Others not.
So have the figures that show a tight linkage between human lifestyles and changes in climate and atmosphere been tuned up for purposes of "clarity?" sure looks like it. Is this going to legitimize other hypotheses? Could be -- and if one cares about science, should be. It's certainly not the first time that academic politics went to war with science and if the reality turns out to differ from the current consensus in one way or another, I certainly won't be surprised. Science is supposed to follow the data while opinion usually follows authority which follows the money.
Don't be downhearted, unplugging your cell phone charger or even driving a Prius wasn't going to change anything anyway, much less "save the planet" and I suspect you're only "going green" because it's a new way to buy into hipness.
While I do believe that science is the best possible route to truth, I don't automatically believe in the intrinsic honesty of those who practice it. If global warming does not have human activity as the predominant factor, that doesn't mean the people who lobby for the oil companies are honest and face it, they're spending huge amounts to influence scientific opinion as well as public opinion to support doing absolutely nothing that might cost them anything. Perhaps the Industrial Revolution / global warming link is true and perhaps the decrease in solar activity since the late 1950's has masked or counteracted it. The Maunder minimum does correlate strongly to a long period of solar quiesence after all. There's evidence for several schools of thought, but I just don't know and so I'm not going to be like the trolls, many of whom have jumped on a competing bandwagon hoping to ride it to where the Wizard will give them a brain and resort to mockery -- nor am I going to be a counter-troll and fling dung on anyone with other data that might be ignored at present. After all, this "climategate" thing may prove to mean nothing in the long run.
I am however, going to mention that even if we have caused atmospheric CO2 to rise and average temperatures to follow, particularly at the high latitudes, the Earth's climate is too complex and dynamic a system not to call into question simplistic long term predictions. What if the obvious warming at the polls does precipitate a sudden and catastrophic drop in temperatures as some have been arguing rather than the boiling hell of the planet Venus as others like to predict? Evidence grows that this is what happened with the Younger Dryas freeze some 12,800 years ago. Global warming could lead to global cooling and no fooling. This planet has been in a relatively long period of climate stability and change is always coming -- don't count on any change making you happy.
Odds are that I won't live long enough to see any of the hypothetical scenarios play out and I'm certainly not going to sell my coastal home or put it up on stilts. Who knows but that my Great Grandchildren won't desperately be dogsledding down here to Florida 50 years from now anyway and some future Palin won't be crossing the frozen Rio Grande heading for refuge in Mexico.
Does any possibility make alternative energy a bad idea? I don't think so. We are going to run out of things to burn eventually and the little bit of oil we might get out of the Gulf or in any Alaskan wildlife reserve won't matter one way or another - indeed arctic oil may be covered under miles of ice if that scenario proves real. We're always going to need more energy if we're to remain a civilized species -- or become a civilized species, that is.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
"YOU GO TO WAR WITH THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE YOU HAVE"
According to Politico:
Adm. Michael Mullen told a House committee Wednesday that Gen. David McKiernan, who led U.S. troops in Afghanistan between 2008 and this year, had asked for 20,000 troops for the effort but was rebuffed.Rumsfeld, you arrogant bastard, UP YOURS!
“We didn’t have them because they were pushed to Iraq,” the four-star admiral said during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing in response to a question from Indiana Republican Rep. Mike Pence. “That was the priority of the president.”
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
God hates freedom of religion
He hates yours anyway, you heretic.
I don't know if the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, but the road to Heaven is once again being resurfaced with fresh slime. The Family Research Council, which purports to be a Christian organization having something to do with families, is really a lie factory with the objective of fomenting a civil war pitting fundamentalists against our religiously neutral constitution. They've now launched yet another campaign against the rest of us, claiming that the President plans to "silence Christianity" and "Impose homosexuality." It's the kind of thing that requires dementia, stupidity and ignorance to believe but in 21st century America, the very air stinks of it.
I really don't wonder that such people are obsessed to the point of mania about homosexuality or that for them, the purpose of what they call Christianity is to bring about a fundamentalist state that will enforce their sexual and social taboos. It's not so much that people hiding behind a false name are at war with secular democracy or at war with religious freedom or at war with private consensual sex, these are people at war with their own wet dreams.
"It's hard to make this stuff up" says Stephen Webster at Raw Story. Not for them it isn't. Their four-page letter, available here howls, shrieks and lies like the Devil himself about Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would guarantee gay, lesbian and transgendered Americans the right to work just like other Americans without fear of reprisal by the employers due solely to their sexual orientation or appearance. No, it does not force churches and their businesses and their schools to hire anyone they don't want to but FRC lies and says it does. No, limiting the free exercise of religion does not extend to giving any group the right to force their practices on anyone, but they say it does. The FRC has been lying about a lot of things for a long time and the rest of us have let them do it no matter how many people have to suffer. America gets weak and spineless every time some one crosses two sticks and pretends to speak for God.
I don't know if the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, but the road to Heaven is once again being resurfaced with fresh slime. The Family Research Council, which purports to be a Christian organization having something to do with families, is really a lie factory with the objective of fomenting a civil war pitting fundamentalists against our religiously neutral constitution. They've now launched yet another campaign against the rest of us, claiming that the President plans to "silence Christianity" and "Impose homosexuality." It's the kind of thing that requires dementia, stupidity and ignorance to believe but in 21st century America, the very air stinks of it.
I really don't wonder that such people are obsessed to the point of mania about homosexuality or that for them, the purpose of what they call Christianity is to bring about a fundamentalist state that will enforce their sexual and social taboos. It's not so much that people hiding behind a false name are at war with secular democracy or at war with religious freedom or at war with private consensual sex, these are people at war with their own wet dreams.
"It's hard to make this stuff up" says Stephen Webster at Raw Story. Not for them it isn't. Their four-page letter, available here howls, shrieks and lies like the Devil himself about Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would guarantee gay, lesbian and transgendered Americans the right to work just like other Americans without fear of reprisal by the employers due solely to their sexual orientation or appearance. No, it does not force churches and their businesses and their schools to hire anyone they don't want to but FRC lies and says it does. No, limiting the free exercise of religion does not extend to giving any group the right to force their practices on anyone, but they say it does. The FRC has been lying about a lot of things for a long time and the rest of us have let them do it no matter how many people have to suffer. America gets weak and spineless every time some one crosses two sticks and pretends to speak for God.
MAKE THAT ONE DIP OR TWO?
No, I am not selling ice cream with sprinkles. The term, double dip, refers to a second recession that may collapse an already fragile economy and trigger the second Great Depression.
About two weeks ago, I discussed the possibility in this post, The Looming Unemployment Bomb. To recap some key points:
In fact, the current official unemployment has reached 10.2 percent and still rising. When you count real unemployment, the one that includes discouraged workers who have stopped looking for jobs and those marginally working part-time jobs, the true unemployment rate (also known as U-6 - Alternative measures of labor underutilization) is closer to 17.5 percent.
Paul Krugman has joined the ranks of pessimists with a Double Dip Warning:
The stimulus has run its course, and all leading indicators suggest a continuing downward trend. One problem is that the econometric forecasting methods used by Washington assumed an unemployment rate of 10.3% by the end of next year. In fact, we arrived at this level a year earlier, and the worse case turned out worse than expected and sooner than expected.
