Mike the Mad Biologist

I Have Been Assimilated Into the Collective

2006-06-09T06:42:00.000-07:00

I don't want to jinx, but supposedly, Friday, at noon, I will officially join ScienceBlogs (although the site might be active now?).

My new website/url will be: http://scienceblogs.com/mikethemadbiologist/

In case you're in the large-type reading group, that's:

http://scienceblogs.com/mikethemadbiologist/

So please update your links. And in case you missed it, the link is here.

Why am I moving? Several reasons:

Blogger sucks. 'Nuff said.
I write so people read me. I'm hoping my traffic will increase.
Blogger sucks.
I like having a bunch of other science bloggers read my stuff. One of the odd functions I seem to fill is that I read a lot of political blogs, and I seem to be a (small) link between science bloggers and political bloggers. I think being at ScienceBlogs will further this.
Blogger sucks.

Nonetheless, I'm a little nervous. I hope people still read me, even if I'm at a 'science' place. I also hope I don't get swallowed up by all of the good bloggers over there. And I have to figure out how that Movable Type thingee works.

It's odd--I feel a little sad about leaving the old digs....

Note to Blond Banshee: I'm Not a Christian

2006-06-08T19:29:00.000-07:00

First, the Shriek of Hate by Ann Coulter (aka the Blond Banshee):

In Ann Coulter's world -- as described in her new book Godless: The Church of Liberalism (Crown Forum) -- Jews are Christians, but apparently Episcopalians are not.
A footnote on Page 3 of the book reads: "Throughout this book, I often refer to Christians and Christianity because I am a Christian and I have a fairly good idea of what they believe, but the term is intended to include anyone who subscribes to the Bible of the God of Abraham, including Jews and others." [emphasis added]

Yes, you read that correctly. As far as Coulter is concerned, Jews are Christians. Mazel tov!

As for Episcopalians, they might be disheartened to learn that they will not be welcoming their newly Christian Jewish friends into the brotherhood of Christ, because they don't quite measure up as a church. Coulter writes on Page 5, "Howard Dean left the Episcopal Church -- which is barely even a church -- because his church, in Montpelier, Vermont, would not cede land for a bike path." [emphasis added]

The millions of Episcopalians in America -- among whose numbers have been many presidents, including George Washington, James Madison, Franklin Roosevelt, and George H.W. Bush -- might be interested to know Coulter's view of their faith.

A story for you. Many years ago (think early Eisenhower Administration), in the loving, bucolic heartland (Omaha to be precise), my mother, after informing someone that she was not Christian, but, in fact, Jewish, was told, "We're all Christians. You're just a Jewish Christian." This was the same Omaha where one high school (Omaha Central) did not have a prom. Why no prom? Because at one dance, a black boy danced one song with a white girl. Obviously, it was necessary to cancel school dances after that. Definitely an era worth conserving (kidding).

Does Coulter even comprehend the words coming out of her mouth? In a different context (the 'blastular holocaust'), I wrote:

The other major point is that Christian conservatives gloss over the history behind the Holocaust. I rarely claim to speak for others, but I'm going to go out on a limb and do so. In my opinion, many Jews think that 1500 years of religiously based anti-Semitism based in Christian doctrine was a significant factor that led to the Holocaust. This not to say that other factors weren't important: obviously, they were. But the Holocaust was not solely due to generic Acme 'man's inhumanity to man' spontaneously arising in 1933. There was a long history of brutal oppression based on Christian doctrine predating the Holocaust.

This creates a lot of problems for conservative Christians when they speak to Jews: we see their religious fanaticism, and at some basic level, many of us recoil. Not only did most Jewish families in the country lose members in the Holocaust, but their parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents often fled brutal mistreatment (not to mention rape and murder) that was spawned by religious bigotry and fanaticism. There's a reason Jews reacted so vehemently against the movie The Passion of the Christ: many pogroms happened around Easter as 'revenge' for the death of Jesus. There is a basic problem here for Christian conservatives, which is, that in the Jewish mind (and I think any honest history of the Holocaust), Christianity is not 'guilt-free.' To date, American Christian conservatives have not addressed the role Christianity played in creating the necessary preconditions for mass murder (on the other hand, Catholicism has addressed this issue rather well).

While most Jews would be polite and not bring this up, doesn't she realize that it is insulting to be called Christian, and that phrase does not fill us with warmth and fuzzy feelings? Leaving aside stark dogmatic and ideological differences, there's a lot of bad history there.

The more things change, the more they stay the same...

Zarqawi Dead

2006-06-08T05:22:00.000-07:00

According to CNN, Zarqawi, the leader of al-Queda in Iraq, was killed by an airstrike. I hope this lessens the violence. Now we'll find out just how important al-Queda was, or if most of the violence was perpetrated by indigenous people.

News Reporting and a Technically Complex Society

2006-06-07T05:21:00.000-07:00

From the "I meant to post this but never got around to it file":

In an excellent post on news reporting, Thoughts from Kansas writes (italics mine):

The same thing is a major part of the ongoing creationism battles. A good reporter with a background in science would not feel obliged to go to a scientist and get a quote to balance a story about creationists. Nor would such a reporter feel obliged to troll the waters for some bottom-feeding creationist to "balance" some claim about actual science.

But that's what many reporters do. And if they fail to do so, some hard-working editor will send them off to call the ID Network or the Discovery Institute. Science reporters and science editors don't do that, but political reporters, or overworked local news reporters who have to cover a couple of events every day, don't have time to be keeping track of the latest state of science. We're lucky if they have more than a high school biology class from 30 years ago. The same goes for political reporters covering economic issues with a good high school algebra class, and a vague memory of trig...

