More Reasons to Get Vaccinated

There's a good article in the Daily Beast about vaccinations. It contains part of a public service announcement from 1986 written by children's book author Road Dahl:

Olivia, my eldest daughter, caught measles when she was seven years old [in 1962]. As the illness took its usual course, I can remember reading to her often in bed and not feeling particularly alarmed about it. Then one morning, when she was well on the road to recovery, I was sitting on her bed showing her how to fashion little animals out of coloured pipe-cleaners, and when it came to her turn to make one herself, I noticed that her fingers and her mind were not working together and she couldn’t do anything.

“Are you feeling all right?” I asked her.

“I feel all sleepy,” she said.

In an hour, she was unconscious. In twelve hours she was dead.

Another article unveils a mystery that had been baffling scientists for years:

Back in the 1960s, the U.S. started vaccinating kids for measles. As expected, children stopped getting measles.

But something else happened.

Childhood deaths from all infectious diseases plummeted. Even deaths from diseases like pneumonia and diarrhea were cut by half.

What caused this?

[Measles] erases immune protection to other diseases, [study coauthor Michael] Mina says.

So what does that mean? Well, say you get the chicken pox when you're 4 years old. Your immune system figures out how to fight it. So you don't get it again. But if you get measles when you're 5 years old, it could wipe out the memory of how to beat back the chicken pox. It's like the immune system has amnesia, Mina says.

"The immune system kind of comes back. The only problem is that it has forgotten what it once knew," he says.

So after an infection, a child's immune system has to almost start over, rebuilding its immune protection against diseases it has already seen before.

If the results of this study are verified, it will mean getting vaccinated for measles will protect you from a whole host of other diseases you already had.

Murca

A Puzzling Conundrum For Christian Conservatives

Most religious conservatives have a disdain for the federal government that, these days, blows up into outright pathological hatred. They really do seem to have a problem with authority, don't they? Of course, I've always noted that conservatives in general (and especially libertarians) are actually closet authoritarians and when they're in power, then absolute rule is just dandy.

This ties in to their belief in the higher power of God who, of course, is the ultimate authority on all things here, above, and beyond. What both amazes and puzzles me is their willingness to submit to such an authority given their problems of inadequacy and jealousy with authority here on Earth. Aren't they the least bit concerned that their ever lasting soul will be under the yoke of a supreme ruler? I mean...if they hate Obama so much for helping them out with a few earthly endeavors, imagine what they could potentially feel when God helps them out! Think of having to do so many things without question until the end of time!!

'Tis very puzzling indeed...

Religious Freedom Coming to Cuba?

Conservatives have offered nothing but withering criticism for President Obama's opening of relations with Cuba. However, the overtures to Cuba may already be paying off.

Raul Castro just concluded a visit to the Vatican, where he met with the pope. The meeting had an unexpected result:

"I will resume praying and turn to the Church again if the Pope continues in this vein," Castro, the 83-year-old younger brother of Fidel, told reporters, adding "I mean what I say."

"The pontiff is a Jesuit, and I, in some way, am too. I studied at Jesuit schools," he said.

The Catholic Church's activities were suppressed after the revolution. If the thaw in relations between Washington and Havana means greater religious freedom for the Cuban people, it would be a significant step forward.

However, just because a former Communist government endorses religion doesn't mean it will become any more enlightened. Since the fall of the Soviet Union the Russian Orthodox Church has become the de-facto state religion.

Gays and lesbians are harassed by the government and church officials alike, and as the Orthodox Church has lined up behind Putin on every issue, political assassinations of reporters and opposition figures such as Boris Nemtsov have become almost commonplace.

Cuba may be different, though: the Russian Orthodox Church is a nationalistic religion and Putin has the Russian patriarch under his thumb. The Vatican is independent of all nations and draws its leadership from across the world.

If allowed to flower in Cuba, where Pope Francis will visit this September, the Catholic Church under his leadership should be a force for good.

Again with the False Equivalence

In an attempt to sound moderate and reasonable, Mark has once again fallen for the false equivalence that -- because some Democrats don't like nuclear power, vaccines and genetically modified organisms -- it means that they are just as anti-science as Republicans.

That's a load of crap.

Huge segments of the Republican base deny the very science of evolution (the basis of all biology) and large numbers of them deny the basic science of climate change. Their know-nothing bona fides are well-established.

Democrats don't oppose nuclear power because they don't believe in nuclear physics, but because they believe we don't have a handle on the technology.

The Democrats who oppose nuclear power do so not because they don't believe that fissioning atoms produces energy, but because they believe it's an inappropriate use of a technology that has a large number of extremely dangerous problems.

First, nuclear power plants have already had numerous accidents that have released serious amounts of radiation (Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island), plus a number of other incidents that the American and Soviet military won't own up to publicly.

On-site accidents, earthquakes, tsunamis and terrorist attacks could breach the reactor's core or break open the dry casks, releasing large quantities of radiation. The Fukushima reactors are still leaking radiation into the sea; the only way they have to slow this down is to build a giant freezer around the whole reactor and turn the leaking radioactive water to ice. And still radioactive water is getting to the Pacific.

A Fukushima-like meltdown at the Prairie Island nuclear plant in Minnesota could poison the Mississippi for centuries.

Second, and this is the real problem, we have nowhere to store the nuclear waste. Currently nuclear power plants across the country are just storing the waste in their reactors, or in dry casks on site, often on the banks of rivers that serve as water supplies for large metropolitan areas downstream. This is extremely dangerous. As we saw at Fukushima, storing the waste in the reactor is idiotic, because if the waste is exposed to air it will melt down and potentially cause a catastrophic explosion.

In the USA no state will allow a nuclear waste repository on their land because they don't want to be stuck with everyone else's waste. Furthermore, even if some state did allow storing it there, transporting all that waste to one location allows terrorists to know where it is and attack it anywhere along the route. Given how frequently oil trains keep derailing and exploding, how smart is it, really, to ship tons of radioactive waste around the country?

It would be a mistake to build new nuclear plants without any plan for dealing with the waste.

Now, I'm not in favor of shutting down every nuclear power plant at once. But it's clearly a dangerous technology that we don't really have a handle on, because we have no solution for disposing of the waste. Waste that will be dangerous for centuries. It would be a mistake to compound our problems and build new nuclear plants without any plan for dealing with the waste.

That's the difference between Republicans and Democrats: Democrats don't deny the science of nuclear power, they just don't trust that big businesses focused exclusively on jacking up profits can be trusted to guarantee our safety with an extremely dangerous waste product that will be around long after they have declared bankruptcy. It's basically the same reason environmentalists don't like coal and oil or Republicans don't like big government: they don't like the waste.

GMO foods are much the same. Democrats don't deny that we can insert certain genes into plants to alter their biology. The question is whether using that technology is wise.

The most common GMO crops are "Round Up-ready" corn and soybeans. These plants can be soaked in herbicides (glyphosate) that kill weeds. The problem is that herbicides and pesticides are poisons. Scientific research has shown links between these toxins and Parkinson's, birth defects, autism, and other developmental effects in fetuses. They also cause deformities in amphibians and play a role in Colony Collapse Disorder among bees.