The problem with the stimulus may not be the stimulus, although Krugman advocated for more robust aid, but the TARP bill that was cobbled together in the closing months of the Bush administration. If you recall, then Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson sounded the alarm in the form of a one-page memo that would have given him unbridled power to distribute the almost $800 billion in TARP funds with no controls. The compromise bill rushed through Congress did not anticipate the chicanery that would render it ineffective. Here is what the TARP bill should have accomplished:
Rule #1. Never leave it up to banks to decide for themselves what to do with public funds. Tell them how and where the funds should be allocated. The purpose of the funds was to unlock frozen credit markets. Why this did not happen? The banks used the money to improve their balance sheets when they should have been making commercial loans.
Rule #2. When banks are bailed out with public funds, make sure banks get out of the lobbying business. How is the public interest served when public money is used to buy influence that may go against the public interest! Post-bailout lobbying smacks of double-dealing, self-dealing, and conflict of interest. That is why current reform efforts are stalled in Congress.
Rule #3. No bonuses or wage increases until all public money has been paid back. The hubris of Wall Street offends us and turns upside down our basic values: We should reward merit, not failure, nor entitlement.
Rule #4. Community banks play a larger role in distributing commercial loans to local businesses than big banks. Why were these NOT included under TARP?
On the subject of reform, I have two more pet peeves. First, there are other professions - doctors, lawyers, real estate brokers, and teachers - that undergo some form of accreditation or licensing. Why not those on Wall Street to whom we entrust our assets, our retirements, indeed our lives. The same fools who authored the credit default insurance swaps that brought down AIG are the SAME fools who authored the junk bond crisis 25 years ago. When you recycle fools back into the system, you perpetuate their culture.
Second, if a bank is too big to fail, it is too big to exist. The regulatory system installed during the Great Depression and dismantled in 1999 must be restored and the Glass-Steagall Act reinstated. Regrettably, our diversified financial institutions are bigger, more arrogant, and more dangerous than before. To suggest that it is too unrealistic to put the genie back in the bottle is unacceptable.
About two weeks ago, I discussed the possibility in this post, The Looming Unemployment Bomb. To recap some key points:
When you look at this multimedia visualization, you can see why joblessness represents an even bigger threat to economic recovery than the credit crisis that triggered this mess. Watch the black death of unemployment sweep over the country in 30 seconds or less. And notice the data feed: It does not even include the latest unemployment figures. The visualization gives you a snapshot through September 2009 when the unemployment rate reached 8.5 percent.
In fact, the current official unemployment has reached 10.2 percent and still rising. When you count real unemployment, the one that includes discouraged workers who have stopped looking for jobs and those marginally working part-time jobs, the true unemployment rate (also known as U-6 - Alternative measures of labor underutilization) is closer to 17.5 percent.
Paul Krugman has joined the ranks of pessimists with a Double Dip Warning:
I’d be more sanguine about all of this if there were any indications that private, final demand is taking off — consumers, business investment, whatever. But I haven’t seen anything suggesting that sort of thing (…) The chances of a relapse into recession seem to be rising.
The stimulus has run its course, and all leading indicators suggest a continuing downward trend. One problem is that the econometric forecasting methods used by Washington assumed an unemployment rate of 10.3% by the end of next year. In fact, we arrived at this level a year earlier, and the worse case turned out worse than expected and sooner than expected.
The problem with the stimulus may not be the stimulus, although Krugman advocated for more robust aid, but the TARP bill that was cobbled together in the closing months of the Bush administration. If you recall, then Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson sounded the alarm in the form of a one-page memo that would have given him unbridled power to distribute the almost $800 billion in TARP funds with no controls. The compromise bill rushed through Congress did not anticipate the chicanery that would render it ineffective. Here is what the TARP bill should have accomplished:
Rule #1. Never leave it up to banks to decide for themselves what to do with public funds. Tell them how and where the funds should be allocated. The purpose of the funds was to unlock frozen credit markets. Why this did not happen? The banks used the money to improve their balance sheets when they should have been making commercial loans.
Rule #2. When banks are bailed out with public funds, make sure banks get out of the lobbying business. How is the public interest served when public money is used to buy influence that may go against the public interest! Post-bailout lobbying smacks of double-dealing, self-dealing, and conflict of interest. That is why current reform efforts are stalled in Congress.
Rule #3. No bonuses or wage increases until all public money has been paid back. The hubris of Wall Street offends us and turns upside down our basic values: We should reward merit, not failure, nor entitlement.
Rule #4. Community banks play a larger role in distributing commercial loans to local businesses than big banks. Why were these NOT included under TARP?
On the subject of reform, I have two more pet peeves. First, there are other professions - doctors, lawyers, real estate brokers, and teachers - that undergo some form of accreditation or licensing. Why not those on Wall Street to whom we entrust our assets, our retirements, indeed our lives. The same fools who authored the credit default insurance swaps that brought down AIG are the SAME fools who authored the junk bond crisis 25 years ago. When you recycle fools back into the system, you perpetuate their culture.
Second, if a bank is too big to fail, it is too big to exist. The regulatory system installed during the Great Depression and dismantled in 1999 must be restored and the Glass-Steagall Act reinstated. Regrettably, our diversified financial institutions are bigger, more arrogant, and more dangerous than before. To suggest that it is too unrealistic to put the genie back in the bottle is unacceptable.
Monday, November 30, 2009
The Christian kings of Uganda
It's not healthy to be Gay in Uganda, even with Idi Amin Dada gone. In fact it's a life sentence if their right-wing government gets hold of you, but that's not enough to please President Yoweri Museveni who has proposed a bill making it a capital crime to be homosexual and that assigns a three year sentence to anyone who knows but does not report the "crime." Speaking up for gay rights would bring a seven year jail term.
Don't feel too proud that we're a bit more liberal here, some of the backers of this hideous legislation are Americans; politicians who identify Christianity with conquest and total domination of society. You may have heard of them as "The Family" and this secretive, powerful and wealthy group isn't confining its efforts to make life miserable to the United States.
If author Jeff Sharlett is correct, the Christian Right group that's been in the news recently is giving financial support to this Hitleresque policy, if indeed, they didn't actually draft it.
Don't feel too proud that we're a bit more liberal here, some of the backers of this hideous legislation are Americans; politicians who identify Christianity with conquest and total domination of society. You may have heard of them as "The Family" and this secretive, powerful and wealthy group isn't confining its efforts to make life miserable to the United States.
If author Jeff Sharlett is correct, the Christian Right group that's been in the news recently is giving financial support to this Hitleresque policy, if indeed, they didn't actually draft it.
"[The] legislator that introduced the bill, a guy named David Bahati, is a member of The Family," he said. "He appears to be a core member of The Family. He works, he organizes their Ugandan National Prayer Breakfast and oversees a African sort of student leadership program designed to create future leaders for Africa, into which The Family has poured millions of dollars working through a very convoluted chain of linkages passing the money over to Uganda"said Sharlett to Terry Gross at NPR. Is it any wonder to you that I cringe when I hear the word Christian? Is it any wonder that I snicker at the idea that Islam is the biggest danger to peace and justice and liberty?
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Saturday, November 28, 2009
HOW TO SABOTAGE YOUR OWN CAUSE (AND SHOOT YOURSELF IN THE FOOT)
The climate change deniers have their legions of climate change denier trolls out in force, and the trolls have been trashing and bashing the liberal blogosphere.
