, read the whole post.

Who exactly is Anti-American?

2011-05-22T19:08:00.003-04:00

From Glenn Greenwald, presented without comment:

Obama's call for a peace deal ultimately "based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps" is not even arguably a change from past American policy. Though he's the first President to publicly call for such an outcome, that's been the working premise of American policy for decades. It's controversial in one sense -- it unduly rewards Israel for its illegal seizures of land by suggesting they should be able to permanently keep West Bank settlements (the "land swap" aspect of the formula) -- but it does not remotely constitute a step in an anti-Israel direction.

[snip]

The Right Wing Noise Machine all but accused Obama of trying to destroy Israel, with the GOP's leading presidential candidates condemning the President for the crime of "disrespecting" and "throwing Israel under the bus," Glenn Beck denouncing him for "betraying Israel," and Matt Drudge exploiting ignorance to screech in headlines that "Obama Sides With Palestinians." Meanwhile, a former AIPAC spokesman demanded that Obama take a renewed public pledge of devotion to Israel, and circulated to the media statements of condemnation from numerous "pro-Israel" Democrats in Congress. The neoconservative Israel-devotees at The Washington Post editorialized against Obama and predictably blamed him for the resulting tension with Netanyahu, siding (as usual) with this foreign government over their own. And a Reuters article this morning claims that "some prominent Jewish Americans are rethinking their support for President Barack Obama's 2012 re-election bid" due to that speech...

[snip]

Prime Minister Netanyahu is scheduled to address a joint session of Congress - having been invited by House Republicans -- and David Frum :

I think a better question is whether the ovation will be longer and more enthusiastic than those accorded American Presidents. It is ironic indeed that the same GOP members who will stand and cheer wildly for this foreign leader in conflict with their own country's President are typically the first to scream "unpatriotic!" accusations at others.

Read the whole thing.

Why the GOP will lose the health care debate

2011-05-18T11:44:00.004-04:00

From NPR:

"Congress has never crossed the line between regulating what people choose to do and ordering them to do it," said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT). "The difference between regulating and requiring is liberty."

But Hatch's opposition is ironic, or some would say, politically motivated. The last time Congress debated a health overhaul, when Bill Clinton was president, Hatch and several other senators who now oppose the so-called individual mandate actually supported a bill that would have required it.

But it's actually worse than this. Republicans in the House have voted to basically repeal Medicare and make it a voucher system. Who pays when seniors exercise their "liberty" to eschew health insurance either out of necessity or desire? If the Republicans want to trust liberty-- I mean really trust it-- then they would repeal the EMTALA statutes signed by Reagan that require hospitals and physicians to treat patients regardless of their ability to pay.

Only the most naive don't know how this is supposed to work: The result will be that healthy seniors will get insurance, with the GOP's overlords in the insurance industry taking their prodigious cut, and the sick who cannot afford coverage will just get treated for free in the emergency departments. Win-win for the plutocrats.

The fact is that the Republicans fetish for the language of "liberty" is all bullshit. Their desire for true liberty is as synthetic as Newt's Catholicism, John Ensign's family values and Arnold's marriage.

Fox News as performance art, right?

2011-05-18T09:07:00.001-04:00

Ginandtacos:

Conservatives enthusiastically argue that all news networks are equally biased and therefore any one is as good as the others. This is of course nothing but a defense mechanism, and an understandable one at that. We all watch what flatters our own ideological predispositions, but surely any sentient person watching Fox knows, on a very deep and basic level, that he is watching not actual news but performance artists doing their impression of news. Right? I mean, throw me a bone here. Tell me that people who watch this are self aware enough to realize that it's essentially entertainment programming. They don't actually watch this network and think "I'm watchin' the news! I'm learnin' important stuff!" do they?

Florida State University whores itself out

2011-05-10T14:22:00.002-04:00

FSU has taken money from the Kochs and ceded academic freedom in return, all for $1.5 million:

A conservative billionaire who opposes government meddling in business has bought a rare commodity: the right to interfere in faculty hiring at a publicly funded university.
A foundation bankrolled by Libertarian businessman Charles G. Koch has pledged $1.5 million for positions in Florida State University's economics department. In return, his representatives get to screen and sign off on any hires for a new program promoting "political economy and free enterprise."
Traditionally, university donors have little official input into choosing the person who fills a chair they've funded. The power of university faculty and officials to choose professors without outside interference is considered a hallmark of academic freedom.
Under the agreement with the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, however, faculty only retain the illusion of control. The contract specifies that an advisory committee appointed by Koch decides which candidates should be considered. The foundation can also withdraw its funding if it's not happy with the faculty's choice or if the hires don't meet "objectives" set by Koch during annual evaluations.