The problem is that spinmongers and PR flacks have found the cheat codes for modern journalism. Whine and send press releases if your side of every inane issue isn't given equal weight with the other side, no matter whether it deserves equal footing. Treat professionals as no more consequential than non-experts with an axe to grind. Leave it to the public to sort out the difference. Teach the controversy.

In my current job, I have to speak with reporters or advise those who do speak with reporters about complex public health and microbiological issues. In my experience, the science reporters do their homework, but too often, the 'general' reporters don't really know anything. So what the generalists do is fall back on what they do know, which is often not germane to the science at hand. That's fine–the social and political effects of science should be examined–but at the same time, the public often needs to be educated about the content of the science (e.g., don't drink out of your fish tank and worry about antibiotic use in farming. Note: I thought this story was well done and an example of good reporting). This is all the more important when elected officials, in the guise of improving a policy, gut it. To prevent that from happening, citizens need to understand the details, since that's where the devil lies.

I'm not sure how to fix this. Perhaps there's a role for the blogosphere in all of this, in that what is needed isn't stenography, but analysis and synthesis. But I think this problem will only get worse as so many issues become more and more technically complex.

An aside: often, a political 'debate' will purposely be made more complex than it needs to be by one of the sides because the confusion, and resulting belief that there is no solution to a problem, is politically advantageous.

Rubber Dildo Republicans

2006-06-06T15:12:00.000-07:00

You might have heard of the moniker "rubber stamp Republicans", which refers to the congressional Republicans going along with every disastrous Bush policy. Now, the Republicans have proposed the ~~God Hates Gays~~ Marriage Protection Amendment. In its support, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) devolved into a discussion of masturbation and sodomy.

In honor of Sen. Santorum, I have come up with a new nickname for the Congressional Republicans: Rubber Dildo Republicans. (Seriously, do these guys ever think about anything other than anal penetration?)

Rubber Dildo Republicans: super creepy freaky. And not good for America.

'Evolution' of Dance

2006-06-06T05:00:00.000-07:00

Anybody who thinks that evolution means that things improve over time, only has to watch this video...

Sen. Hutchinson's Rep. Admits She Isn't a Biblical Literalist

2006-06-05T15:23:00.000-07:00

From AmericaBlog:

Tsk, tsk, tsk. I just got the following email from an AMERICAblog reader who just called Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison's office - she's a Republican Senator from Texas who is divorced.
John, I live in Dallas and just got off the phone with Kay Bailey Hutchison's staff. The person who took my question said that even though the Bible might say that a woman who is divorced and then remarries is an adulterer, no Christian really believes that. So, the Bible is really just a quaint notion, sorta like the Geneva Conventions. I will swear under oath that KBH rep said that. When I asked about why this marriage amendment is even being considered amidst the other enormous crises we're dealing with, she said she agreed with me. So, KBH is divorced but doesn't believe what the Bible says about it.

If you live in Texas, please, I beg you, contact the good senator and ask her if she also thinks that the Bible shouldn't be taken literally when it comes to evolution and creationism.

Wedge issues are a bitch when they blow up in your face...

Cognitive Dissonance and the Liberal Hawks

2006-06-05T02:56:00.000-07:00

The Mad Biologist appreciates people who get very, very Mad. Hunter, at DailyKos, writes in a brilliant and blistering column (bold original; italics mine):

More and more, I'm seeing pro-war figures look for a healing, of sorts, between those who supported the Iraq War and those who decried it. But this healing seems to take exactly one form -- the pro-war pundits perhaps begrudgingly admitting their errors, but simultaneously continuing to dismiss opponents of the Iraq War as being against it for supposedly shallow or insincere or offensive reasons.
No. No dice. Honestly, this is not an argument that deserves respect, and I'm more than a little peeved at Kevin Drum for even engaging it politely, for the umpteenth dozen time -- and at no point do I expect, given Beirnart's reply, Beirnart to be the one to first acknowledge credible internationalist progressive critiques of counterterrorism policies. There's a point in which debate is reasonable, and then there's a point where it's pretty damn clear that one "side" of the debate has no interest other than repeating the same tainted excuses and accusations and rationalizations over, and over, and over, in an attempt to find that media sweet spot where the conventional wisdom will set up and take hold for future decades.

It's pretty simple: Beinart and the rest of the liberal hawks can not accept that they were the "useful idiots" of the Bush Administration. They can't accept that they were horribly, murderously wrong, and that other 'normal' people were right. By stereotyping the 'anti-war' camp (as if any civilized person is 'pro-war') as a bunch of "Free Mumia", purple-haired, professional protesting freaks, they can convince themselves that 'normal' people had no way of knowing that Bush's policies would a pandimensional clusterfuck.

Too bad. Many of us 'normal' internationalists realized before the war even started how badly this would go. So Beinart and the other liberal hawks fall back on the 'isolationist' canard (an aside: I work for an international public health organization. Just how 'isolationist' could someone like me really be?). Hunter expresses this quite well:

I honestly have no patience -- none whatsoever -- for this premise that opposition to the Iraq War is predicated on a new liberal isolationism. Horseshit. Progressives aren't the ones cowering in terror of some terrifying "New World Order" government to be based out of the U.N. and ostensibly poised to strip United States autonomy on the world stage. They're also not the ones mortified that NATO actions to stop violence and ethnic cleansing in Bosnia were in fact simply window dressing to distract the country from the reality show Big Media autopsies of Clinton's personal life. They're not the ones currently hyperventilating that people who speak a different language have suddenly been discovered to be immigrating to this country in, gasp, a wave of ethnic immigration not seen since, well, every other similar migration in American history. They're not the ones providing opposition to Darfur rescue efforts. And yes, the progressive opposition to "free trade" policies that paper over severe economic discrepancies and damages is hardly a kneejerk isolationist policy either.