If there is proof of one hypothesis, one can well understand why climate scientists want to insulate themselves from reactionaries who would waste their time and harass them at every turn.
This is how reactionary wingers divert public attention at a crucial time: Hack into a computer system (illegal by the way), steal 20,000 e-mails (illegal by the way), invent a controversy, start conspiracy rumors, slander a scientist, make news and noise, distract, distract, distract. The bastards are damn good at it too. Witness how teabagging astroturfers derailed the healthcare reform debate. Now they are stalking global climate change (they love their see-oh-two more than life itself).
Right now I am having an argument with a liberal forum that cross-posts my articles. I complained about trolls, but the forum does not believe in censorship. "The trolls should be allowed to embarrass themselves," goes the argument.
I say: “Trolls never feel embarrassment, and intelligent readers don’t need a demonstration.” Furthermore, a forum that enables trolls enables their cause and merely intensifies the distractions with self-defeating tolerance.
Why the hell are liberal bloggers having this argument? Yup, another distraction, another casualty of the climate change deniers and their trolls. The deniers and their trolls have their own blogs and websites; why should we let them hijack and disrupt ours?
If there is proof of one hypothesis, one can well understand why climate scientists want to insulate themselves from reactionaries who would waste their time and harass them at every turn.
This is how reactionary wingers divert public attention at a crucial time: Hack into a computer system (illegal by the way), steal 20,000 e-mails (illegal by the way), invent a controversy, start conspiracy rumors, slander a scientist, make news and noise, distract, distract, distract. The bastards are damn good at it too. Witness how teabagging astroturfers derailed the healthcare reform debate. Now they are stalking global climate change (they love their see-oh-two more than life itself).
Right now I am having an argument with a liberal forum that cross-posts my articles. I complained about trolls, but the forum does not believe in censorship. "The trolls should be allowed to embarrass themselves," goes the argument.
I say: “Trolls never feel embarrassment, and intelligent readers don’t need a demonstration.” Furthermore, a forum that enables trolls enables their cause and merely intensifies the distractions with self-defeating tolerance.
Why the hell are liberal bloggers having this argument? Yup, another distraction, another casualty of the climate change deniers and their trolls. The deniers and their trolls have their own blogs and websites; why should we let them hijack and disrupt ours?
Friday, November 27, 2009
Kick a Jew Day
I hesitate to make more of this than it really is. Middle School students aren't deep thinkers, if they're thinkers at all and if some idiot kid in a Naples, Florida school thought "Kick a Jew Day" would be a blast, it doesn't necessarily mean that they've even heard of anti-Semitism or that their parents are Aryan Nation followers. The misbegotten event wherein Jewish kids were subject to being kicked last week was a "funny" take-off on "Kick a Ginger Day," which in turn derived from the supremely idiotic "South Park," the show that features a talking turd as part of the cast.
I think it may be a bit much at this point, to tie it to some sinister neo-Nazi or other anti-Semitic group. Still, some boys and girls were kicked and at that age, when peer approval is everything, the humiliation can be expected to matter a lot in their lives.
Although Fox News did comment on the kicking of red heads, I haven't seen an
y mention of the Naples story so far and so it's not fair and balanced to comment on what they might use the story for. I'm sure that there are people who will haul out the old PC straw man and grumble about Jews looking for pity and I'm more sure that some Jewish parents will overreact and call for more than the one-day suspension handed out to 10pre -teens. For my part, I think the Jewish kids have learned a valuable lesson about living in a self-styled Christian Nation: Kick Back!
I had some idle thoughts about printing up some T-shirts and sending them over to Naples, but it's been done.
I think it may be a bit much at this point, to tie it to some sinister neo-Nazi or other anti-Semitic group. Still, some boys and girls were kicked and at that age, when peer approval is everything, the humiliation can be expected to matter a lot in their lives.
Although Fox News did comment on the kicking of red heads, I haven't seen an
y mention of the Naples story so far and so it's not fair and balanced to comment on what they might use the story for. I'm sure that there are people who will haul out the old PC straw man and grumble about Jews looking for pity and I'm more sure that some Jewish parents will overreact and call for more than the one-day suspension handed out to 10pre -teens. For my part, I think the Jewish kids have learned a valuable lesson about living in a self-styled Christian Nation: Kick Back!I had some idle thoughts about printing up some T-shirts and sending them over to Naples, but it's been done.
Alabama's Annual Archaeism
Despite its reputation as the buckle of the Bible Belt, Alabama's de facto state religion is college football. Today will see the ritual battle of our two main denominations in what has come to be known as the "Iron Bowl."
Auburn, located in a southern corner of the state, is a former agricultural school whose campus is a cultural island amid a sea of red state farmlands. The University of Alabama has a truly old campus in urban Tuscaloosa. Both are now premier universities sharing a century's history of big games and cult figures.
Among these is Paul "Bear" Bryant, the man in the houndstooth hat. Besides coaching Alabama to countless victories over the decades, Bryant was the first coach in the Southeastern Conference to recruit Black athletes. In fact, his decision in 1971 was something of a watershed for race relations in the south: by 1973, the entire SEC was integrated, and arch-segregationist George Wallace had opened Alabama's state government to Blacks.
But Bryant's biggest legacy is a tradition of victory. His iconography is ubiquitous; he is a patron saint to millions, always pictured wearing the hat. Indeed, Alabama's religion has created quite the consumer kitsch-culture, with flags mounted on vehicles year-round and large stickers proclaiming allegiances; but the big, recent trend is simply a magnetic sticker of the hat. Far less common are elephants, which were the team mascot long before Bryant was their coach.
Auburn fans have no shortage of this crass, commercial stuff either, and are never ashamed to display it with proud prominence. Upon entering the state, you will find it the color schemes of both teams everywhere, even in the most inappropriate places.
These bottles are incredibly common throughout the state. I've never found one that wasn't enshrined like a holy relic on mantle, shelf, or windowsill:
Alabama has the most national championships of any college team. Auburn has its share of glories, and among them is a (possibly apocryphal) game in which an eagle soared over the stadium as the team won a huge comeback upset of Alabama. The story led to Auburn's somewhat unique position of having two mascots: they are the Auburn Tigers, but the school keeps a live (rescued!) eagle on display.
The name for their rivalry, "Iron Bowl," is an archaeism. For decades, the game was held in neutral territory at Legion Field in Birmingham; apart from a sad Civil Rights legacy, the city is best known for having once been a major steel producer. Today, the largest foundry is a museum and concert location with a reputation for being haunted by the ghosts of non-union workers, but the name remains attached to this perennial battle. Perhaps it is fitting, as American football is a game of the industrial age.
Moreover, football is a creation of marketing. As I explained, both teams reinforce their rivalry with every sort of consumable. An exceedingly small sample of Alabama residents have ever visited, much less attended either university, yet I have seen couples break up and friendships end over this game. Tribalism is rampant, and encouraged.
Thus the Iron Bowl is our archaeic ritual sacrifice; it is surrounded by an industry of charms, wards, and icons. Despite the involvement of a Crimson Tide, precious little blood is spilt by these latter-day gladiators, who wear layers of high-impact plastic and protective padding. The church of football does not want victims, but fans; the libation is Gatorade and the offering is sweat.
If you visit this state, bear one cultural rule in mind: there are only two denominations of our state religion, and they are always at war. Rumors of a third option persist in the northern reaches around Huntsville, but these folk are held harmless cranks by most -- and heretics by some. Avoid a lynching by leaving your orange-and-white color schemes at home.