PZ Myers is diplomatic when he says:

If I were a faculty member who found my choice of colleagues dictated by Koch (or Soros, or Gates, or any similar filthy rich dilettante), I'd be a bit peevish, and I don't think the golden candidate would get much respect from his peers. On the other hand, if I were applying for a job and was rejected because I didn't fit the ideology of the Koch brothers, I'd feel darned good and also be well satisfied that I wasn't going to be affiliated with such a ~~cheap brothel~~ university.
On the third hand, if I were a graduate of the econ department of FSU, I'd be extremely embarrassed about my degree at this point.

Peevish? This is criminal, or should be. FSU alumni and faculty should be incensed, a labor strike and withholding of alumni contributions is certainly in order.

Pitzer College in California Adds Major in Secularism

2011-05-09T09:37:00.005-04:00

From the NYT:

Starting this fall, Pitzer College, a small liberal arts institution in Southern California, will inaugurate a department of secular studies. Professors from other departments, including history, philosophy, religion, science and sociology, will teach courses like “God, Darwin and Design in America,” “Anxiety in the Age of Reason” and “Bible as Literature.”

When I was at the University of Chicago, we called this curriculum "Liberal Arts", otherwise known as "How to think", but maybe the concept is due for a new name and a new approach.

What we can learn from economists

2011-05-09T07:40:00.003-04:00

Greg Mankiw wants answers: “After more than a quarter-century as a professional economist, I have a confession to make: There is a lot I don’t know about the economy. Indeed, the area of economics where I have devoted most of my energy and attention — the ups and downs of the business cycle — is where I find myself most often confronting important questions without obvious answers…”

Barry Ritholtz gives them to him: "Let’s put aside the fundamental error of classical economics — that Humans are rational, self-interested, profit maximizing creatures. They are clearly not; Humans are actually irrational social animals with flawed cognitive apparatus. Frequently emotional, occasionally self-destructive, often times erratic, humans only rarely exhibit the traits that economics ascribe to them. If the study of economics begins with such a shaky foundation, is it any wonder they get so much wrong?"

Lesson: listen to economists at your own peril.

The Perils of False Certainty

2011-05-08T08:10:00.003-04:00

Jason Rosenhouse at Evolutionblog has an excellent post on doubt.

I find it galling that it always seems to be atheists who get lectured about false certainty, or who get likened to religious fundamentalists in their dogmatism. Unless the intention is to say that fundamentalists meticulously sift the evidence to assess the balance of probabilities, and then hold their conclusions tentatively pending the arrival of new evidence, the comparison is completely inapt.

On the other hand, I see considerably less criticism of statements like this: “Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.” That's from Pope John Paul II. It takes some serious audacity for the Pope, who claims to be able to speak infallibly at least some of the time, and who heads an organization that claims to be in a privileged position to interpret the scriptures, to scold others about false absolutes.

David Koch, professional Douchebag

2011-05-05T18:27:00.006-04:00

I'm no big war cheerleader and I classify the killing of Osama bin Laden as necessary but not sufficient for justice to be done. As an act of war I have no problem with killing an unarmed terrorist, it's his own damn fault that he didn't have the wherewithal to be armed. One more dead asshole who had it coming. And who gets credit? Who cares, but yes the entire community of intelligence and covert services, including two presidential administrations, deserve credit.

Bring on David Koch, billionaire dickhead and gadfly, who gives no credit to the current president:

"...all that Obama did was say 'yea' or 'nay,' we’re going to take him out or not. I don’t think he contributed much at all. He just made the decision, it was obvious where the guy is. He was one of the worst terrorists organizing attacks on the United States. I mean, no president in his right mind would not approve that decision to go eliminate him. So he’s getting a lot of recognition and his polls have jumped up, but his decision was the easiest of them all. The real hard work was done by the intelligence and the SEALs."

I don’t think he contributed much at all. How does he know? So before the anemones even have a chance to eat through bin Laden's dermis, Koch is dismissing the decision-making surrounding the event. You could be sure that if the mission had failed, Koch would have been the first to pin all responsibility on Obama.

It's official: The White Sox are unwatchable

2011-05-03T22:29:00.004-04:00

I've come to expect a bad outcome as the White Sox find a new way to lose most every night. If it's not bad baserunning, then it's sloppy fielding or atrocious relief pitching. Tonight was the final blow, whereby i swear off watching them until they can show some skill. A struggling Francisco Liriano of the Minnesota Twins faced a struggling Edwin Jackson on a cold night at US Cellular.