Hunter concludes very pessimistically because he thinks no one will read what he has to say. I think a lot of people are already there. Now if only the Democrats would summon the courage to say it.

The Link Between Campaign Contributions and Poor Communication

2006-06-04T21:13:00.000-07:00

In a very good post, Tristero essentially asks why can't Democrats speak like other humans? While there's been a lot of good discussion at that post, I think the answer has to do with the way campaigns are funded. Typically, when we think of the skills that a politician needs, the ability to speak clearly would appear to be an important, perhaps the most important skill.

Wrong.

The most important skill for the modern politician is to be able to raise $2,000 dollar donations from wealthy people. While this might not damage one's ability to speak clearly to a much broader audience, there's little or no obvious correlation between the two skills. For Democrats, this weeds out many skilled communicators: my experience has been that most people left of center really don't like asking others for money, particularly if there is even the remote expectation of a quid pro quo in return. Consequently, the Democrats lose many otherwise qualified candidates because of their unwillingness or inability to cold-call for cash.

This doesn't hurt the Republicans nearly as much because the quid pro quo is part and parcel of the modern conservative's 'ethics' (see the entire Bush Administration). Consequently, they lose far fewer of their best communicators.

The need to raise huge sums of money enables someone who is linguistically challenged like Feinstein to be elected and re-elected. She has the one linguistic skill that matters: the ability to talk people into giving her their money.

By contrast, Democrats tend to forget about the Republicans' highly effective direct mail operations. These operations have forced the Republicans to figure out how to speak to a much broader audience. Perhaps the greatest political potential of the internet will be its ability to force Democratic politicians to speak to a much wider audience to raise money. This could force them to communicate more with rank and file Democrats (or at least those Democrats who are not rich enough to drop thousands of dollars on politicians).

This is one more reason why publicly funded campaigns would be a good idea.

More Confusion About Ohio Voting

2006-06-04T07:08:00.000-07:00

I'm inclined to agree with Steve Gilliard that Ohio was full of old-timey voter suppression and fraud (which is substantiated by eyewitness testimony) and that pinning everything on the discrepancy between the exit polls and the votes counts is foolish. Unfortunately, I don't buy Gilliard's refutation either. He could be right, but I would like to think professional statisticians would have already accounted for those issues (e.g., what has happened previously).

In reading RFK Jr.'s article and the rebuttals, several points are unclear to me, and seem vital to clear up:

How well correlated are exit polls versus vote counts in the absence of perceived fraud or voting problems? Both sides disagree on the 'facts': one says the correlation is extremely precise, the other not.
Did the exit polling overestimate either Democratic voters or Republican voters? Both sides disagree. This seems vital to understand the issue: if Democrats were overcounted, then there's no good evidence for fraud (in terms of the discrepancy–again, old-time vote suppression is something different). If Republicans were overcounted, then RFK Jr.'s piece has a lot of merit (and is why originally, I thought the article was legit).
How exactly are the odds of the discrepancy between the exit polls and the vote count determined? The differences in OH, PA, and FL are large ("1 in 666,000"), but even differences of 1-2% would give a very impressive sounding fraction. Because he's calculating this multiplicatively, you will get a very small number (i.e., the probability of OH being fubar by chance X the probability of PA being fubar by chance, etc.). I'm not sure that's the right way to do this, given that this means the probability each state is fubar by chance is 'only' 0.01. If you correct for multiple tests (i.e., if you do enough comparisons, one or two will appear to be significantly different by chance alone), these values aren't significant.

What is really needed is a group like this to look at the data. I think any time a terrorist emergency is called in a critical Democratic stronghold, and observers are barred, something illegal happened. I don't think the exit polling data will get you there, though.

RFK Jr. Is Persona Non Grata on This Blog

2006-06-03T14:50:00.000-07:00

That's the last time I ever listen to that jackass. I should have known after his involvement in the mercury/autism debate that he selectively parses data–just like creationists do. I even remember reading Farhad Manjoo's original debunking of many of RFK Jr.'s claims. I would have thought Rolling Stone would have vetted the piece, and checked some of the arguments; apparently, they didn't.

Did Ken Blackwell do some awful crap in the 2004 election? Absolutely. But RFK Jr. didn't prove it.

Jimmy Breslin Was Right

2006-06-03T05:27:00.000-07:00

Between commerating Memorial Day and watching NYC mayor Bloomberg get punked by his Republican friends at DHS, this Jimmy Breslin column from a couple of years ago seems appropriate:

"Mayor Fails to Ask Why"

The soldier's girlfriend, who was weeping quietly in the cold rain, had more sense than all her purported betters in this city.

Informed that the mayor of New York had just made a huge and bold move on the White House and asked for citizenship for her dead soldier, who was a Dominican, she said at the wake, "What good is it now? He can't use it."

He sure can't. He was Private Luis Moreno. He was 19 years old. They were loading him in his box into a hearse for the ride to a cemetery forever.

She also had a question: "Why is he dead?"

She is Jessica Corporan and she is 18 and was going to marry him when he got back from Iraq. If you are going to have your heart broken, 18 is not the easiest age to evade pain, and she showed it on Friday.

Mayor Bloomberg was proud that he sent a hand-delivered note to President Bush requesting citizenship posthumously for Private Moreno.

The idea wilted in the noisy steam coming out of the radiators in St. Francis of Assisi church on Shakespeare Avenue in the Bronx.