GMO crops encourage overuse of toxic chemicals, create monocultures and make farmers completely dependent on big agro.

Then there's the economics: GMO crops are a bad deal for farmers. In the olden days, farmers could save some of the seed from their harvest to plant their next crop. The agro giants have sued farmers to prevent this practice with GMO seeds. Farmers can be sued even if they replant seed from their own plants, which accidentally bred with GMO plants from neighboring farmers fields.

The problem with agriculture being dependent on herbicides and pesticides is that weeds and pests develop immunities to these poisons, making them ineffective (due to that pesky evolution). These superweeds require farmers to use ever more toxic herbicides, poisons that the companies say are completely safe, but they never have to prove their safety. These products can only be forced off the market if someone else proves they are harmful, and that can take decades.

Finally, use of GMO crops promotes monocultures. Across the country there are only a few different kinds of corn and soybeans. If some new pest or rust shows up that these crops aren't protected from, we could lose the entire year's crop

Scientifically speaking, it is safer in the long term for the food supply to have more genetic diversity, and to use farming techniques that reduce the amount of pesticides, herbicides, fertilizer and irrigation required. Arguments to the contrary are not based in science, but in business, finance and population control.

Nuclear power and GMO organisms are not "science," they are just technologies. They are tools we use to produce energy and food.

As for vaccines, I have heard just as many conservative nut jobs who believe vaccines and fluoridated water are communist conspiracies as liberals who think that they cause autism. At one time there was a valid concern about vaccines: they contained the preservative thimerosal, an organic mercury compound that causes neurological damage. Thimerosal has since been removed from childhood vaccines, but is still present in some adult vaccines and other products like contact lens solution. But since we know mercury causes neurological damage (see: mad as a hatter), why are we still using it?

Furthermore, even if you ignore the whole autism scare, the science says that some small number of people will have negative reactions to vaccinations (even including death), and it is possible (though unlikely) to contract a disease from a live-virus vaccine.

Any medical procedure poses a risk of injury or death, including vaccination.

The fact is, any time you have any medical procedure there's a chance something bad will happen. You run the risk of getting any number of diseases just going to the doctor to get vaccinated if some sick person coughs on you.

Statistically speaking, however, we are safer as a society and as individuals if everyone is vaccinated. But it's also true that some small number of kids will get sick and some will die as a result of a vaccination. That number is much smaller than the number of kids who will get sick and die from the measles, but it's still a risk that scientists have to acknowledge.

But that argument is hard to make to a mother whose child is screaming bloody murder because he got poked by that scary needle. Individual moms don't care about statistics and herd immunity, they only care about their kids. Yes, it's foolish, but can you blame them?

Questioning whether a technology should be used is not a statement against science.

Questioning whether a technology should be used is not a statement against science. The question is whether the benefits of the technology outweigh the risks. The answer is based on statistical analysis, and how much personal risk we want to take in order to benefit all society.

For vaccines it's clear that personal risks are worth the benefit to society. But for nuclear power and GMO crops in particular, all of society is being made to take potentially large risks so that a very small number of corporations can generate vast profits with their proprietary products.

The Democratic Brain

As I've been reading Chris Mooney's The Republican Brain, I've taken note of how Democrats can sometimes fall into the same trap with their cognition. The last section of his book promises an examination of this particular form of dissonance concerning things like nuclear power, GMOs, and vaccines.  In looking at current events, we can see yet another example.

I live in Minneapolis and many of my friends are extremely liberal. Any mention of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and mouths begin to foam just as they do with Monsanto. It's completely ridiculous and, as the president notes above, they are just plain wrong. Not only does this agreement fix some of the issues with our domestic labor vis a vis NAFTA but it expands opportunity for our workers. We can't return to protectionist trade practices in this age of globalization. That's what causes world wars.

Why don't my fellow Democrats understand this?

Snake Poking

What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

Iowa class teaches how to carry both weapon and baby

Absolute Lunacy

In looking at this video below, I have concluded that we should just let these paranoid fuck faces secede and let them fend for their own. What a bunch of lunatics!!

Joss Whedon Stops Wasting Time...

The trolls have chased Joss Whedon off Twitter. The director of Avengers: Age of Ultron deleted his Twitter account after rabid feminists called the portrayal of Black Widow as sexist and rabid comic book fans whined about the movie's plot.

Granted, it wasn't the greatest movie ever, but it's ridiculous to portray Joss Whedon as sexist. Whedon has been one of the greatest advocates for strong women characters in action adventure entertainment over the last 20 years.

First, Joss Whedon wrote the script for the movie Buffy the Vampire Slayer,  the hilarious stereotype-shattering take on the whole damsel-in-distress horror movie genre.

Then Whedon wrote the script for Alien: Resurrection, which starred Sigourney Weaver and Winona Ryder, who were not weak female characters.

Then in the Buffy the Vampire Slayer television series, Whedon's strongest characters were female, nerds, or female nerds. They were the stars of the show, not just one-dimensional targets of derision that the male characters used for sexual or comic relief.

He continued this vein in the short-lived Firefly. Half the crew of the spacecraft in this western-themed space opera were women, including the nerdy engineer.

Then Whedon did Dollhouse, which had its flaws, but weak female characters were not among them.

Currently in production is the Marvel series Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. It, again, is packed with strong female characters, who have driven most of the action in the current season.

Female actors from Whedon's various series have gone on to have strong roles in other shows, such as Person of Interest, Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, The 100, etc.

Given this long history, no one can reasonably argue that Joss Whedon is sexist. When he has full creative control, his female characters are all over the board, from professional courtesans, to nurturing mother figures, to unstoppable martial artists and vampire slayers, to powerful witches and super-powered women with alien DNA, to vengeful soulless creatures.

Yes, the makeup of the Avengers team in the latest film is a sausage fest, with only two female characters. But that's not on Joss Whedon. That's on the Marvel Universe, and that's on the bigwigs at Marvel who have the final say on what's in and what's out in their movies: Marvel is renowned for maintaining tight control over a franchise that spans decades and includes dozens of films.

From where I sit, Whedon did what he could to improve the lot of female characters in the Marvel universe: he doubled the number of female Avengers in this latest movie. Previous Avengers cartoon series and comic books typically only have one or two women at a time. The Avengers can only have so many members, and in this movie it must include Captain America, the Hulk, Iron Man, Hawkeye and Thor. Story-telling constraints limit how many female characters can be on the team at one time.

The real problem with the Black Widow character isn't that she's female, it's that she has no super powers. She's basically just a spy, a vanilla mortal, who has to shoot the bad guys with pistols. Hawkeye is a normal too, but he at least gets exploding arrows.

The issue with feminists, it seems, is that the Black Widow character actually cares about other people. She isn't concerned solely with her own egotistical goals and blowing stuff up.