Auburn, located in a southern corner of the state, is a former agricultural school whose campus is a cultural island amid a sea of red state farmlands. The University of Alabama has a truly old campus in urban Tuscaloosa. Both are now premier universities sharing a century's history of big games and cult figures.
Among these is Paul "Bear" Bryant, the man in the houndstooth hat. Besides coaching Alabama to countless victories over the decades, Bryant was the first coach in the Southeastern Conference to recruit Black athletes. In fact, his decision in 1971 was something of a watershed for race relations in the south: by 1973, the entire SEC was integrated, and arch-segregationist George Wallace had opened Alabama's state government to Blacks.
But Bryant's biggest legacy is a tradition of victory. His iconography is ubiquitous; he is a patron saint to millions, always pictured wearing the hat. Indeed, Alabama's religion has created quite the consumer kitsch-culture, with flags mounted on vehicles year-round and large stickers proclaiming allegiances; but the big, recent trend is simply a magnetic sticker of the hat. Far less common are elephants, which were the team mascot long before Bryant was their coach.Auburn fans have no shortage of this crass, commercial stuff either, and are never ashamed to display it with proud prominence. Upon entering the state, you will find it the color schemes of both teams everywhere, even in the most inappropriate places.
These bottles are incredibly common throughout the state. I've never found one that wasn't enshrined like a holy relic on mantle, shelf, or windowsill:
Alabama has the most national championships of any college team. Auburn has its share of glories, and among them is a (possibly apocryphal) game in which an eagle soared over the stadium as the team won a huge comeback upset of Alabama. The story led to Auburn's somewhat unique position of having two mascots: they are the Auburn Tigers, but the school keeps a live (rescued!) eagle on display.The name for their rivalry, "Iron Bowl," is an archaeism. For decades, the game was held in neutral territory at Legion Field in Birmingham; apart from a sad Civil Rights legacy, the city is best known for having once been a major steel producer. Today, the largest foundry is a museum and concert location with a reputation for being haunted by the ghosts of non-union workers, but the name remains attached to this perennial battle. Perhaps it is fitting, as American football is a game of the industrial age.
Moreover, football is a creation of marketing. As I explained, both teams reinforce their rivalry with every sort of consumable. An exceedingly small sample of Alabama residents have ever visited, much less attended either university, yet I have seen couples break up and friendships end over this game. Tribalism is rampant, and encouraged.
Thus the Iron Bowl is our archaeic ritual sacrifice; it is surrounded by an industry of charms, wards, and icons. Despite the involvement of a Crimson Tide, precious little blood is spilt by these latter-day gladiators, who wear layers of high-impact plastic and protective padding. The church of football does not want victims, but fans; the libation is Gatorade and the offering is sweat.
If you visit this state, bear one cultural rule in mind: there are only two denominations of our state religion, and they are always at war. Rumors of a third option persist in the northern reaches around Huntsville, but these folk are held harmless cranks by most -- and heretics by some. Avoid a lynching by leaving your orange-and-white color schemes at home.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
HAPPY THANKSGIVING 2009
Yeah, yeah, I know! Same stoopid turkey photo as last year, but this year is my turn to prepare the family feast for twenty hungry humans, an armful … even for an (O)CT(O)PUS. Nevertheless, I would be remiss in my duties (Cthulhu forbid!) if I forgot to wish my fellow beachcombers a very Happy Thanksgiving!
So here is a holiday recipe for all fellow beachcombers and visiting trolls, my very own:
SWEET NOODLE PUDDING
4 eggs
1 cup orange juice (or any juice)
4 tablespoons sugar
1/4 teaspoon cinnamon
1/4 teaspoon ginger
Beat the eggs lightly and mix in the rest of the ingredients. Then add:
1/2 cup slivered almonds
1/2 cup candied citrus peels
1/2 cup raisons
Set aside this mixture and prepare the following:
1/2 lb (8oz) wide egg noodles
8 cups boiling water
1 teaspoon salt
Boil the noodles in water with salt for 7 to 8 minutes. Drain the noodles. To the mixture that has been set aside, add:
6 tablespoons margarine (cut into slices)
Add the noodles to the mixture and mix until the hot noodles have melted the margarine and all ingredients are evenly distributed. Transfer to a well-buttered bread pan and bake at 400 F for 45 minutes. This recipe is faster and easier than it looks and well worth it. Yumm!
Palining around with Terrorists
"I believe that the Jewish settlements should be allowed to be expanded upon, because that population of Israel is, is going to grow. More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead"said Miss Maverick to Barbara Walters, thinking as she does in lock step with the PsychoChristian Book of Revelation terrorist Church. At least this time she's speaking in almost understandable English rather than in tongues.
Like many euphemism addicts, she seems as well to avoid the use or the word Jew as though it were a socially offensive term, which it is not, but neither is it surprising that she has problems with Judaism, seeing Jews as anything but pawns or with the notion of a government that derives from the will of the governed.
I have to ask myself how we get a Maverick, a renegade or anything but a victim of another sort of politico-religious correctness in Sarah Palin. I have to ask myself how many Americans really want our foreign policy derived from John of Patmos or even Billy "The Jews are ruining the country" Graham, currently suffering from Alzheimer's, who she recently visited to get some guidance about what the Bible commands our country to do in Iraq, Iran and Israel.
I actually get a lot of amusement out of this breathless 2000 year "any minute now" wait, although horrors like Jonestown do put a damper on it. But face it, Palin is a rogue only in the sense of being an unprincipled, deceitful, and unreliable person; a scoundrel or rascal. She hasn't separated herself from the herd of regimented thinking, she's embraced myth as truth, defined a demented dogma as independent thinking and yearns for absolute theocratic rule as much as any medieval Pope -- and lower taxes for the rich who are more favored by God, of course. Most and worst of all, she is part of and is informed by a cult anticipating the greatest act of terrorism since Noah's Flood.
Sorry Sarah, Jesus has been here and gone. I'm not interested in your ambition to promote a war in the Middle East, I think Israel should stop building settlements in occupied land and that people should live in peace. I'm not converting to your hare-brained death cult and I'll be damned if I'm going to let you throw away two centuries of secular democracy. I'm not "flocking" to Israel, nor is anyone else and if there is some damned god who wants a war there, he'll have to start it himself.
Dana Perino and Junkyard Wars
So Dana Perino still isn't bowing out of her mission to defame the President who employs her. It's too breathlessly important to talk down the America that pays her salary; pays her excellent medical and dental plan that she would deny us, to bother to be consistent with what she just finished saying or with objective reality. Why should she, after all? She's preaching to her own demented and dishonest choir, none of whom is any smarter or more honest than she is.
A few days ago, it was wrong for President Obama to play golf because "there's a war on." Yesterday it was just fine to call him to task for not calling a shooting "terrorism" even though "there's a war on." Criticizing the President in time of "war" is only treason when the President is of their tribe, you know and it's never treason when Fox does it. Anything goes, you see, when you're blond and perky. Anything -- even forgetting that the 9/11 attacks were not only on George W. Bush's watch, but that George W. Bush wasn't actually watching and had effectively shot down those who were. But hey, that was history and history is a junkyard from which you take parts and assemble your own truth.