Along with Bloomberg's request, here was a general of the army giving a bronze star posthumously to Moreno. The general couldn't speak Spanish.

Bloomberg's request was about a 19-year-old who was shot dead in a war in Iraq that was started and continues because of George Bush and no one else. The blood of 525 Americans is on his hands.

Moreno wasn't listed as a citizen of the country, and that is his country's fault. He died for America.

He is so much more than a citizen here. He died a proud member of the aristocracy of the City of New York.

And any letter to the White House from the mayor of this city should not dwell on some cheap technicality. Bloomberg's letter should demand to know why this young man is dead in a box in a cemetery of our city. Why is this young woman in such pain on a wet Bronx street in one of the worst moments in memory?

And why was Julio Moreno in Iraq to begin with?

Bloomberg is supposed to fight for this city and instead he acts like he is afraid of Bush and these other Republicans. Simultaneously, and worse, he acts like he wants to be one of them. He crowed over bringing the Republican convention to New York. It will put people in hotel rooms, he says. Beautiful! We count money while some young guy from the Bronx gets his head blown off.

What do Bush and his people do for Bloomberg? They tell him they are going to bring him into the parlor. Then they put him outside in a crowded room and have him raise money.

And he not only brings nothing for his city, but he is afraid to complain. George Bush has a program called "Leave No Child Behind" and it stands for all of the Republicans: The program is utterly fraudulent. And of all the mayors of cities in the country complaining about schools being slashed and ruined, only Michael Bloomberg remains silent. How marvelous! He is afraid of insulting his great new friends. And what do these people in Washington and Albany give him? They bring back the great News newspaper headline, "Ford to N.Y.: Drop Dead."

It helped make Jimmy Carter the president. This time, it is George Bush telling us to drop dead, and in this case young people actually die.

Bloomberg's idea of standing up for our city's deaths is to write a letter about naturalization.

On Friday, in the deep slush in front of church in the Bronx, in so much sadness in the rain, I could hear the past that got us here, of George Bush, just before we invaded Iraq, bringing up "Dad" when he mentioned Saddam Hussein. "He tried to kill Dad, you know." He made it a personal family matter, and the Bushes clearly think they are a royal family and if you threaten one of them, then the entire country must take up arms.

And on the eve of invading Iraq, Bush made a speech that was a copy of the one made by Adolph Hitler in the hours before his army invaded Poland in September of 1939.

In a State of the Union speech, Bush said that Saddam tried to get uranium from the country of Niger and blow us away with a nuclear bomb. Afterward, the Bush people said the speech was essentially right although it had some wrong. It did. This could be put in three letters: Lie.

After that, from Washington there was one long, whining lie about weapons of mass destruction. If this Saddam had them, he would have used them in the first 20 minutes of the fighting. He had none. A man called Blix from the United Nations inspected Iraqi arms, including trucks found one week apart and empty. Nothing. Colin Powell got up at the UN and, reading whatever it was that Bush and his people gave him, he said the trucks were there on one day to carry away biological weapons before the inspectors arrived and that is why we have to bomb Baghdad.

The news reporters of the nation, the Pekingese of the Press, never questioned a single, solitary sentence of his presentation. All agreed it was a great moment for America. In doing so they stained themselves forever as cowards.

Private Luis Moreno of the Bronx died at 19 from lying that nearly everybody is afraid to refute. Bloomberg the Mayor doesn't want to open his mouth about it. Therefore the only way to take care of him is with the one picture every cameraman in the city wants:

Bloomberg at the Republican convention standing ecstatically with John Ashcroft, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Armey.

Can you even remember when 'only' 525 U.S. troops had died?

When the Milquetoast Wing of the Democratic Party...

2006-06-02T15:16:00.000-07:00

...finds the courage to call you inveterate liars, you know you're in trouble. Kevin Drum (italics mine; bold original):

The obvious conclusion is that they didn't think Iraq was the central front on the war on terror back in 2002. They don't think nuclear terrorism is really that big a deal. They aren't worried about long term finances. And they don't really care very much about democracy promotion. They just say these things because they're convenient.
It's this simple: these guys say a lot of stuff they don't believe. Their words are largely meaningless. There's no paradox, and there's really not much point in trying to make it more complicated.

The Mad Biologist was a wee bit ahead of the curve on this one...

Thoughts on a Stolen Election

2006-06-02T04:36:00.000-07:00

After reading The Rolling Stone article by RFK Jr. about the illegal disenfranchisement in Ohio during the 2004 election, I had much the same reaction PZ did:

The statistics are rock solid. Sure, it's possible that this is all due to random chance. It's also possible that all the oxygen molecules in the room will wind up in one corner of the room (and no, I'm not carrying around my own air supply). Something illegal happened.
Why did it have to be RFK Jr. who wrote this article? (Here's a slogan for you: "After what he did for autism, imagine what he can do for illegal disenfranchisement and vote fraud.")
I have no idea how to fix this.

It's the last point that scares the hell out of me. I think RFK Jr. is engaged in the stereotypical liberal fallacy: if we inform people of wrongdoing, the media will report it, and the people will stop it. I'm not sure that will happen in this instance. First, too many people, including those in the celebrity media, don't want to admit to themselves that this could happen. It's very hard to convince someone to reject something–the belief in free and fair elections–in which they have a strong psychological investment. Second, the only thing the Republican'ts are good at is grasping the levers of political power. Nothing shames them into doing the right thing, or as those Andre Aggassi commercials used to say, "Winning is everything" (until, of course, he stopped winning...).