Anyway, good riddance to Twitter. I know the Twittersphere doesn't want to hear this, but it's a complete waste of time for a guy like Joss Whedon to pay any attention to what the Twittersphere has to say.

Actually, it's a waste of anyone's time...

Okay, Ted. Which way do you want it?

On Saturday Rafael Edward ("Ted") Cruz joined a long list of loonies who are afraid that the U.S. military is going to invade Texas, using the Jade Helm 15 military exercises to impose martial law and force Obamacare down Texans' throats!

A couple days later Cruz faulted President Obama for not stopping an attack on right-wing loonies hosting a Mohammed-insulting event specifically tailored to incite the exact same sort of attack that occurred in Paris against Charlie Hebdo.

Look, Rafael -- um, Ted. The purpose of Jade Helm is to fight the terrorists you're so afraid of!

Jade Helm is being staged in the American Southwest because its terrain resembles ISIS-controlled territory. We're training in the United States because every time we establish bases in the Middle East and train there it pisses off locals like Osama bin Laden and makes them think we're going to invade and occupy their countries. Which incites them to attack us here at home.

So we're using Jade Helm to train in the United States to train our troops to fight ISIS, while avoiding foreign entanglements. Got it, Rafael -- oops -- Ted?

Now, about the Mohammed-insulting event. Cruz blames Obama for the Texas attack, and the attacks in Boston and Fort Hood by the Tsarnaevs and Nidal Hassan. It's a load of crap. If this is true, then Bush was responsible for 9/11. Bush had a hell of lot more warning about bin Laden's elaborate plans involving dozens of conspirators in a dozen countries to crash jets into four buildings at once than Obama ever had.

The isolated attacks Cruz is pinning on Obama were cooked up by one or two people living in the United States. There are no dots to connect to ISIS, because the perpetrators executed these attacks on their own initiative, egged on by people like Ted Cruz and Pam Geller.

Domestic terrorist attacks are motivated by killing of Muslims and occupation of Muslim countries.

However, the dots that connect these terrorist attacks can be seen every day on television and the web as we watch American jets bomb Muslim countries, American drones kill innocent bystanders and Americans still occupying Muslim countries for more than a decade.

The domestic terrorists that make Cruz and Lindsey Graham wet their pants are motivated by American interventions in the Middle East that kill Muslims. Tsarnaev cited the the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as his motivation, and Nidal Hasan claims to have killed American soldiers to prevent them from killing the Taliban.

The recent attack in Texas was clearly incited by Pam Geller, who intentionally staged the event in order to elicit the attack. When you have 40 armed guards and a SWAT team on-site it's clear you're setting a trap. Ha ha, Pam, you really fooled those stupid Muslims!

These home-grown terrorists are outraged by what they see as injustice against Muslims. These terrorists are dead wrong about most Americans, who don't give a damn about Syria or Afghanistan or Iraq. But not all Americans are so benignly indifferent.

The American Right has created far more Muslim terrorists than ISIS ever has.

Every time Pam Geller or Ted Cruz or Lindsey Graham and the other conservative whack jobs open their yaps and repeat that we need to wage a new Crusade against Islam, more American Muslims start believing that ISIS is right. The American Right and their bumbling wars and interventions and hateful rhetoric have created far more Muslim terrorists than ISIS ever has.

You can't win the hearts and minds of American Muslims by calling them traitors and un-American, and then indiscriminately killing their relatives and co-religionists in foreign countries.

Geller and Cruz and Graham know this. They don't care. They are intentionally inflaming Muslim opinion against the United States. They want war and death. They think it's to their advantage to scare people because they think scared people vote Republican.

If we want Muslims to stop attacking us, we have to stop attacking them. Both verbally and militarily.

People Riot When...

Are the Baltimore Riots Today's Boston Tea Party?

All Fox News can do is caterwaul about the violence in Baltimore, but what about these incidents that occurred in just the last week?

• A drunk Staten Island cop pulled her service weapon and opened fire, hitting the car of the wife of the man she was dating.
• A drunk off-duty New York cop opened fire on a man in a car, hitting him several times, apparently for no reason whatsoever.
• A drunk NYPD detective shot his partner by accident, and then drove the hospital drunk.
• Thirteen current and former North Carolina cops were arrested by the FBI for drug trafficking.
• A Georgia sheriff who compares himself to Batman shot a real estate agent in a model home "in a tragic accident" while "practicing police tactics."

Clearly, being a cop says nothing about your character. Or competence.

All conservatives can do is complain about "thugs" and "animals" running riot in our cities. But why are they rioting? Because the cops who are supposed to be protecting us are acting like thugs and animals.

Six cops arrested Freddie Gray for the abominable crime of running away from them in fear. They beat him up, injured him, bounced him around in the back of a van while he was cuffed and shackled, ignored his cries for help, delayed seeking treatment for him when he was clearly in distress, then lied about the whole thing. At some point in the affair they broke his spine, which killed him a week later.

Some people think these attacks on African Americans are all about race, and that's part of it. Some of the cops charged in the death of Freddie Gray were black. Some of the cops involved in other shootings and the subsequent coverups are also black.

The bigger problem is that way too many cops think they should hold a privileged position in this country, and their unions think they should be above the law. And they just lose it when people disobey or disrespect them. When people like Freddie Gray in Baltimore or Walter Scott in South Carolina run from police, the cops' reflexive action seems to be to run them down and arrest or shoot them. Even if there's zero evidence that they are guilty of any crime.

Freddie Gray, it turned out, had done nothing wrong. He had a knife whose legality the various camps are bickering about. Conservatives point to this as evidence of some evil intent. I'm curious: if Gray had had a concealed pistol, which conservatives seem to think is a panacea for making the world a safer place, would they now be touting him as hero for defending second amendment rights?

In short, the very act of disobedience is a crime punishable by death in the eyes of these cops.

There is clearly a strain of lawlessness, arrogance and violence in American law enforcement. They run roughshod over the civil rights of Americans, rarely being called to account for their crimes.

Clearly, not all cops are bad. Clearly, some of the rioters in Baltimore are just vandals and opportunists.

Equally as clearly, there are a lot of bad cops who dish out violence with high-handed impunity. The people of Baltimore have a right to be extremely angry about them.

If American conservatives truly believed in freedom and the threat of a tyrannical government, they would be the first ones to criticize these bad cops and demand accountability for law enforcement officials who constantly overstep their authority.

But right-wingers and Fox News keep fixating on the riots in Baltimore and Ferguson. And in doing so they are missing clear parallels with American history: they are cheering for the bad guys.

The Boston Tea Party was just one of many acts of vandalism and civil disobedience leading up to the Revolutionary War, including the burning of the Peggy Stewart.

Before the Revolutionary War, the Sons of Liberty protesters would have been called terrorists and thugs by the conservatives of the day: they burned the home of Massachusettes Lt. Gov. Thomas Hutchinson. They stole and burned the New York governor's coach to ash. They destroyed the home of Fort George's commander, breaking windows and stealing from the wine cellar.