Not only did the White Sox hitters fail to help out Jackson's excellent one-run, 8-inning performance, but the White Sox failed to get even a hit. Yet another new way to lose, this time 1-0.

Kenny Williams (at right) should be beyond panicking at this point. He has spent more than most teams in major league baseball and is not only failing, but failing miserably. He's paid too much for his center fielder, his designated hitter and his left fielder. The bullpen, for lack of a better term, sucks, and Jake Peavy is still out.

The bright side: I'll have more time in the evenings to get other constructive things done.

Texas Governor now praying for rain

2011-04-21T15:49:00.005-04:00

A couple years ago, Gov. Perry talked of Texas seceding from the union:

“I believe the federal government has become oppressive. I believe it’s become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of its citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state”

A few days ago, Gov. Perry appealed to that same "oppressive" union for federal help from wild fires.

Governor Perry says Texas is reaching its capacity to respond to so many emergencies.

Now, Gov. Perry is asking God for some help.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, RICK PERRY, Governor of Texas, under the authority vested in me by the Constitution and Statutes of the State of Texas, do hereby proclaim the three-day period from Friday, April 22, 2011, to Sunday, April 24, 2011, as Days of Prayer for Rain in the State of Texas. I urge Texans of all faiths and traditions to offer prayers on that day for the healing of our land, the rebuilding of our communities and the restoration of our normal and robust way of life.

I guess Gov. Perry didn't like the answer he got from the President. Good luck.

Breitbart's Lord of the Flies moment

2011-04-21T00:40:00.007-04:00

... with Glenn Beck playing the part of Piggy. Breitbart called Shirley Sherrod a racist (bearing false witness) and blames Beck. To wit:

According to Mr. Breitbart, fellow Tea Partier Glenn Beck first joined him in editing and eviscerating Ms. Sherrod's 2010 N.A.A.C.P. speech on the radio, before publishing the unedited version on his Web site, discrediting Mr. Breitbart on television and calling for his apology.

"Next thing I know, I'm under complete attack without the support of Glenn Beck, who I thought was somebody I could count on," Mr. Breitbart told the Transom. "He threw me under the bus."

It seems Glenn Beck is becoming the fall guy for all seasons among conservatives who, like the boys in Lord of the Flies, pick on doughy nerd, but Glenn's not going down without a fight, and the feud is righteous.

If the Meek are Going to Inherit the Earth....

2011-04-20T23:33:00.007-04:00

... they are going to have kick ass for it.

I tend to see the liberal point of view as more workable, not because it's better or more logical but because the human condition yearns for the security of safety nets, so they aren't going away. Also, I believe (although I cannot prove it) that such security tends to promote innovation and creativity in society. Would someone really spend 15 years learning medicine or law or invest years in an esoteric field of science or literature if they felt vulnerable to the vicissitudes of the free market at all times?

Conservatism and libertarianism are okay as ideologies go, but our society and Western civilization in general has decided by several large actions over the past few decades that free markets need to be mitigated, old folks need to be kept out of penury, kids need vaccines, and we all need to contribute, which we all do via payroll taxes. Call it socialism if you wish, but it's not. Some call it legislated morality, and others call it enlightened self-interest, ie, the only practical way to run a big country.

The Republicans have presented a budget plan written by Rep Paul Ryan that dismantles the social safety nets and changes the fundamental charge of Medicare. Instead of giving retirees an access card for health care, he wants to give them a voucher to purchase a policy on the free market and this voucher may or may not be adequate depending on pre-existing illnesses, thus leaving the individuals to fend for themselves and pay the difference, or not. What do we do with the 75 year-old who failed to buy insurance due to poverty, dementia, ideology, or some other reason when they show up in the Emergency department in congestive heart failure. Who pays?

Safety nets need to be nurtured and respected. When Social Security payroll tax money is put into the general revenue fund to pay for wars and pork, that is not respectful. If you use your IRA fund to buy a shotgun or Lexus, then don't expect it to be there when you're 65. And this is the biggest failure of liberalism in the 20th century: we've built huge social programs and then failed to fund them. We could see the impending demographic doom of an aging population five decades ago, yet we stayed in Vietnam 8 years too long and continue to subsidize corporate farms or build bridges to nowhere, and now we must borrow more money to pay for grandma's hip replacement.