If electoral fraud happens again, our government will face a serious crisis of legitimacy. I remember during the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations how angry I was that both these men won elections by inflaming the 'culture wars' and race-baiting ("states rights" in Philadelphia, Mississippi, welfare queens, and Willie Horton). Nonetheless, I could accept that a majority of my fellow citizens were complete fucking idiots because I could do something about that (such as convince them to think differently).

But a stolen election is different. It is simply a kinder, gentler version of tyranny. Short of political violence (more about that in a bit), there isn't much I personally can do. My fear is that, if this happens, some chucklehead (who probably isn't even politically active or a Democrat) will lob a Molotov cocktail through the window of an RNC office somewhere. A chucklehead from the right will retaliate, and then, and then, and then...

This could get out of control, particularly with the eliminationist Dominionist rhetoric on the right. It could make the Civil War-Reconstruction Era bushwackers and jayhawkers look tame by comparison. What frightens me the most is that I don't think most people realize how easy it is for the zero-sum rules to be adopted. History is replete with example (e.g., Northern Ireland in the late 1960s and early 1970s) of what was essentially a conflict over civil rights and liberties degenerating into a brutal sectarian, civil war, often due to initial malfeasance by those who held power.

Someone who is very clever needs to figure out how fix this. Getting rid of electronic voting machines would be a good start, but it wouldn't stop premeditated declarations of 'terrorist emergencies' that would make a fair, monitored vote count impossible. We need to fix this now because there are a lot of angry people out there. I'm afraid we're a lot closer to the brink than many realize.

I Think We Found Our Own Flag-Burning

2006-06-01T15:25:00.000-07:00

I've always wondered why Democrats haven't been able to find some utterly trivial issue (e.g., the War on Christmas) and hype it like all get out*. Seriously, there had to be something stupid that the Democrats could use. I'm not saying they've always been accurate ('the Social Security lockbox'), but even that was about something important--Social Security.

But I think I've found the issue: that stupid Dominionist shoot-'em up video game. The one where you get to ~~murder~~ shoot all of the unbelievers. I was reading Orcinus' take on the video game, and this bit struck me:

My friend Mrs. Robinson, a Silicon Valley refugee who comments frequently here, sent me a note along with the link to this piece:
I spent eleven years in the games business. I left in large part because I realized that most of what was being turned out by the mid-'90s were games designed to desensitize kids to killing, either covertly or very overtly. I felt like I was helping the right-wing train its next generation of soldiers. It wasn't a good feeling. I needed to do something else.

When something like Abu Ghraib or Haditha happens, I feel the weight of that all over again. This game...well, I guess it speaks for itself.

Here it is: your at-home training camp for the next generation of eliminationists.
It will be revealing, I think, to see how many good "Christians" snap up copies of this game -- and how many actually endorse it or defend it.

Is this video game stupid and trivial compared to the carnage in Iraq, the spiraling deficits, 44 million people without healthcare, or the slow-motion destruction of our scientific infrastructure? Absolutely. But plenty of politicians have prospered with stupid.

Democrats should immediately start asking if Republican'ts support this video game, if Republican'ts believe that those who are not Dominionist Christians should be gunned down in cold blood, and if Republican'ts think Catholics aren't good Christians (just watching Bill Donohue's head explode from that alone would be worth asking the question).

What this does is establish the idea that Republican'ts are beholden to eliminationist religious fanatics (and while we're discussing word usage, the Democrats must begin to use the word 'eliminationist' every chance they get). This is how we win–or at least rollback–the culture wars.

*I've always wanted to blog the phrase "like all get out." I'm better now.

Because Sen. Frist Really Cares About Patients

2006-06-01T05:00:00.000-07:00

Republican Senator Bill Frist, whose medical training apparently includes the ability to make long distance neurological diagnoses of brain-dead patients, is one of the major owners of the HCA hospital chain (along with other members of his family). By way of DailyKos, we find out what the Frist-owned HCA is up to:

"HCA tries to shut us up when we talk about the dangerous situations on the hospital floor. This month, they have demonstrated that they will do anything to stop this information from getting out," said Russel Main, a Respiratory Therapist at Riverside Medial Center. "I work with people who are having difficulty breathing. I can't help them because we are so short staffed, so I have to choose which patient is getting the least amount of air. I have to tell patients who can't breathe that I will get to them as soon as I can. This is information that the public needs to know."

Maybe if these patients had feeding tubes inserted into their stomachs, Frist would give a damn. But really, he is very concerned with the whole sanctity of life thing...

At this point, nothing Republican political operatives do surprises me.

GrandMaternal Effects in Humans?

2006-05-31T16:40:00.000-07:00

Biologists have known about maternal effects for a long time: the status of the mother can influence the future development of her embyro. To use a plant example, plants will disproportionately provision seeds with different amounts of stored nutrients. This can affect how seedlings grow–and, consequently, affect the future growth of the adult plant.

Researchers in Sweden have found that in a remote Swedish town, Overkalix, that there is a link between grandparents' food supply and grandchildrens' mortality. What's interesting is that there are effects in both sexes, which appear to be mediated by the X and Y chromosomes (it's not clear to me how males would influence offspring development). Even more curious is the observation that the food shortages must occur at precise points in life to influence the grandkids.

I'll be interested to see what the mechanisms for this are. Any thoughts? (Lil' Baby Jebus is not an answer...)

Update: maybe some kind of bizarro, long-term (really long-term) DNA methylation is happening? Or maybe some kind of RNAi type of thing? Hell if I know...

Haditha: Reaping What You Hath Sown?