The Sons of Liberty used violence to protest the Stamp Act and Sugar Act, tax laws imposed by the British government on a nation that yearned for independence. The rioters in Baltimore and Ferguson are protesting the harassment, thievery and wanton murder of American citizens by corrupt and arrogant cops.

You'd think Americans who call themselves patriots would be on the right side of history, rather than siding with Tories and petty tyrants in the police department.

The Good Guy With A Gun Lie Debunked Again

In the past couple of days, there have been two violent incidents that illustrate, once again, the whole good guy with a gun myth. Recall that this lie started when Wayne LaPierre noted after Sandy Hook that "the only thing the stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." Most of us living in the real world knows that this really isn't true. Remember Antoinette Tuff?  So, no, not the "only" thing.

But what about the deterrence factor element of this myth? The Gun Cult likes to lie by shoveling out the "gun full zones make criminals think twice" pile of shit every other day. Yet reality says otherwise.

Minnesota farm couple fatally shot during burglary; home torched next day

The suspected gunman lived on a neighboring piece of property to the Hivelys. He was captured after a police officer stopped an alleged accomplice and found guns stolen from the Hively home in the car’s trunk.

Wait...what? I thought if you had guns in your house, they protected you from bad guys. What happened?

Continuing on with reality...

Two shot dead after they open fire at Mohammed cartoon event in Texas.

Two men who opened fire outside a contest for Prophet Mohammed cartoons in a Dallas suburb were shot dead by police Sunday night, authorities said. The men drove up to the Culwell Event Center in North Garland, got out of their car and began shooting just as the "Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest" inside was coming to an end, Garland police spokesman Joe Harn said. An unarmed security guard was shot in the leg. He was later treated and released from a hospital. Police who were helping with security at the event fired back, killing both gunmen.

So, the cops were there with guns and they...still attacked?  Hmm...I wonder why...? And how on EARTH did they get those assault rifles so easily in Texas?

Nikto or myself might have a post coming soon about the "free speech" event that was attacked but for now I'm betting some heads are awfully 'splodey right now considering the lax gun laws of our nation basically are helping out ISIL.

What ever will the Gun Cult do now?

Four More Hats In The Ring

Since the last update on the 2016 presidential election, four more candidates have officially announced their candidacy for the presidency.

On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders, the democratic socialist from Vermont, has decided to challenge Hillary from the left. Smart move as it's going to keep her honest. He raised 1.5 million dollars and added 100,000 supporters in one day so this isn't a novelty run. There are many Americans out there who support his vision for America in what is an ever growing progressive base. I look for Hillary to continue to move to the left with Sanders in the mix.

On the Republican side we have Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson, and Mike Huckabee. I don't expect much traction for these three as they polling pretty low behind the clear top tier candidates...Bush, Rubio, Walker and Paul. Bush and Walker haven't officially announced yet, btw, and I have to wonder what the fuck they are waiting for. Of all of these, Huckabee has a shot of winning enough southern states (and maybe Iowa) to stay in the mix but he seems all news to me.

So, we have 2 on the Democratic side and 6 on the GOP side. Anyone else out there looking forward to the first GOP debates?:)

ROTFLMFAO!!!

Nebraska woman files suit in federal court against all homosexuals

The Republican Brain Part Three: A Dream Ever Failing

In the prelude to the first section of his book, The Republican Brain, Chris Mooney laments a lost dream.

The dream was that the power of human reason would eventually stamp out lies, prejudices, and falsehoods, delivering a truly enlightened society. It would be a society in which ideologically driven misinformation would gradually decline or disappear, vanquished and chased from the public sphere by rational arguments (like mine). It would be a society in which everybody could agree on the core facts about the world, especially those that matter to public policy and the future.

Truly, a fantasy world today given how fiercely conservatives avoid core facts and rational arguments. In fact, their rallying principle is to fight against them with their own version of reality and far too many people follow along. Worse, they "turn the tables" and say that it's the Democrats who aren't rational, truly killing this dream or a rational world.

But this dead dream didn't just recently die. It has been dying all along human history. Mooney cites the example of Marquis de Condorcet as an excellent illustration of this idealism. Condorcet was a passionate philosopher during the Age of Enlightenment. He hung out with Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. Like all the great thinkers of this time, he championed the science of society and a society of social mathematics. He predicted a world that where reason and facts win out. He saw the villains of this world as dictators and priests and the heroes were the scientists and the innovators.

As Mooney notes...

...free inquiry and critical thinking-"that spirit of doubt which submits facts and proofs to severe rational scrutiny"-must prove unstoppable. It's virtually a law of nature. In the long run, our better faculties will enable not only the expression of human reason, but the creation of political system based upon universal human rights, social contracts, majority rule, and so on-precisely the sort of constitution Condorcet tried to establish in France as the terror descended. 

The terror, of course, being the French Revolution. As Condorcet vainly tried to instill this philosophy in the new constitution, angry and hateful men (the Jacobins) rebelled against this rationality. Of course, Condorcet believed that if he got the word out about his type of society, through widespread dissemination via the printing press, rationality would "stamp out" wacky, ideological nonsense. Imagine what Condorcet would have thought about the internet and social media!

What he didn't realize was that the wider nets of communication allowed many other messages to mix in with the rational ones. Further, he neglected to understand that the human mind, in capturing these irrational messages, might be affected by them. The human mind had indeed progressed but, at its base, it was still primitive. So, the question is...how does this happen?

More importantly, what are the facts regarding why we deny facts? Science doesn't always persuade us let alone mere facts. Education doesn't really help either. Even having more information means that there are many more instances to twist reality and skew the facts. Why? What is the science about why we deny science?

This is what Mooney will be exploring in the next section of the book and the topic of my next post in this series.

How To Train Your Wife

Another Small Step Preparing for the Giant Leap?

Preliminary tests indicate that NASA Eagleworks may be a the verge of creating a "reactionless drive" that could get a spacecraft to the moon in four hours. A proposed trip to Mars would take less than eight months -- 70 days out, 90 days there and 70 days back.

The recent tests, performed in vacuum, indicated that the EM Drive produced thrust without any emitting any propellant. This defies the basic laws of classical physics put forth by Newton centuries ago -- the whole "for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction" thing.

Rockets work by ejecting propellant, pushing the vehicle forward. In the weightless vacuum of space, there's nothing to "grab hold" of, like the ground for cars, the water for boats or the air for planes.

The EM drive works by bouncing around microwaves inside a closed cavity, converting electricity directly to momentum. It's not a lot of thrust -- but it's constant. In a weightless vacuum you just keep going faster and faster because there's no friction or gravity to slow you down.

How does this work? They don't know for sure.

The head of NASA Eagleworks, Dr. Harold "Sonny" White, theorizes that the thrust comes from virtual particles of the Quantum Vacuum. Virtual particles are a real thing, though they seem pretty far out there -- but quantum mechanics is like that.

A 2014 test of the drive in in air was also successful, but thermal interaction with the air could have been responsible for thrust. The vacuum test eliminates that uncertainty.