So why is it so important, other than for reasons of creating a religious war, to label the Fort Hood murders terrorism? So that she can pretend Bush was a protector and Obama is not. She needs a "terrorist" attack to create a false equivalence no matter how outrageously unequal it may be. In her little mind, your little mind will accept that the billions of dollars of destruction and the 3000 or so lives is equivalent to an American officer going wacko and shooting up his fellow soldiers and therefore Barack Obama is a failure.
What's in a name? Everything, it seems. The difference between death by friendly fire and terrorism is all in the politics of the beholder, whether or not the fire is friendly. If someone "fragged" his commanding officer, it's not terrorism and if Pat Tillman was shot by his own men, that's not terrorism either. Charles Manson isn't a terrorist, even though his mission was to strike terror into the hearts of white people and start a war. David Berkowitz wasn't a terrorist although he terrorized New York -- and why? A political football is not a football until someone kicks it and the Grand Old Fox has no interest in doing so unless it serves their need of supporting Republicans and toppling Democrats.
I've seen famous comedians booed off the stage for making mild jokes about George Bush, I've had death threats for saying Reagan had serious flaws. Where is the outrage now? Where is the response to such amateurish, clumsy and wildly dishonest propaganda coming, like foul breath, out of the mouths of Fox?
A few days ago, it was wrong for President Obama to play golf because "there's a war on." Yesterday it was just fine to call him to task for not calling a shooting "terrorism" even though "there's a war on." Criticizing the President in time of "war" is only treason when the President is of their tribe, you know and it's never treason when Fox does it. Anything goes, you see, when you're blond and perky. Anything -- even forgetting that the 9/11 attacks were not only on George W. Bush's watch, but that George W. Bush wasn't actually watching and had effectively shot down those who were. But hey, that was history and history is a junkyard from which you take parts and assemble your own truth.
"We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during president Bush's term,"Perino said to Sean 'Insanity' Hannity on Fox last night. The old Fox with the botox face didn't even flinch. She went on to politicize the shootings at Fort Hood by accusing Barack Obama of "politicizing" the shootings at Fort Hood by not calling the act of an American officer "terrorism" in advance of any evidence to back that up other than the man's religion.
So why is it so important, other than for reasons of creating a religious war, to label the Fort Hood murders terrorism? So that she can pretend Bush was a protector and Obama is not. She needs a "terrorist" attack to create a false equivalence no matter how outrageously unequal it may be. In her little mind, your little mind will accept that the billions of dollars of destruction and the 3000 or so lives is equivalent to an American officer going wacko and shooting up his fellow soldiers and therefore Barack Obama is a failure.
What's in a name? Everything, it seems. The difference between death by friendly fire and terrorism is all in the politics of the beholder, whether or not the fire is friendly. If someone "fragged" his commanding officer, it's not terrorism and if Pat Tillman was shot by his own men, that's not terrorism either. Charles Manson isn't a terrorist, even though his mission was to strike terror into the hearts of white people and start a war. David Berkowitz wasn't a terrorist although he terrorized New York -- and why? A political football is not a football until someone kicks it and the Grand Old Fox has no interest in doing so unless it serves their need of supporting Republicans and toppling Democrats.
I've seen famous comedians booed off the stage for making mild jokes about George Bush, I've had death threats for saying Reagan had serious flaws. Where is the outrage now? Where is the response to such amateurish, clumsy and wildly dishonest propaganda coming, like foul breath, out of the mouths of Fox?
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
BYE, BYE, MISS AMERICAN PIE - BYE, BYE TO LIBERAL MEDIA
Act 1: Last August, Comcast removed MSNBC from its Digital Starter Package and moved it to one of its premium offerings. Of course, Fox News remained in the basic Starter Package because Comcast is a conservative media conglomerate and wants to spread the Fox-Beck-Hannity-Billo message. According to beachwriter429 at Daily Kos:
Act 2: Some Daily Kos readers in the Jacksonville area ganged up on Comcast with a letter writing campaign. In response, Comcast restored MSNBC to all customers in the Jacksonville area and sent this reply (excerpt):
Except for the fact that Comcast customers in the suburban Philadelphia area still paying extra for MSNBC (and how many other markets that we don’t know about). Comcast = L I A R S !
Act 3: Advance the calendar to November 4, 2009. In the Pittsburgh area, MSNBC has been replaced by the Golf Channel. When an irate Comcast subscriber called to complain, this is what Comcast said:
Act 4: If you can’t beat them, buy them out:
Does this mean bye, bye to Keith Olbermann? Bye, bye to Rachel Maddow? Bye, bye to liberal media? Sorry folks, but this wave of media consolidations spells b-a-d * n-e-w-s ! Once MSNBC is gone, that leaves only us, the netroots community, to keep the liberal flame from flickering out.
What this means is that one now has to pay an additional $17 per month ($204 per year) to view anything progressive enough to even remotely balance out FNC's right wing extremism (…) The neighbor who alerted me to the situation is an attorney, and he thinks this appears to be to be an FCC/Fairness Doctrine violation.
Act 2: Some Daily Kos readers in the Jacksonville area ganged up on Comcast with a letter writing campaign. In response, Comcast restored MSNBC to all customers in the Jacksonville area and sent this reply (excerpt):
Thank you for the email. First and foremost, I wanted to let you know that today we restored access to MSNBC for all of our digital cable customers in the Jacksonville, Florida area (…) Please know that this week's disruption was not at all targeted at MSNBC - it was due to some changes to our digital channel security system (…) This issue was isolated to the Jacksonville area, and we have no reason to believe that Comcast customers in any other areas experienced any interruptions of MSNBC.
Except for the fact that Comcast customers in the suburban Philadelphia area still paying extra for MSNBC (and how many other markets that we don’t know about). Comcast = L I A R S !
Act 3: Advance the calendar to November 4, 2009. In the Pittsburgh area, MSNBC has been replaced by the Golf Channel. When an irate Comcast subscriber called to complain, this is what Comcast said:
I was told that at my level of service, basic cable, it is no longer available. No way can I afford to upgrade my service, (and nor would I....it is Comcast after all) so no more MSNBC for me (…) The agent on the phone also told me that Comcast had nothing to do with this decision, but that because MSNBC is a national cable network, it was no longer available in a non digital format. Oddly enough, CNN and Fox are still in the same place.
Act 4: If you can’t beat them, buy them out:
General Electric and the cable giant Comcast have moved closer to a deal giving control of NBC Universal to Comcast (…) After a series of meetings last week, the two companies reached a tentative agreement on Friday over the main points of a deal, these people said. Comcast would own about 51 percent of NBC Universal, contributing several billions of dollars in cash and its own stable of cable networks to the new venture (...) Other potential bidders have surfaced, including the News Corporation.
Does this mean bye, bye to Keith Olbermann? Bye, bye to Rachel Maddow? Bye, bye to liberal media? Sorry folks, but this wave of media consolidations spells b-a-d * n-e-w-s ! Once MSNBC is gone, that leaves only us, the netroots community, to keep the liberal flame from flickering out.
Rogue numbers
Would it really surprise anyone these days to see Fox News using stock footage from the Oklahoma land rush to show how many people "spontaneously" show up at a Fox planned and organized rally? It certainly doesn't surprise me when they fail to check out stories that appear on web sites or refuse to apologize when caught inventing stories like some city in Michigan "banning" Christmas. They know we're gullible and they know that if feels good to believe, it will be believed.