2006-05-31T05:00:00.000-07:00

It now appears that the alleged November massacre of Iraqi civilians last November in Haditha was not an isolated incident. The Iraqi ambassador to the U.S. has accused U.S. Marines of killing his unarmed, non-combatant cousin. (Troll-Be-Gone: I think the Iraqi ambassador is a credible source. Anyone who has a high profile position like his has placed a bullseye on himself and his family. ~~It's not like he's some chickenhawk jerking off to Ann Coulter posters in his little conservative bunker.~~)

In the last poll I saw of the U.S. military, close to 90% of the troops thought Saddam Hussein was involved in the Sept. 11th attacks. I can't help but think that at least some of our troops have internalized that falsehood to the point where they view Iraqis as subhuman. One Iraqi veteran, Spc. Jody Casey claims:

his unit was advised to carry shovels in their vehicles which they could plant on civilian victims to make it look as if they were concealing roadside bombs.

"I have seen innocent people being killed. IEDs [improvised explosive devices] go off and [you] just zap any farmer that is close to you," he said. "You're driving down the road at three in the morning. There's a guy on the side of the road, you shoot him ... you throw a shovel off."

Since it now appears there may have been two or more incidents of murder, I don't think this can be blamed on 'combat fatigue' or stress. Something more systemic could be at work here.

Too bad the Bush Administration never realized that bigotry and hate are tigers that ultimately you can not ride.

Impeach Bush. Then Cheney.

Another Murder in Haditha?

2006-05-30T19:23:00.000-07:00

The Iraqi ambassador to the U.S. just accused the Marines of murdering his cousin in Haditha months before the November incident:

BLITZER: But even months before the incident in November, you lost a cousin at Haditha in a separate battle involving United States Marines.

SUMAIDAIE: Well, that was not a battle at all. Marines were doing house-to-house searches, and they went into the house of my cousin. He opened the door for them.

His mother, his siblings were there. He led them into the bedroom of his father. And there he was shot.

BLITZER: Who shot him?

SUMAIDAIE: A member of the Marines.

BLITZER: Why did they shoot him?

SUMAIDAIE: Well, they said that they shot him in self-defense. I find that hard to believe because, A, he is not at all a violent -- I mean, I know the boy. He was [in] a second-year engineering course in the university. Nothing to do with violence. All his life has been studies and intellectual work.

Totally unbelievable. And, in fact, they had no weapon in the house. They had one weapon which belonged to the school where his father was a headmaster. And it had no ammunition in it. And he led them into the room to show it to them.

BLITZER: So what you're suggesting, your cousin was killed in cold blood, is that what you're saying, by United States Marines?

SUMAIDAIE: I believe he was killed intentionally. I believe that he was killed unnecessarily. And unfortunately, the investigations that took place after that sort of took a different course and concluded that there was no unlawful killing.

I would like further investigation. I have, in fact, asked for the report of the last investigation, which was a criminal investigation, by the way.

[Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq] is aware of all the details, because he's kept on top of it. And it was he who rejected the conclusions of the first investigation. I have since asked formally for the report, but it's been nearly two months, and I have not received it.

Just how many more of these 'incidents' are waiting to be uncovered?

Get out. Get out now.

driftglass Does It Again

2006-05-30T17:05:00.000-07:00

We have to get driftglass a major newspaper column (seriously, if Peggy "I speak with dead people" Noonan can have a syndicated column, why can't someone who is sane have one too?). On the surveillance state:

This is nothing more or less than that government doing electronically what it never even dared to think about doing with stamps and envelopes and stationery: slitting open and rifling through the mail of every single American.

Period.

This alone should be sending every Constitutionalist screaming into the streets, but this plus warrentless wiretapping plus national identity cards, plus tracking every phone call made by every American, plus all the rest are nothing less than the glittering of freshly fashioned Fascist chains the GOP has carefully forged for us all.

If you’re down with that, by all means step up and loudly support Abu G and the rest of these criminals, but please quit pretending that you love this country.

Because you despise this country.

You want a nice, tidy, high-tech police state that keeps good, White Christians warm and snuggly and fuck everyone and everything else. And however despicable the means are to those ends – invading countries based on lies, debasing the Constitution, torture, murder – you are completely cool with them.

But part of the wink-and-a-nod deal you cut is that you absolutely do not want to know what horrors are being committed in your name. You are the Spineless Christian Master Race who categorically refuse to take any responsibility for the disasters your vote has unleashed. Who wants to heap the Declaration of Independence onto the pyre and then make the “anger” of those who are trying to stop you the only issue under discussion.

Read the whole thing.

Six Flags Over Jesus

2006-05-29T18:54:00.000-07:00

That's the title of a fascinating post at DailyKos by someone who attended a Southern mega-church. The author writes (italics mine):

At various times during the message, the minister cloaked himself in anti-intellectualism by disparaging scientist or claiming ignorance that wasn't his. It seemed that the embracement of complex intellectual concepts were associated with abandonment of God. College was described as a frightening place where agents of evil teach that Jesus was married or merely mortal. When explaining the odds of Christ fulfilling a certain number of prophecies he explained that it was one in 10 to the power of 157, then giggled and said he really didn't know what that meant. Of course he actually did understand the concept or he wouldn't have included it in the study guide we were provided.
Towards the end of the service the sermon veered towards the scriptural support of Christ's divinity. Surprisingly, the minister said he wanted to move through this section quickly and his rate of presentation increased noticeably. There was no effort to involve critical thinking processes or discuss involved constructs and the very foundation of their faith were glossed over in an apparent aside. The main gist of the message had been to play on the congregations emotions while spoon feeding them overly simplistic sound bites. I was disappointed with the shallowness of their spirituality as well as the self-centered focus. At no time was there any impetus towards service or benefiting others but instead the primary theme was one of fear and the anger it fuels.