This type of drive has more immediate applications closer to earth. One of the main problems for satellites is stationkeeping -- orbits decay over time to due to atmospheric drag. They need to use tiny rockets to maintain their orbits. But they have only a finite supply of propellant -- once it's gone, the satellite falls out of orbit. The lower the orbit, the more drag.

With the EM drive, no propellant would be needed -- just electricity, which is obtained from solar panels. An EM drive would drastically increase the useful lifespan of satellites. It would also allow photographic reconnaissance satellites, such as military spysats, weather satellites, low-earth orbit communications satellites, to reposition themselves without having to worry about running out of fuel. (Solving the whole, "Chloe, I need that satellite repositioned right now!" problem.)

The same Eagleworks team is looking at warping space, and has already had some preliminary successes. Those tests have yet to be validated in a vacuum.

The researchers are talking in terms of decades before EM drives will be ready for use. But I'm not so sure. These EM drives are relatively small electronic devices that depend on quantum mechanics for their operation.

That means they have more in common with semiconductor electronics -- which are tiny electronic devices that depend on quantum mechanics -- than the engines in giant rockets that have proven so difficult to master.

As evidenced by the billions of cell phones out there, if there's one thing we're really good at, it's making tiny electronic devices.

Minnesota Wall Eye and Climate Change

The warming waters of Minnesota due to man made climate change are affecting the Wall Eye population as my home state heads into fishing opener.

In other words, if they can’t survive, then other fish won’t either. But they won’t be alone. A major study published last week in the journal Science found that if greenhouse gases and average temperatures continue to rise at current rates, the world will see a major loss in diversity. One in six species around the globe could disappear because they can’t move or adapt fast enough to changing habitat.

My hope is that those fishermen who deny that climate change is man made and are now personally affected by this will help create more action. Of course, Mooney tells me otherwise:)

Yet Another Responsible Gun Owner

Man drops gun, shooting woman in both arms outside Macon elementary school gym

A woman was wounded on both arms during what deputies deem may have been an accidental shooting caused by someone dropping a gun Monday night outside an elementary school gym in Bibb County. Deputies on Tuesday were still searching for the shooter.

The woman told deputies she was standing outside the school’s gym when she heard a popping noise, Howard said. Then she looked down and realized she had blood on her hands, Howard said.

Good thing guns are allowed everywhere in Georgia.

Ground stood!!

The Republican Platform-1956

The Gay Agenda (File Under: No Shit)

The Personal Computer Revolution and Personal Energy Independence

Elon Musk, the billionaire who started Tesla Motors, SpaceX and SolarCity, announced a new battery system yesterday that will allow homes to store large amounts of electricity generated from solar power. This may herald a new era of personal energy independence.

Tesla has been testing these power systems in companies like Walmart and Cargill, and a pilot project in 300 California homes.

Most homes with rooftop solar panels feed their electricity back into the grid, and then draw power from the grid when it's dark. But with Tesla's Powerwall battery system, all that excess solar power can be stored in your garage. It can supplement your household power when the grid is overloaded, or recharge your electric car, or allow you to go off the grid completely. This could be very bad for electric utilities, especially in sunny southern climes.

For months Hawaiian Electric (HECO) had been stonewalling customers who wanted to install solar panels on their houses. HECO complained that the grid isn't up to the task, and that it just isn't economical to change it. Since HECO doesn't control the output of home solar panels, they said, they couldn't predict how much power they will produce. That makes it very hard to balance the various sources of power, which could destabilize the grid. This is a completely valid concern, but this mindset may ultimately doom utilities like HECO.

Why are Republicans propping up government-sanctioned monopolies?

A great many utility monopolies have been making the same claims. A lot of states make it very difficult to install rooftop solar.  Curiously, these states are mostly in the south, where photovoltaics could generate a lot of power. These states are generally controlled by Republican majorities, who are in turn controlled by the Koch brothers, who with their legislative arm ALEC have been fighting solar power tooth and nail. This seems contradictory to the basic Republican ideology of independence and self-reliance. Why are Republicans propping up government-sanctioned monopolies?

Though they had been delaying since last October, recently Hawaiian Electric approved all the rooftop solar applications on Maui and Hawaii, and is working to remove the backlog on Oahu. Why?

Maybe Hawaiian regulators turned up the heat after citizens who invested in solar panels complained. Maybe HECO resolved their technical issues. Or maybe HECO saw the writing on the wall, and realized that if they didn't hook these customers up, they might lose them completely.

Hawaii is really the perfect place for people to go off the grid. It's warm and sunny, but not too hot, so it doesn't need as much energy for heating and cooling as the rest of the country does. Hawaii has to import all its oil, coal and natural gas across the ocean, making it much more expensive: electric rates in Hawaii are about two and a half times higher than the US national average.  That means rooftop solar is already much cheaper in Hawaii than fossil fuel-generated power.

The technologies that made the Internet and mobile revolutions possible are doing the same for power generation.

But now the same technology that made the Internet revolution possible is starting another revolution in power generation. Solar cells are essentially the same as the computer chips that go into our computers and cell phones. Production efficiencies have now made photovoltaic cells as cheap as any other kind of chips. That has made power from rooftop solar is almost as cheap as power from coal and natural gas, and it's only getting cheaper.

Similarly, high-density lithium ion batteries developed for the mobile phones and tablets have revolutionized battery technologies, making electric cars and home power storage technologies possible.

Going off the grid isn't limited to tropical paradises. Buildings designed to the Passive House standard use almost no energy for heating and cooling. They are super-insulated and airtight and use heat exchangers in their ventilation systems to minimize energy use. The Passivhaus standard was developed in Germany -- almost all of which is further north than the Canadian border -- and is applicable anywhere in the United States. Germany also generates almost 7% of its electricity from solar, producing power even when it's cloudy. About the same amount of power is generated by wind turbines.

The fossil fuel industry likes to paint wind and solar as being "unpredictable" and "unreliable" sources of energy. But as we've seen in the past, oil prices are extremely unpredictable and supplies are unreliable, subject to wild swings. The availability and price of oil and gas fluctuate based on turmoil in the Middle East, closures of refineries, ports and rail lines (due to strikes, maintenance and explosions), or the whims of terrorists and tyrants in Libya, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Iran.

Instead of fighting wind and solar, power utilities like HECO should be working closely with companies like Tesla and SolarCity to free themselves from the vagaries and manipulations of the international energy markets. They should be working with homes and businesses to install rooftop solar so that they can integrate those systems into the grid more reliably.

Because, although they have no idea what the price of fossil fuel will be in two weeks or two months or two years, they know exactly what time the sun is going to rise, every day.

OOOH FIRE!!

The Republican Brain Part Two: Liberal Denial and A New Framework

A few weeks ago, I was talking with a guy I know from the club the other day about the military. He served in Vietnam and we always like to discuss history as we pump iron. I mentioned to him that the Pentagon these days has their eyes on the larger threat of climate change and the implications it presents for destabilization around the world.