Still I'm ever amazed at their confidence in our gullibility and unquestioning belief. How many Fox friends looked at this and bothered to do the arithmetic? How many just saw it and thought " hey, that Sarah's gonna be our next President!"
Amazing.
Still I'm ever amazed at their confidence in our gullibility and unquestioning belief. How many Fox friends looked at this and bothered to do the arithmetic? How many just saw it and thought " hey, that Sarah's gonna be our next President!"
Amazing.
PARTITIONING THE INTERNET: WHERE PARTISANS AND MONOPOLISTS COLLUDE
Just when you thought hyper partisanship couldn’t get any worse, when the country wasn’t bitterly polarized enough, now we learn that there are forces in motion that threaten to divide the Internet. An unholy alliance between a monopolist and a news conglomerate wants to change Cyberspace.
In case you haven’t tracked this story, Rupert Murdoch wants to block Google’s search engine and prevent it from accessing all content from News Corporation. This means no more online access … at least through Google … to Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, the Times of London, or other company-owned content. Yes, you guessed it: Murdoch is exploring online payment models to boost revenues and will grant exclusive access to Microsoft’s search engine … in exchange for payment. And Microsoft does not mind hurting Google’s margins.
Of course, the Internet search engine market is not the only place where Google and Microsoft compete head to head. Recently, Google announced a new operating system, Chrome OS, that will compete against Windows in the web-enabled laptop market.
Implications? There is no telling where this all is going and how it will affect the future of the Internet. Does this mean an end to the Information Super Highway as monopolists carve it up to profit themselves? I have my suspicions. What are yours?
In case you haven’t tracked this story, Rupert Murdoch wants to block Google’s search engine and prevent it from accessing all content from News Corporation. This means no more online access … at least through Google … to Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, the Times of London, or other company-owned content. Yes, you guessed it: Murdoch is exploring online payment models to boost revenues and will grant exclusive access to Microsoft’s search engine … in exchange for payment. And Microsoft does not mind hurting Google’s margins.
Of course, the Internet search engine market is not the only place where Google and Microsoft compete head to head. Recently, Google announced a new operating system, Chrome OS, that will compete against Windows in the web-enabled laptop market.
Implications? There is no telling where this all is going and how it will affect the future of the Internet. Does this mean an end to the Information Super Highway as monopolists carve it up to profit themselves? I have my suspicions. What are yours?
Monday, November 23, 2009
Fox in the hen house
What the hell Barack Obama was thinking when he appointed Dana Perino to anything at all, I don't know. Raw Story says, with a bit of mockery, that she's staying true to her convictions but although that sort of thing is so often described as virtue, I have to remember that never changing one's mind and never changing the subject is the mark of the fanatic -- to put it politely. What was he thinking when he appointed a hostile and professional anti-regulatory, anti-government propagandist to the Broadcasting Board of Governors? She may cackle like a biddy, but she's a Fox in the hen house for sure.
I haven't heard the hortatory "there's a war on" trope for a while now, but here she is again on Fox News trying to use it to generate that same community spirit we had 65 years ago when there really was a war on that had something to do with national security and not another illegitimate, unnecessary and degenerating quagmire having little to do with anything but the ego of a president who never won anything fairly in his life. I have to wonder if the obscenely perky Ms. Perino actually knows enough about WW II to make a valid comparison.
You'll remember of course that last year as white house deputy press secretary, it came out that she'd never heard of the Cuban missile crisis, but with the arrogance only someone with the strength of conviction of the ignorant can have, she's chastising her boss by saying he shouldn't play golf "when there's a war on." and when unemployment is up - like it was under St. Reagan the infallible. He shouldn't keep the generals waiting she says, not remembering that if Kennedy hadn't keep his generals waiting, Florida might still be radioactive.
Funny stuff anyway, coming from a mouth that used so recently to tell us not to criticize the president when there's a war on. Disgusting stuff when that particular president set and still holds the US record for number of vacation days taken, morning runs, weeks accumulating into months of brush cutting and evenings passing out on the couch -- war or no war. Was Obama hoping to plant an ally of some sort in the Fox den? Sorry, you can feed it like a dog, but a Fox is a Fox.
No, it was OK for Bush to bicycle, jog, cut brush and pass out in front of the TV while hundreds of thousands died and millions were made homeless, It wasn't golf, that elitist game. It was OK for Ronald to sleep all afternoon when unemployment was 10.5% and there was "a war on" in Granada but Obama should not have a break, or get a break either -- because he's Obama.
For someone who clearly remembers the way the warhawks went after Dwight Eisenhower for dithering and playing golf instead of addressing the missile gap that never really was, it's amusing and infuriating at the same time, since his greatest strength, in my opinion, was his resistance to being rushed or bullied by the Generals. It's also amusing to remember that Lyndon Johnson played golf when a far bigger and deadlier war was "on" and you didn't hear much about it from the support-any war-Republicans.
All and all, she's just another yipping Fox Friend, with the annoying self confidence of those born yesterday. She belongs with Fox and along with Malkin and Coulter and giggling Glenn, not working for a government she hates.
What the hell was he thinking?
I haven't heard the hortatory "there's a war on" trope for a while now, but here she is again on Fox News trying to use it to generate that same community spirit we had 65 years ago when there really was a war on that had something to do with national security and not another illegitimate, unnecessary and degenerating quagmire having little to do with anything but the ego of a president who never won anything fairly in his life. I have to wonder if the obscenely perky Ms. Perino actually knows enough about WW II to make a valid comparison.
You'll remember of course that last year as white house deputy press secretary, it came out that she'd never heard of the Cuban missile crisis, but with the arrogance only someone with the strength of conviction of the ignorant can have, she's chastising her boss by saying he shouldn't play golf "when there's a war on." and when unemployment is up - like it was under St. Reagan the infallible. He shouldn't keep the generals waiting she says, not remembering that if Kennedy hadn't keep his generals waiting, Florida might still be radioactive.
Funny stuff anyway, coming from a mouth that used so recently to tell us not to criticize the president when there's a war on. Disgusting stuff when that particular president set and still holds the US record for number of vacation days taken, morning runs, weeks accumulating into months of brush cutting and evenings passing out on the couch -- war or no war. Was Obama hoping to plant an ally of some sort in the Fox den? Sorry, you can feed it like a dog, but a Fox is a Fox.
"In fact, I think President Obama has already played golf more than President Bush did in eight years. I don't begrudge him for playing golf but you have to understand when you have the B roll of the video that shows the president playing golf while there is a 10.2% unemployment rate, while his senators are basically having to twist arms in order to get this party line vote, while KSM is headed to New York City for trials, while we have the Gitmo detainees possibly coming to Illinois — they have to understand that people could look at that and say, 'Oh, and by the way General McChrystal has been waiting 86 days for a decision about Afghanistan."She twittered to Steve Doocy of Fox and Friends infamy. This, from someone who told us that global warming would be good because fewer people would get colds and who doesn't remember how unemployment went from just over 6% to as high as it is now under St. Reagan the faultless.
No, it was OK for Bush to bicycle, jog, cut brush and pass out in front of the TV while hundreds of thousands died and millions were made homeless, It wasn't golf, that elitist game. It was OK for Ronald to sleep all afternoon when unemployment was 10.5% and there was "a war on" in Granada but Obama should not have a break, or get a break either -- because he's Obama.