The author also found this image at the church, titled "Prayer for Peace":

Think they vote Democratic? Amy Sullivan can click her heels together all she wants, but they're not voting progressively anytime soon...

It Must Be All That Rap Music

2006-05-29T10:26:00.000-07:00

From Yahoo News:

Doctors said sexually transmitted diseases among senior citizens are running rampant at a popular Central Florida retirement community, according to a Local 6 News report.

A gynecologist at The Villages community near Orlando, Fla., said she treats more cases of herpes and the human papilloma virus in the retirement community than she did in the city of Miami.

"Yeah, they are very shocked (to hear the diagnosis)," gynecologist Dr. Colleen McQuade said. "I had a patient in her 80s."

"More and more senior citizens are ending up in the gynecologist office, and their diagnosis is a sexually transmitted disease," Local 6 reporter Vanessa Medina said.

Local 6 featured Louis Franklin, who used to date in the community at least three times a week.

"I have had a better dating life since I have been here than I have ever had," Franklin said. "I know there are things going around."

A doctor blamed Viagra, a lack of sex education and no risk for pregnancy for the spike in sexually transmitted diseases at The Villages.

"All I can repeat are the things I have heard which are things like, 'Should I bring the little blue pills over tonight?'" community singles group president Richard Matwyshen said.

I'm just going to leave this one alone...

Microbiology Monday

2006-05-29T10:01:00.000-07:00

This isn't a new feature or anything–it happens to be a Monday, and you're getting a round up of some interesting microbiology articles:

There's genetic exchange between Salmonella, a food-borne pathogen, and Klebsiella, an envrionmental bacterium, inside a protozoan that tried to eat them. [Microbe; NCBI]
A new form of the antibiotic vancomycin has been invented. This is important because vancomycin resistance is popping up in several organisms, including Enterococcus, leading to increased mortality. The only downside is that you need to do a lot of chemistry to make it (this could be expensive).
The genetics of resistance to the antibiotics penicillin and tetracycline in Neisseria gonorrhoeae, the organism that causes the STD gonorrhea, have been worked out. Since there's a link between resistance to these older antibiotics and the current frontline antibiotics, this is important. Also, in many developing countries, the older antibiotics are often the only affordable option.
Some polio vaccination experts have reached the conclusion that it will be impossible to eradicate polio, and that the goal should be control, not eradication. Why? Some countries are so politically unstable that vaccination is not possible. Also, in impoverished countries, diarrheal diseases are so common that some children don't retain the vaccine long enough to mount an immune response.
One researcher argues that DNA came from viruses. (also look here)
The differentiation of Volvox into soma and germ lines (i.e., cells specialized for function or reproduction) might have to do with its ability to swim around.

The Peter Pan Right and Will

2006-05-28T03:48:00.000-07:00

(image from Pandagon)

Amanda has an excellent post about the Right and its obsession with 'will.' If only the U.S. had the will to prevail in Iraq, it would do so. Of course, things like adequate supplies, good tactical and strategic positions, and an intelligent strategy have nothing to do with success. There's an old military adage: amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics. By this standard, those who 'study' will are complete fucking idiots.

As with every other issue, conservatives reduce the entire problem–drugs, terrorism, Iraq, and don't forget Vietnam–solely to an issue of intent, and ignore realities, outcomes, and consequences. Will is everything.

The irony of the conservative obsession with will is that this obsession ultimately leads to a position of ammoral relativism, the supposed shibboleth of cultural conservatives. If you are not winning, you simply must become even more ruthless, more cruel, more inhuman. After all, failure stems from a failure of will, not poor strategy, design, or planning. There is always another law to vitiate, person to imprison and torture, or town to pacify.

Despite the glorification of pseudo-religion by conservatives, the obsession with will reveals a narcissism at the core of modern conservatism. Will is easy. No outcomes to assess, strategies to plan. You do not actually have to know or understand anything. Just click your heels, throw some pixie dust in the air, think happy thoughts, and all will be right.

Weren't these guys supposed to be the grownups?

Update: this idiocy never seems to die.

Good Smackdown of a 'Christian' Conservative

2006-05-28T03:46:00.000-07:00

One of the best commentors at MyDD.com is Paul Rosenberg. He writes a devastating response to a conservative who whines:

I must say that I grow tired of being portrayed as a heartless, uncaring, so-and-so just because I don't believe in the majority of government hand-outs (or at least to the extent they are taken).
I won't attempt to argue the meaning of this parable from Matthew (other than to say I would not interpret it as literally as you are doing; but if you want to be literal, look at vs. 33 and see which side the goats and sheep are on :-) because yes, the Bible obviously does say that we need to take care of the poor and less fortunate. However, it does not say that it is the government's responsibility to do so. The thing is, us "hard-core conservatives" (at least the evangelical christians among us) believe it is the church's duty to do this. This is why I give money to my church and to other private charities.

Donating to private organizations allows me to target my giving to the causes I most believe in. Plus these groups are infinitely more efficient than some big government bureaucracy. And if they do go astray and mis-spend their donations, it is much easier to hold their feet to the fire.

So, it's just a different way of thinking and acting. And stating that "hard-core conservatives" don't care about others because we don't believe in hand-outs is completely inaccurate, as you are only dealing with a single side of the issue.

Rosenberg's response (bold original, italics mine):

Two points:
(1) There is no Christian love shown in the rhetoric of those who demonize "welfare queens." However you rationalize your policies positions, if you gain political power in this manner, you clearly do not see Jesus in the least of these. End of story.

(1a) The same applies to "tough-on-crime" rhetoric. And anti-immigrant rhetoric, as well. No matter what you claim on policy grounds, the rhetoric used for political advantage reveals your side to be firmly headed for the fire. No ifs, ands or buts.