He instantly became enraged and began to caterwaul about how it was all made up, a hoax etc....the usual response that comes from a plethora of right wing propaganda. I tried to explain to him that the science was solid but he would have none of it. I walked away in frustration, as I invariably do when I try to let facts pierce the bubble, and wondered what I could have said differently to change his mind. Since that time, I have been reading Chris Mooney's book, The Republican Brain and, as the rest of the introduction shows us, I failed to recognize key traits of the conservative brain,.

In short, I was a liberal in denial.

As seen in my first post about Mooney's book, the distribution of falsehoods is not equal or symmetrical across the political spectrum. As Mooney puts it, "It's not that liberals are never wrong or biased...it's that political wrongness is clustered among Republicans, conservatives, and especially Tea Partiers." Worse,

Insanity has been defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome and that's precisely where our country stands now with regard to conservative denial of reality.

Sadly, we have been trained to "equivocate" by the media and, indeed, our culture at large. In order for us to move forward, non conservatives have to end this behavior immediately. Why?

The cost of this assault on reality is dramatic. Many of these falsehoods affect lives and have had-or will have-world changing consequences. And more dangerous than any of them is the utter erosion of a shared sense of what's true-which they both generate and perpetuate.

No doubt. The falsehoods regarding guns, detailed on this site, are directly responsible for thousands of deaths from gun violence every year. What are some other patently wrong ideas? Here are a few from pages 4-5 of the book.

1. The Affordable Care Act-government takeover, death panels, increase federal budget deficit, cut Medicare benefits, subsidize abortions, health care for illegal immigrants.

2. Abortion increases risk of breast cancer and mental disorders

3. The Iraq War-Saddam had WMDs.

4. Economics-Tax cuts increase government revenue 

5. Science-Climate change is a hoax, evolution not accepted by 43 percent of conservatives

As Bill Maher would put it, these are all Zombie Lies. They keep coming back...again and again, and as they do, Mooney warns...

Errors and misconceptions like these can have momentous consequences. They can ruin lives, economies, countries, and planets. And today, it is clearly conservatives-much more than liberals-who reject what is true about war and peace, health and safety, history and money, science and government.

In other words, political conservatives have placed themselves in direct conflict with modern scientific knowledge, which shows beyond serious question that global warming is real and caused by humans, and evolution is real and the cause of humans. If you don't expect either claim, you cannot possibly understand the world or our place in it.

Now that we have established that this is the case with today's conservative, we have to understand why the believe what they do. This is the road map to where Mooney will be going with the rest of the book. Half of the explanation lies with what Mooney calls the environmental reason or the "nurture" aspect of conservative development. In a nutshell, the GOP did what it had to do to get ahead. They embraced the religious right and corporate interests that directly conflict with the obvious solutions to the list above. Conservative culture arose out of these interests and this is how they are weened as they develop.

Further, they reacted to the 1960s counter culture movement in classic fashion, deriding "too much change, too much pushing of equality, and too many attacks on traditional values-all occurring too fast." If you put baby in a corner, a right wing authoritarian emerges:)

Of course, this doesn't account for the psychological side of the equation which is the other half of the explanation for why conservatives believe as they do. The conservative platform offers a solution to this way too fast change that hits people on a deeply psychological level. As Mooney puts it, "it's something certain in a changing world; wanting to preserve one's own ways in uncertain times, and one's one group in the face of difference." Ideology is, after all, deeply personal and emotional so, naturally, it's directly tied to psychology.

I've written about this many times. This need arises from fear as one ages. Personal, physical failings stoke the fires of blame for the outside world. This, in turn, leads to that adolescent behavior and a desire to live life like we used to "back in the day." I always chuckle about this when some of my conservative friends wax nostalgic about eating what they want, not wearing a helmet, and being gone all day playing when they were kids. This is a direct response to fear of getting old and dying. There's a reason we don't do these things anymore....because we have progressed and evolved to live a higher quality of life!

Mooney then explains how this path will not be one of reductionism (conservatives are like this because their psychology...blah blah blah). The path will be one of determinism, encompassing all of the aspects that human beings deal with on a daily basis in their interactions with an emphasis on psychological reactions. This path must explore all the variables that lead to why conservatives are more closed, fixed and certain in their views and why liberals tend to be more open, flexible, curious and nuanced. On page 12, he issues the following warning...

[Conservatives]...won't like hearing that they're often wrong and dogmatic about it, so they may dogmatically resist this conclusion. They may also try to turn the tables and pretend liberals are the close minded ones, ignoring volumes of science in the process.

Turn the tables? Conservatives? Nah....:)

With the foundation now more or less set, the core reason for that path we are about to take is then revealed by Mooney. Regarding liberals,

On the one hand, we're absolutely outraged by partisan misinformation. Lies about death panels. Obama is a Muslim. Climate change denial. Debt ceiling denial. These things drive us crazy, in large part because we can't comprehend how such intellectual abominations could possibly exist. I can't tell you how many times I've heard a fellow liberal say, "I can't believe the Republicans are so stupid they can believe X!"

And not only are we enraged by lies and misinformation; we want to refute them-to argue, argue, argue about why we are right and Republicans are wrong. Indeed, we often act as though right wing misinformation's defeat is nigh, if we could just make people wise and more educated (just like us) and get them the medicine that is correct information. 

In this, we both underestimate conservatives, and we fail to understand them.

Stunning. Remind you of anyone?:)

These passages led me to serious reflection. Eventually, the facts will win but how long will that take simply because liberals are in denial about the nature/nurture of conservatives? How many more people will suffer simply because liberals are stuck thinking that facts alone will change things..that we fail to note "how people work," as Mooney puts it? I've started down this path somewhat, I suppose, when I talk about gun violence. The Gun Cult won't change until they are personally affected very deeply by tragedy. But this isn't enough.

So what are the basics of how conservatives work?

So it's not that Schlafly, or other conservatives are stupid or can't make an argument. Rather, the problem is that when Schafly makes an argument, it's hard to believe that it has anything to do with real intellectual give and take. He's not arguing out of an openness to changing his mind. He's arguing to reaffirm what he already thinks (his "faith"), to defend the authorities he trusts, and to bolster the beliefs of his compatriots, his tribe, his team.

This paragraph pretty much sums up every blog discussion with conservative commenters for fucking ever!! This is exactly the motivation behind conservatives' arguments and why they behave and think the way they do. This is how they work. By denying this reality, liberals are helping to perpetuate the erosion of country. We must understand this is the place from where they define themselves.

We need a new strategy and the rest of Mooney's book details such a new strategy. I'm looking forward to the answers that he's going to offer because, while I'm please with the progress we have made since the president took office, we obviously have a much longer way to go. We can get there if we have a deeper understanding of how the conservative really operates and functions.