For someone who clearly remembers the way the warhawks went after Dwight Eisenhower for dithering and playing golf instead of addressing the missile gap that never really was, it's amusing and infuriating at the same time, since his greatest strength, in my opinion, was his resistance to being rushed or bullied by the Generals. It's also amusing to remember that Lyndon Johnson played golf when a far bigger and deadlier war was "on" and you didn't hear much about it from the support-any war-Republicans.
All and all, she's just another yipping Fox Friend, with the annoying self confidence of those born yesterday. She belongs with Fox and along with Malkin and Coulter and giggling Glenn, not working for a government she hates.
What the hell was he thinking?
Dr. Joseph Suglia Reviews "Going Rogue"
Dr. Joseph Suglia, PhD, is the author of two critically-acclaimed literary novels: Years of Rage
GOING ROGUE / GOING ROUGE
by Dr. Joseph Suglia
The title of Sarah Palin’s martyrology, GOING ROGUE (2009), is richly significant. “Rogue” can mean “renegade” and thus point to Palin’s illusory departure from the ever-redefinable “political” and “media elites,” as well as from the McCain camp. Reactionary politicians, these days, like to style themselves as “mavericks”—when, in fact, they represent this country’s most powerful insiders. They endorse tax cuts for the affluent; they serve the gluttonies of the wealthiest financiers, corporate executive officers, and industrialists in America.
A slight logogriphic substitution would transform “rogue” into “rouge.” The title, then, could be rendered: THE REDDENING OF SARAH PALIN. Red, obviously, is the color of the Republican Party, but it is also a highly sexual color and evokes the menses. (“Rouge,” in particular, recalls a shade of lipstick. Would “rouge” refer to the pig’s lipstick-smeared mouth?). It is, as well, the color of fury, of blood, of rapine and viciousness. It is the color of ecclesiastics, of cardinals. In the iconography of National Socialism, black swastikas were emblazoned on red backgrounds.
This is a book that is drenched in red.
There is discussion of the animals Sarah Palin enjoys slaughtering, the caribou and moose she takes pleasure in shooting, the salmon she skins and guts. A photograph of the Arctic Huntress beaming with the psychosexual thrill that comes from killing game, the bloodied corpse of a caribou under her heel. “I love meat... [I] especially love moose and caribou. I always remind people from outside our state that there’s plenty of room for all Alaska’s animals—right next to the mashed potatoes” [18-19]. Little commentary is required; what is said is clear. The only room for animals, even endangered animals, is inside of us. Kill animals and then internalize them, kill animals that prey upon those other animals we want to internalize: “[W]e HAD to control predators, such as wolves, that were decimating the moose and caribou herds that feed our communities” [134].
I wish someone would tell Sarah Palin that “to decimate” means “to kill every tenth being.”
Sarah Palin thinks that animals exist only in order to be devoured by human beings. That is their purpose, their end, their divinely ordained telos. Like a “red kite” [83], Sarah Palin’s mind is connected by an invisible string to the mind of God: “If God had not intended for us to eat animals, how come He made them out of meat?” [133; in italics].
In other words,
1.) Animals can be meat—meat that is devoured by human beings.
2.) Therefore, animals exist only to be devoured by human beings.
We have here both a non sequitur and a teleological argument. It is equivalent to saying:
1.) The human genitalia may be used for rape.
2.) Therefore, the human genitalia exist only for the purpose of rape.
Red, in this context, connotes the blood of animals. It also denotes shame. One is reminded of the red face of the unnamed Alaskan politician who observes Sarah Palin with horror as she gleefully breastfeeds her daughter on a radio program: “I acted like I didn’t see the shocked look on the politician’s face as he turned red and pretended it didn’t bother him at all” [67]. A flocculent creaminess mingles with the blood that rises to the politician’s cheeks.
The color red reappears when Sarah Palin douses herself, Countess Bathory style, in the blood of political martyrdom or of “the popular political blood sport called ‘the politics of personal destruction’” [352]. Seldom has self-imposed victimhood been exploited so meretriciously as it is here. Sarah Palin bemoans the fact that she was “slapped with an ethics accusation” [355]. And yet WHICH “ethics accusation,” precisely? There are many. That she misappropriated her governorship for personal and political gain? That she used the Alaska Fund Trust to cadge gifts and benefits? She never tells us. She merely dismisses all ethical grievances as personal attacks issued by the monolithic Left: “One of the left’s favorite weapons is frivolous ethics complaints” [363].
Sarah Palin’s silence over her ethical misconduct is only one of the many silences that perforate GOING ROGUE. She never attempts to wash away the record of her ignorance of Africa, the Bush doctrine, or NAFTA. Certain things are so shameful that they cannot be erased with lies. Let me cite one more instance of this studied silence: As Mayor, our gentle authoress called for the banning of “objectionable” books from the Wasilla Public Library. She claims to have merely asked librarian Mary Ellen Emmons, “What’s the common policy on selecting new titles?” [77]. And yet nowhere does Sarah Palin, meek and mild, mention that she fired Mary Ellen Emmons two days after this conversation took place. So many of this book’s pages are devoted to assaulting her critics (169 out of 234, by my count), but those criticisms for which she has no rejoinder, those words and actions that are truly indefensible and cannot be mangled and distorted, are consigned to a willful silence.
Sarah Palin is a ventriloquist’s doll, a cue-card reader, a red harpy, a Venus in Carmine.
Dr. Joseph Suglia
NEW MAMMOGRAM GUIDELINES: MORE NOISE THAN SCIENCE
Last week, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force issued new mammogram screening guidelines that have stirred considerable controversy in political and scientific circles. If the taskforce report were credible and convincing, there would be no need to suspect a hidden motive. However, these findings are deeply flawed and highly suspect. Here is a synopsis of findings released by the taskforce:
According to the taskforce: If you screen 1,904 women in the 40 to 49 year-old age group, there is a high probability of preventing one cancer death. Similarly, to prevent one cancer death in the 50s age group, you would have to screen 1,339 women. It goes without saying that cancer risks increase with age, meaning that women in older age groups are more likely to test positive for cancer than women in younger age groups.
With simple arithmetic, you can estimate how many lives per million can be saved. For women in the 40s age group: If you screen 1,904 women to save one life, it is reasonable to assume that you can save 525 lives if a million women were screened. What does this mean when applied to the U.S. population? According to the U.S. Census Bureau (Table 1), there are 22,346,000 women in the 40s age group (14.7%). When you divide this population by 1,904, the probabilistic number of lives that can be saved is 11,736.
If you accept this assumption, then you cannot accept these findings of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which state (source):
In other words, the taskforce recommends no mammogram screenings for women in the 40s age group and no breast self-examinations for women of any age. Why? According to the study panel, the relative risks outweigh the benefits, i.e., risk factors such as false-positive test results, anxiety, and pain from increased biopsy rates resulting from over-diagnoses. Yet, there are contradictory statements within the taskforce report, such as:
On one hand, the study panel recommends a reduced screening regimen for women in the 40s age group yet attributes reductions in mortality to a “combination of mammography screening with improved treatment.” How contradictory!
If you think these conclusions are strange, the measurements of relative risks are even more contradictory. According to the taskforce report, the relative risks are virtually identical for both groups: 15% for the 40s age group, and 14% for the 50s group. In other words, the tradeoff is more peace of mind within the context of “ignorance is bliss.” Either the data are internally inconsistent, or the conclusions contradict the data, or Aesop wrote the final study report.