(2) We've already tried your way, and it failed miserably. People only turned to the welfare state--rather reluctantly, I might add--after repeated failure to solve social problems by voluntary means alone. Social historians like Michael Katz have thoroughly documented how prolonged this failure was. This is not to say that I'm opposed to chruch-based charity. It's just that nation-based justice does a much better job. We have decades of experience in dozens of counties across the world to back this up.

The fact that you don't know this--or even, perhaps, willfully deny it--is an indication that you don't really care about people being helped. You don't really see the treatment they receive as the way that you treat Jesus. If you did care that way, then you'd be very motivated to find out what works, what really, effectively cares for them.

But you don't. Your interest is in feeling righteous. It's narcissism, pure and simple. It has nothing to do with the people you profess to care about.

I don't blame you for this, necessarily. Most folks who think this way have been lead astray. There are many lead astray for every one who leads them. But here you are also doing some leading astray of your own. So that makes me rather dubious about you. If you really consider yourself a Christian, then you are in a heap of trouble here, just like I already said.

That's gotta hurt.

Forced Childbirth Versus Pregnancy Shouldn't Be Punishment

2006-02-06T17:16:00.000-08:00

Over at Pandagon, Amanda argues that the anti-abortion stance should be reframed as "forced childbirth." Let me say that I agree: the anti-abortion position is forced childbirth. However, I don't think the issue should be framed that way–I suggested the slogan "Pregnancy shouldn't be punishment":

The reason I bring this phrase up is that the standard Saletan-esque “safe, legal, and rare” line implies that the woman did something wrong (funny how the man is never castigated to the same extent). Given the high number of preganancies that end in abortion (and my guess is that there have always been many abortions, even centuries ago–abortion is discussed in the Babylonian Talmud), I think this would resonate with many women and men: there are just too many abortions for the Saletan school to chalk it up to ’sluttiness.’
And, besides, pregnancy shouldn’t be used as punishment: the consequences and responsibilities of a pregnancy carried to term are just too high. That argument will quietly resonate with many people in light of the number of abortions.

While several posters disagreed with me, I think this is the way to frame the debate. Before I explain, let me be clear: we–and I do mean we–are not trying to reach either the blastula liberationists, or, for that matter, the staunch pro-choicers. The former will not change their minds, and the latter are already with us.

Onto the explanation. A couple of weeks ago, Joshua Holland at Gadflyer described three instances where the woman he was involved with had an abortion:

The woman had been told she couldn't get pregnant.
The birth control didn't work.
"One pregnancy was entirely our fault - it was one of those hot and sweaty mistakes young people sometimes make when stupefied by lust and caught up in a moonlit moment."

Many people would accept abortion for the first two reasons without much difficulty. But many people are bothered by the third reason. The prejudical response is "stupid rich slutty college girl"–that's where the whole "abortion on demand" canard stems from. Do I think the 'stupid/slutty' exception is idiotic?

Yes. And it does not matter one damn bit what I think, because I'm not the one who needs convincing.

Unfortunately, many people who by bad luck and/or bad judgement got a raw deal in life let their frustration smolder, rather than using it to strengthen their sympathy for others. To such people–and one only has to look at the success of the Republican fear- and hate-based politics to realize that there are a lot of them out there–the "forced childbirth" frame just won't work. It will sound like someone bemoaning her stupidity: "Hell, it's her own damn fault" (for the record, I find this a reprehensible view). Like it or not, in the abstract, too many will simply blame the woman for an irresponsible decision (again, personally, I don't agree with that sentiment).

I think the "pregnancy shouldn't be punishment" frame works better, especially when it is coupled with the idea that the responsibility of raising a child is too important. After all, you wouldn't want the kid to wind up in foster care, would you? (The heart of the angry voter is a very dark, bitter place).

In the short term, I don't think the "forced childbirth" frame works, except in one narrow area: health. Forced childbirth can be very dangerous or deadly for some women: the "life of the mother exception" is an utter canard. Do I think the long-term groundwork should be laid with the forced childbirth frame? Absolutely, and for all the reasons Katha Pollitt lays out. But for certain audiences–and the Republicans, in a dark, evil way are very good at tailoring messages for specific audiences–forced childbirth will be a non-starter, whereas "pregnancy shouldn't be punishment" just might reach those audiences.

Of course, the two ideas aren't mutually exclusive; what we're talking about is the best way to change the debate.

Willy Pete

2005-11-09T19:29:00.000-08:00

Hunter, at Daily Kos, has an excellent post on Willy Pete. Here's a good part:

And I know it is true, there is some confusion over whether the United States was a signatory to the Do Not Melt The Skin Off Of Children part of the Geneva conventions, and whether or not that means we are permitted to melt the skin off of children, or merely are silent on the whole issue of melting the skin off of children.
But all that aside, there are very good reasons, even in a time of war, not to melt the skin off of children.

First, because the insurgency will inevitably be hardened by tales of American forces melting the skin off of children.

Second, because the civilian population will harbor considerable resentment towards Americans for melting the skin off of their children.

Third, BECAUSE IT FUCKING MELTS THE SKIN OFF OF CHILDREN.

And, unless Saddam Hussein had a brigade or two consisting of six year olds, we can presume that children, like perhaps nine tenths or more of their immediate families, are civilians. These are, admittedly, nuanced points.

Warning: Biologists, particularly those involved in medical research, are pretty desensitized to some pretty gross things: it's perfectly natural for many of us to discuss urinary tract infections while eating lunch. Nonetheless, there's a picture there that is truly horrific. Consider yourself forewarned.