Progress Defined

Audi Makes Diesel out of Thin Air (and Water)

German automobile giant Audi has a pilot program to produce diesel from carbon dioxide pulled out of the air, combining it with hydrogen electrolyzed from water with electricity from wind turbines. According to Audi's website:

Production of Audi e‑diesel involves various steps: First, water heated up to form steam is broken down into hydrogen and oxygen by means of high-temperature electrolysis. This process, involving a temperature in excess of 800 degrees Celsius, is more efficient than conventional techniques because of heat recovery, for example. Another special feature of high-temperature electrolysis is that it can be used dynamically, to stabilize the grid when production of green power peaks.

In two further steps, the hydrogen reacts with the CO2 in synthesis reactors, again under pressure and at high temperature. The reaction product is a liquid made from long‑chain hydrocarbon compounds, known as blue crude. The efficiency of the overall process – from renewable power to liquid hydrocarbon – is very high at around 70 percent. Similarly to a fossil crude oil, blue crude can be refined to yield the end product Audi e‑diesel. This synthetic fuel is free from sulfur and aromatic hydrocarbons, and its high cetane number means it is readily ignitable. As lab tests conducted at Audi have shown, it is suitable for admixing with fossil diesel or, prospectively, for use as a fuel in its own right.

Audi also has a pilot plant that produces "e-gas," creating methane (natural gas) with a similar process. Natural gas can be used to power vehicles, heat homes, cook food, etc.

The "blue crude" idea is kind of cool, as it would allow existing vehicles to be powered by carbon-neutral fuel. But it's limited: when we start cleaning up our act and reducing carbon emissions, over time the level of CO2 will drop as the carbon dioxide is sequestered in animals, plants, the earth and the ocean.

The real promise of this process is the extremely efficient high-temperature electrolysis that creates hydrogen. Hydrogen can be used to power fuel cells, which emit water as their waste product. Fuel cells powered the Apollo moon missions: the astronauts drank the water. Fuel cells are used in cars like the Audi h-tron, the Toyota Mirai and the Honda Clarity. Fuel cells can also generate electricity for general consumption.

As mentioned on the Audi website, this would allow load balancing of the grid: when wind and solar are making more electricity than is being consumed, the excess can be diverted to hydrogen production, which can then be stored. That hydrogen could be used to power fuel cells to generate electricity when wind and solar are offline, or to power vehicles.

Storage of excess energy from wind and solar has always been a major criticism of the technologies. And conservatives don't have to worry: these "green" energy production techniques will still piss off environmentalists. Solar and wind farms will kill some birds and displace some endangered species, and large-scale electrolysis will have to use ocean water, which means there will be briny waste that kill some fish.

We will still be the undisputed rulers of the earth, wielding the power of life and death: it'll just be a little more life and a little less death.

Everybody wins!

The "Liberal" Media v The City of Baltimore

While the (ahem) liberal media continues to show images of crazy niggers looting the city of Baltimore, I thought I would share some other images.

And these images are where on MSNBC?

Portrait of A Right Wing Blogger

This is who you are arguing with, folks.

































Feel some pity for them as they were likely picked on a lot in their lives (hence the gun humping) but, really and truly, don't waste your time.

A Breathing Democrat

In the coming presidential election in 2016, the Democrats need only nominate a breathing human and they will likely win. Here's why:

In looking at the electoral map, the Democrats essentially have 246 EVs baked in the cake.

Take a look:

California-55
New York-29
Illinois-20
Pennsylvania-20
Michigan-16
Washington-12
Minnesota-10
Wisconsin-10
Oregon-7
Maine-4
Vermont-3
Mass-11
Rhode Island-4
New Hampshire-4
Connecticut-7
New Jersey-14
Delaware-3
Maryland-10
Hawaii-4
DC-3

One could also throw in Iowa with its 6 EVs as its only gone GOP in 1984 and 2004 but let's just leave that as a tossup. Some might argue Wisconsin is a tossup but let's remember that they have been blue since 1984, including voting for Dukakis in 1988!

So, the Democrats only have to run a breathing human and they will win these states. Webb or O'Malley would win all of these states. Sanders would likely win them as well, especially if the GOP nominates a REAL CONSERVATIVE as they promise to do in 2016. With a base of 242, that only leaves 28 EVs so the Democrats could pick up Florida and be done. Or they could snag Ohio and a couple of western states and do the same thing. Their path to the White House can take many forms. 

The GOP candidate, on the other hand, starts with a much smaller base, 206 EVs. To get to 270, they have to run the table in nearly all of the swing states and hold the ever changing North Carolina. 64 EVs is a steep climb and if they really do nominate a far right candidate, they simply won't get any of the swing states. The independents won't go for them.

Now, if it is indeed going to be Hillary, then you can start ticking off Ohio and a couple of the western states like Colorado and New Mexico. Even if she runs a weak campaign and is continually hounded by scandal, she will still eek out a win. Of course, that's assuming that conservative leaning women/moderate women don't really vote for her. If they do, well...it could be 1988 except of the Dems, all over again.

The Anger Translator

Mainstreaming McVeigh

A great piece from Josh Horwitz about how the Gun Cult has mainstreamed Timothy McVeigh's ideas.

When Timothy McVeigh bombed the Murrah Building, he was wearing a t-shirt he purchased at a gun show. It had a picture of President Abraham Lincoln on the front with the words "SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS [THUS ALWAYS TO TYRANTS]." ... It's remarkable to think that, 20 years after we buried 168 Americans in a horrific act of terrorism, we are hearing the same exact perverse philosophy being promoted by Republican candidates running for the office of President of the United States.

Do they even understand what they are fomenting?

Scientific Consensus On Guns

In addition to their being a scientific consensus on climate change, there is also one on guns.

So, for example, one survey asked whether having a gun in the home increased the risk of suicide. An overwhelming share of the 150 people who responded, 84%, said yes.

I also found widespread confidence that a gun in the home increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide (72% agree, 11% disagree) and that a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that guns are not used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates (62% vs. 9%). Finally, there is consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide (71% vs. 12%).

Yep.

We Solve Our Problems In Murca With Guns!

Police: Man pulls gun at softball game because granddaughter didn't play

Thanks, Gun Cult!

Giving Guns To Criminals

It looks like a new "gun rights" bill in Missouri would end up allowing the following convicted felons to still obtain a gun.

• Attempted Rape in the First Degree (when no injury results)
• Attempted Forcible Rape in the First Degree (when no injury results)
• Deviate Sexual Assault
• Sexual Assault/ Rape in the Second Degree
• Statutory Rape in the First Degree (unless victim under 12)
• Statutory Rape in the Second Degree
• Abusing an Individual through Forced Labor
• Trafficking for the Purpose of Slavery, Involuntary Servitude, Peonage, or Forced Labor
• Trafficking for the Purposes of Sexual Exploitation
• Sexual Trafficking of a Child
• Voluntary Manslaughter
• Involuntary Manslaughter
• Assault in the Second Degree (unless a special victim)
• Assault in the Third Degree
• Domestic Assault in the Second Degree
• Domestic Assault in the Third Degree
• Assault while on School Property
• Assault of a Law Enforcement Officer in the Second Degree § 565.082
• Felonious Restraint
• Child Abduction
• Invasion of Privacy in the First Degree
• Infanticide
• Promoting Prostitution in the First Degree
• Promoting Prostitution in the Second Degree
• Promoting Prostitution in the Third Degree
• Promoting Travel for Prostitution
• Robbery in the Second Degree
• Arson in the Second Degree
• Knowingly Burning or Exploding
• Causing Catastrophe
• Use or Possession of Metal Penetrating Bullet During the Commission of a Crime
• Sexual Exploitation of a Minor
• Promoting Child Pornography in the First Degree
• Promoting Child Pornography in the Second Degree
• Possession of Child Pornography
• Repeated Cross Burning
• Rioting
• Promoting a Civil Disorder in the First Degree
• Making a Terrorist Threat
• Killing or Disabling a Police Animal
• Trafficking Drugs in the First Degree
• Treason
• Supporting Terrorism

I thought the Gun Cult supported enforcing existing laws, not making it easier for criminals to obtain guns.