Liberals are to blame because they have allowed conservatives to fearmonger and spend on wars and derail our economy by lax regulation and cut taxes for the rich. I hold the conservatives less blameworthy because they have always had the explicit goal of doing exactly that to our nation: to make government so small that they can drown it in the bathtub. Despite the conservatives' succinct and honest rhetoric about their desire to destroy Social Security and Medicare, liberals have ignored these warnings and slouched toward bankrupting what should be our precious retirement and health care funds. Medicare has been disrepectfully damaged for years and Social Security has been underfunded since before Al Gore took ridicule for his "lockbox" proposal in 2000.

Now the joke is on us. Despite having contributed payroll taxes for an entire lifetime with the expressed understanding of a defined benefit, now we are faced with a re-negotiation of these benefits and perhaps a longer working career or a poorer retirement. Democratic and Republican Congressmen never will have to worry about their health care or their pensions. Is Senator Durbin's or Rep. Ryan's pension up for re-negotiation? Can we give Trent Lott a voucher to pay 40% of his health insurance premium?

We get what we deserve and if we cannot be responsible enough to manage Social Security and Medicare, then we don't deserve them. Liberalism works only when it is nurtured and tended in a responsible manner... because the jackals will be more than happy to dissociate us from our retirement benefits if we let them.

Book Review: The Evolution of God, by Robert Wright

2011-04-12T16:39:00.003-04:00

Grade: B+
Concepts: B
Writing quality: A

Robert Wright comes through with yet another marvelously conceived thesis, thoroughly referenced and masterfully constructed. Admittedly, I had misgivings about the title, fearing yet another heist of biological Evolution (capital E) for some social theme, but my fears were unfounded. Wright delves into the growth and maturation of the Abrahamic God through it's various tribal, regional and, finally, worldwide iterations. Having read much of Karen Armstrong's work, I would say Wright does a better job of conceptualizing God as a social and cultural construct.

Make no mistake, Wright, an admitted agnostic, paints a vision of God as something manufactured by humans and transformed consciously and unconsciously to fit society. He looks at the political and economic milieu of the Jews, Christians and Muslims throughout the ages to see how God was adapted in order to fit the various purposes of the various cultures. Believers may have some problem with Wright's concept of God as reliant on the human condition and changing according to the facts on the ground, but readers could just as easily see the causation emanating from God as well, I suppose. Wright grapples with the idea that morality has a direction, an evolution of sorts, and God can be defined as that moral order.

Yahweh was a tribal God that incorporated Baal and other minor gods from the polytheistic sects into one Being. For centuries this God protected the Jews and gave them cover to destroy enemies and claim territory for His chosen people. Wright teases out the language to demonstrate the various words used for God, with one motive to include or exclude other ethnicities according to the interests of the Jews. This was not a universal religion and represented a departure from the more tolerant milieu of the polytheistic societies.

Paul the Apostle (although he never knew Jesus personally) seized on the idea of Christ in order to create a new worldwide religion, potentially inclusive of any convert: Gentile, Jew, or otherwise. Wright makes the point that this era was marked with an established globalization borne from the Pax Romana with roads, shipping and commerce. Early Christianity provided a religion that emphasized universal goodwill among its members, something sorely needed for the economic growth to flower across the Middle East, Europe and North Africa. Conversely, Wright conjectures also that an inclusive religion like Christianity was borne from this need for more nonzero sum relationships throughout the civilized world. The Roman Empire was already begrudgingly tolerant of the various local religious practices and thus had provided the commercial, military and legal structure that served as the perfect birthplace for the nascent religion that Paul developed. Was Christianity the cause or the effect of the integrated commercial network? Wright feels that if Paul had not disseminated Christianity, then some other inclusive religion would have eventually been developed.

While Christianity under Paul, and then Constantine and future regimes, allowed converts, the Church actually became less tolerant of other religions and those who refused to convert to Christianity; this is in contradistinction to the previous tendencies of the Roman Empire.

“Why did Paul become the point man for a God whose love knows no ethnic bounds? Is it because he was naturally loving and tolerant, a man who effortlessly imbued all he met with a sense of belonging? Unlikely. Even in his correspondence, which presumably reflects a filtered version of the inner Paul, we see him declaring that followers of Jesus who disagree with him about the gospel message should be ‘accursed’—that is, condemned by God to eternal suffering.”

This "with us or against us" policy threw down the gauntlet to non-Christians, and the gamble (of sorts) paid off as Christianity flourished with new faithful members. Was their conversion primarily based on theology, economics, or political survival?