A few words about methods and statistics: It seems different branches of the federal government employ different research protocols. If this were the FDA, for instance, no report would pass muster if it did not include at least one domestic study covering these age distributions. The USPSTF report includes only one domestic study for the 40s age group, but none covering the 50s age group. Other meta-analyses are based on non-domestic data sets that are less representative of U.S. population demographics.
Furthermore, the USPSTF report applies less than rigorous statistical methods. For example, the study panel uses the term “credible interval” instead of the more conventional term “confidence interval” as a measure of statistical validity. By definition, the term “credible interval” is a subjective subset of the confidence interval … implying considerable wiggle room to employ a fudge factor when one wants to force data into a preconceived conclusion.
Why are substandard study methods and statistics being used to justify new mammogram screening guidelines? Consider this comment by one of our Swash Zone writers under my last post on this subject (link):
What do you get when junk science conspires with junk journalism? You get editorials like this one from the New York Times:
Unless, of course, the findings of the taskforce are specious and suspicious.
Credit: (O)CT(O)PUS
According to the taskforce: If you screen 1,904 women in the 40 to 49 year-old age group, there is a high probability of preventing one cancer death. Similarly, to prevent one cancer death in the 50s age group, you would have to screen 1,339 women. It goes without saying that cancer risks increase with age, meaning that women in older age groups are more likely to test positive for cancer than women in younger age groups.
With simple arithmetic, you can estimate how many lives per million can be saved. For women in the 40s age group: If you screen 1,904 women to save one life, it is reasonable to assume that you can save 525 lives if a million women were screened. What does this mean when applied to the U.S. population? According to the U.S. Census Bureau (Table 1), there are 22,346,000 women in the 40s age group (14.7%). When you divide this population by 1,904, the probabilistic number of lives that can be saved is 11,736.
If you accept this assumption, then you cannot accept these findings of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which state (source):
The USPSTF recommends against routine screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49 years (...) This is a C recommendation.
The USPSTF recommends against teaching breast self-examination (BSE). This is a D recommendation.
In other words, the taskforce recommends no mammogram screenings for women in the 40s age group and no breast self-examinations for women of any age. Why? According to the study panel, the relative risks outweigh the benefits, i.e., risk factors such as false-positive test results, anxiety, and pain from increased biopsy rates resulting from over-diagnoses. Yet, there are contradictory statements within the taskforce report, such as:
Breast cancer mortality has been decreasing since 1990 by 2.3% per year overall and by 3.3% for women aged 40 to 50 years. This decrease is largely attributed to the combination of mammography screening with improved treatment.
On one hand, the study panel recommends a reduced screening regimen for women in the 40s age group yet attributes reductions in mortality to a “combination of mammography screening with improved treatment.” How contradictory!
If you think these conclusions are strange, the measurements of relative risks are even more contradictory. According to the taskforce report, the relative risks are virtually identical for both groups: 15% for the 40s age group, and 14% for the 50s group. In other words, the tradeoff is more peace of mind within the context of “ignorance is bliss.” Either the data are internally inconsistent, or the conclusions contradict the data, or Aesop wrote the final study report.
A few words about methods and statistics: It seems different branches of the federal government employ different research protocols. If this were the FDA, for instance, no report would pass muster if it did not include at least one domestic study covering these age distributions. The USPSTF report includes only one domestic study for the 40s age group, but none covering the 50s age group. Other meta-analyses are based on non-domestic data sets that are less representative of U.S. population demographics.
Furthermore, the USPSTF report applies less than rigorous statistical methods. For example, the study panel uses the term “credible interval” instead of the more conventional term “confidence interval” as a measure of statistical validity. By definition, the term “credible interval” is a subjective subset of the confidence interval … implying considerable wiggle room to employ a fudge factor when one wants to force data into a preconceived conclusion.
Why are substandard study methods and statistics being used to justify new mammogram screening guidelines? Consider this comment by one of our Swash Zone writers under my last post on this subject (link):
maleeper (@11:02 AM, November 20, 2009): “Thanks for raising the issue of the USPSTF ill-advised report on breast cancer. The study was commissioned during the Bush administration, which may be why no oncologists or radio-therapists served on the study panel.
According to the American College of Radiology, the USPSTF recommendations ignored direct scientific evidence from large clinical trials and "also ignored peer reviewed journal articles that critqued studies on which their recommendations rely."
One trial that was used for the study was translated from Russian to English so that it could be used in the study, while many reputable articles were ignored.
Such selectivity in sources cited leads me to believe that the taskforce may have decided the results it wanted ahead of time, since they clearly will save money for insurance companies for a few years. The USPSTF panel then found studies to back up their assumptions, regardless of the cost of human life.
What do you get when junk science conspires with junk journalism? You get editorials like this one from the New York Times:
There is nothing wrong with a healthy public debate about mammography within the medical community and among women who must decide when and how often to get screened. It should not be injected into the partisan debate over health care reform.
Unless, of course, the findings of the taskforce are specious and suspicious.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
THE LOOMING UNEMPLOYMENT BOMB
When you look at this multimedia visualization, you can see why joblessness represents an even bigger threat to economic recovery than the credit crisis that triggered this mess. Watch the black death of unemployment sweep over the country in 30 seconds or less. And notice the data feed: It does not even include the latest unemployment figures. The visualization gives you a snapshot through September 2009 when the unemployment rate reached 8.5 percent. Not shown: The current unemployment rate is 10.2 percent and still rising.
The key phrase is “double dip.” Unless the job situation improves soon, the economy may slide into a second recession … deeper and more intractable than the first.
The key phrase is “double dip.” Unless the job situation improves soon, the economy may slide into a second recession … deeper and more intractable than the first.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
NEW MAMMOGRAPHY GUIDELINES: FIRST IMPRESSIONS
About the new guidelines for breast cancer screening, the American Cancer Society, the American College of Radiology (ACR), and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), among others, find the new recommendations “objectionable.”
Shawn Farley, the director of public affairs for ACR, says: :
And here is the most damnable part: Not one, I repeat, NOT ONE oncologist served on the panel that recommended those revisions. To quote the source: “Let us just hope that our mostly male legislators and insurance CEOs have women that they are very fond of, and will work to protect this group of mostly female victims.” Never count on the goodwill of sexist pigs ... especially insurance company pigs and their Congre$$ional lackeys.
This post is a work-in-progress. Please look for a more detailed analysis on Monday.
Shawn Farley, the director of public affairs for ACR, says: :
"If the USTSF recommendations are adopted as policy — particularly if Medicare and private insurers try to use them as an excuse to cut cost — many women will die unnecessarily from breast cancer (...) The treatment costs associated with the disease may rise because cancers would be found at a more advanced stage. For those women diagnosed at a later stage, they may experience more invasive techniques to remove the cancers because the disease is more advanced."
And here is the most damnable part: Not one, I repeat, NOT ONE oncologist served on the panel that recommended those revisions. To quote the source: “Let us just hope that our mostly male legislators and insurance CEOs have women that they are very fond of, and will work to protect this group of mostly female victims.” Never count on the goodwill of sexist pigs ... especially insurance company pigs and their Congre$$ional lackeys.
This post is a work-in-progress. Please look for a more detailed analysis on Monday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)