Huh.

GOP Supporting the Affordable Care Act?

From Hot Air via Talking Points Memo...(say what?!!)

Senate GOP leadership wants to restore federal ObamaCare subsidies through 2017 if SCOTUS strikes them down

Heavy majorities, including a majority of Republicans, want the subsidies restored if the White House loses in Halbig, an ominous sign for the congressional GOP. In theory, voter anger could be so intense that both chambers of Congress will end up back under Democratic control, ensuring that the subsidies will be restored anyway.

Just as I predicted. 

And now even Hot Air is admitting what the rest of us already knew: the ACA is gaining popularity because it's effective and working. 

It looks like it may not matter much how SCOTUS rules on King v Burwell in June.

The Truly Dismal Science

There are a lot of cop shows on TV. There have been four versions of Law & Order (vanilla, SVU, LA, Criminal Intent and UK). There've been four versions of CSI (vanilla, New York, Miami and Cyber). There've been three versions of NCIS (vanilla, Los Angeles and New Orleans), which completely baffles me: why is the Navy so riddled with crime, and anyway, doesn't the Posse Comitatus Act prevent NCIS officers from messing around in civilian cases? (Turns out, it does.)

According to an analysis on Details.com, 42% of all the characters on American television are cops (including FBI agents, forensic analysts, medical examiners, secret agents). And that's not even counting vigilantes like the Arrow and the Winchester brothers who fight superhuman and supernatural threats.

Now, I'm not going to bemoan the fact that so much of our entertainment is focused on crime, or that average American children see 16,000 murders by the time they're 18, or that seeing this endless parade of death and destruction gives us a warped view of the world, making us think things are far more dangerous than they really are.

For example, child abductions by strangers are much rarer than you'd think based on TV shows. Most kids are taken by relatives:

Only a tiny minority of kidnapped children are taken by strangers. Between 1990 and 1995 the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children handled only 515 stranger abductions, 3.1 percent of its caseload. A 2000 report by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Programs reported that more than 3/4 of kidnappings were committed by family members or acquaintances of the child. The study also found that children abducted by strangers were harmed less frequently than those taken by acquaintances.

But perhaps the most misleading aspect of TV cop shows is the accuracy of forensic analysis. Crime scene investigators (CSIs) are wrong a heck of a lot more than the TV shows make you think.

Admittedly, I've always been skeptical of how quickly and easily the guys on CSI identify which implement was was used to hack someone up based on tool marks. Or whether it was this or that suspect based on teeth marks. Or matching hair samples or bullets in a microscope, just by eyeballing it.

FBI forensic hair examiners gave flawed testimony in 95% of the cases examined.

It turns out that my skepticism was warranted. As reported by the Washington Post, an FBI investigation of 268 cases determined that the forensic hair testimony in 257 of those cases was flawed, or an error rate of more than 95%. Worse, 32 of those were death penalty cases. In one of them they matched human hair to a dog.

For something supposedly straightforward like ballistics, the error rate is variously claimed to be 1.2% or 10% or not really known. Given that bullets that hit people are pretty smashed up, the error rate will intrinsically be quite high. Ditto for fingerprints: various studies have found false negative results as high as 10%, though fortunately the false positive rate is typically much less than 1%. DNA testing still boils down to an analyst sitting down and comparing a couple of blotches on a printout.

The cop shows like to emphasize that crime scene analysis is Science!. But that's a mischaracterization of what's really going on. CSIs are technicians who use scientific tools like microscopes, DNA analysis and mass spectrometers to gather information about crime scene evidence, which they then interpret.

They need technical training to make sure that they properly prepare samples for analysis, avoid cross-contamination and understand the limitations of their measurements.

But that doesn't make the real task they perform "science," any more than using a pH tester makes the guy who installed your water softener a scientist, or your accountant an electronic engineer because he uses a calculator.

Crime scene analysis is an interpretive art, not a science.

Analyzing the data from testing of crime scene evidence is an interpretive art, not science. Scientists run statistical analyses on large samples of data. They conduct experiments over and over again, or verify the results of other scientists' experiments. They formulate new theories based on mathematical models of matter and the universe, and then predict results of experiments before they do them. They control as many variables at once and then vary them one at a time to make sure they're really measuring what they they think they're measuring.

The guys at Mythbusters are more like scientists than crime scene analysts.

And that's not CSIs' fault. They have to decide who committed a crime based on one or two tiny bits of evidence. Their samples are frequently contaminated by victims and paramedics. They can't reproduce results by getting the criminal to commit the crime multiple times. Their job is intrinsically difficult, made more so by the demands of the justice system and the expectations of victims.

The scientific method can be utilized to determine the accuracy of the methods CSIs employ -- experiments and statistical analyses can be run on the performance of these experts. But that's only marginally useful: molecules and atoms and photons follow the laws of chemistry and physics, and always behave the same way under the same conditions.

Human beings don't: they get distracted, bored, tired. Their vision gets blurry from lack of sleep and dirty contacts. They go through divorces. They're influenced by the detectives in the case, or the brutality of the crime. They have large backlogs of cases and are in a hurry to catch up. From the results of the FBI's analysis of hair forensics, it's clear that these factors have as much influence on crime scene analysis as any underlying science.

If crime scene analysis is a science, it -- rather than economics -- is truly the dismal science.

Free Trade=Jobs and Growth

The president's trade agenda is going to face opposition...from the Democrats. In point of fact, they are the ones this time around that are ignoring reality and behaving illogically while the Republicans support the president's policy. The trade agreement proposed by the president would increase exports, insource jobs and take away foreign countries ability to demand that goods be built on their soil. Thus, more manufacturing could return home.

Further, it would allow our country more say in the rules of trade in Asia, as opposed to China and Japan. This agreement also allows the president to fast track trade pacts without Congress rewriting the legislation to the point of insanity. The legislative branch can only vote up or down. Given its dysfunction, it would be a very good thing to give the president this power.

We can't return to the age of protectionism, folks. It was this kind of behavior that was the direct cause of war. Breton Woods set us on a path to change all that. We need to continue all policies that promote free trade and leave the ghost of mercantilism behind.