Likewise, Muhammad's divine revelations were conveniently inclusive of various Arab sects, thereby increasing cooperation through nonzero sum relationships among the groups. Wright reviews the timing of the Koran's suras to show that the revelations alternated from warrior ethos to compassion to cooperation depending on the needs of the Muslims and their leader at a given time. God's dictates evolved into a more or less inclusive religion as the Muslims required.

Wright's thesis will not be universally accepted by believers. Even non-believers have trouble with many of the concepts: evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne called it "Creationism for Liberals." Wright took issue with Coyne, claiming that many of his arguments were misrepresented, and I'd have to agree with Wright on this. The Evolution of God is a long book (>500 pp) with a lot of history and a solid thesis about how Western human cultures have steered theism toward the extant morality of our current Western civilization. To imagine our culture without monotheism is impossible, and vice versa. Like Wright's other books, it's written in an easy to understand conversational tone.

I'll finish with a quote from Robert Wright in response to Jerry Coyne's criticism of an apparent moral direction, or progress. The reason I bring this up is that the same concept was broached in our church group's discussion of The Evolution of God. Does morality as demonstrated in monotheistic religions, have an inexorable direction, ie, a progressive evolution? Wright says,

"Though I argue in this book that all three Abrahamic religions... generally get more tolerant, less belligerent, in response to non-zero-sum dynamics—I emphasize that there’s no guarantee that, as social organization approaches the global level, humankind will make the necessary moral adaptation; we may instead see social chaos on an unprecedented scale."

Nice.

"Pap Smears: between the Swiffer refills and the cat food..."

2011-04-12T10:44:00.001-04:00

Why Colbert wins all the awards:

Paul Ryan's Catch 22 on health care

2011-04-11T17:38:00.009-04:00

Milo's mustache was unfortunate because the separated halves never matched; they were like Milo's disunited eyes which never looked at the same thing at the same time. Milo could see more things than most people, but he could see none of them too distinctly.

-description of Milo Minderbinder, Catch 22, by Joseph Heller.

______________________________

Paul Ryan has a plan for health care, and it's based on the free market. From Fox:

Ryan offered a personal example in why he believes a market-dominated system will work in health care. He said a decade ago he spent $4,000 for LASIK eye surgery. It's an out-of-pocket expense that now costs 1/3 as much for a more technically advanced procedure. "People shouldn't tell us that health care is immune from free market principles," Ryan observed.

And this is exactly why Republicans should just stay out of the debate about health care: they cannot differentiate between a cosmetic procedure and necessary medical care. Think of health care as law enforcement or the military: necessary interventions that can only be done efficiently and justly on a large scale. Health care economics is chock full of asymmetric information and competing interests, and add to that the sheer complexity of integrating standards of care while trying to police skill levels.

LASIK surgery has about as much resemblance to health care as buying your kid's bicycle does to purchasing an F-16 Tomcat. The former is an elective purchase that can be done at your leisure while the latter must be done with expertise and perform perfectly reliably. When dad goes to the Emergency Dept with chest pain do we shop around for the lowest cost provider for his urgent cardiac catheterization?

Ryan has this conversation as a pretext for eliminating Medicare as we know it, forcing seniors to shop for health insurance with their government voucher in hand. Good luck. He also wants to save $729 billion over 10 years by repealing the Affordable Care Act thus sentencing 30 million Americans to a life without health insurance. The arithmetic says that the savings would be quite low for the amount of insurance purchased for the 30 million, not to mention the benefits of a healthier citizenry. Much more benefit than the trillions of dollars in war funding that Ryan has voted for.

Ironically, the Affordable Care Act does in fact provide market forces by requiring individuals to purchase health insurance on the open market. I have no idea what the motives of Mr. Ryan actually are, but my hunch is that he means well, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assumes he's just clueless. The Collective at Esquire is not so magnanimous:

Paul Ryan believes the true mission of government is to bring as much pain to the parasites as it can because, by doing so, it can liberate the genius of those people who deserve to live. When Paul Ryan dreams of a free nation, it is one in which the seventy-two-year-old spouses of seventy-five-year-old patients are free to go out and shop in a rigged insurance market for the $100,000-plus they're going to need over a lifetime of tending to that patient....

...Look at him when he talks about dismantling the hard-won protections of the shrinking middle class. He is so positively lubricious about it that his teeth seem to be sweating. Pain (not his) purifies the nation. Pain (not his) makes us free. This is what Paul Ryan dreams of when he dreams of a free people.

So maybe the LASIK has disunited Paul Ryan's eyes, and that's the Catch 22: for all that he envisions for America, he's blind to what we really need.