The instant gratification of political gossip vs slow writing

I was rushing around town today running errands and was too busy to blog. But, apart from that fact, I also found no political gossip that interested me today. I almost resorted to posting pictures of living rooms but then I thought: "I'll just post what I did find interesting. This is not a political blog per se."

And that's the way it will be from now on. If there's interesting political gossip, I'll yak about that but I've got a few longer posts that I am working on. They may not provide the instant gratification (such as getting comments) the way that political gossip does but they are more gratifying in the long run.

The rise and fall of anti-depressant medications

Jonah Lehrer:

Sharon Begley has an excellent Newsweek cover story on the rise and fall of anti-depressant medications, or how a class of drugs that were once hailed as medical miracles are now seen as barely better than placebos:

In just over half of the published and unpublished studies, Kirsch and colleagues reported in 2002, the drug alleviated depression no better than a placebo. "And the extra benefit of antidepressants was even less than we saw when we analyzed only published studies," Kirsch recalls. About 82 percent of the response to antidepressants--not the 75 percent he had calculated from examining only published studies--had also been achieved by a dummy pill.

The extra effect of real drugs wasn't much to celebrate, either. It amounted to 1.8 points on the 54-point scale doctors use to gauge the severity of depression, through questions about mood, sleep habits, and the like. Sleeping better counts as six points. Being less fidgety during the assessment is worth two points. In other words, the clinical significance of the 1.8 extra points from real drugs was underwhelming. Now Kirsch was certain. "The belief that antidepressants can cure depression chemically is simply wrong," he told me in January on the eve of the publication of his book The Emperor's New Drugs: Exploding the Anti-depressant Myth.

The 2002 study ignited a furious debate, but more and more scientists were becoming convinced that Kirsch--who had won respect for research on the placebo response and who had published scores of scientific papers--was on to something. One team of researchers wondered if antidepressants were "a triumph of marketing over science." Even defenders of antidepressants agreed that the drugs have "relatively small" effects. "Many have long been unimpressed by the magnitude of the differences observed between treatments and controls," psychology researcher Steven Hollon of Vanderbilt University and colleagues wrote--"what some of our colleagues refer to as 'the dirty little secret.' " In Britain, the agency that assesses which treatments are effective enough for the government to pay for stopped recommending antidepressants as a first-line treatment, especially for mild or moderate depression.

I'm currently working on a longer article on a related subject, so I won't go into detail here, but I think it's worth pointing out that anti-depressants might still prove to be a very useful class of drugs, just not for depression. To understand why, it's important to realize that antidepressants don't work the way the way the big pharm companies tell you they work, at least on their websites.

Their neat little story goes like this: antidepressants increase the brain's supply of serotonin, thus correcting our chemical imbalance. This implies that sadness is simply a lack of chemical happiness. The little blue pills cheer us up because they give the brain what it has been missing.

There's only one problem with this theory of depression: it's almost certainly wrong, or at the very least woefully incomplete. Experiments have since shown that lowering people's serotonin levels does not make them depressed, nor does it worsen their symptoms if they are already depressed.

Lehrer goes on to quote studies that show that the serotonin-stimulating drugs may have other uses. I have always contended that the anti-depressants are no substitute for practical treatment such as cognitive therapy:

Cognitive therapy seeks to help the client overcome difficulties by identifying and changing dysfunctional thinking, behavior, and emotional responses. This involves helping clients develop skills for modifying beliefs, identifying distorted thinking, relating to others in different ways, and changing behaviors.

In other words: doing some house-cleaning in your mind; developing positive thinking instead of being trapped in negative concepts.

Robert Lanza: "Biocentrism"

I read this article by Lanza:

We think our destiny is to journey to Mars and beyond. Yet as we build our spacecraft, we're about to be broadsided - from a different direction - by the most explosive event in history.
...
But it won't be rockets that take us the next step. The long-sought Theory of Everything was merely missing a component that was too close for us to have noticed. Some of the thrill that came with the announcement that the human genome had been mapped or the idea that we're close to understanding the Big Bang rests in our innate human desire for completeness and totality. But most of these comprehensive theories fail to take into account one crucial factor: We're creating them. It's the biological creature that fashions the stories, that makes the observations, and that gives names to things. And therein lies the great expanse of our oversight, that until now, science hasn't confronted the one thing that's at once most familiar and most mysterious - consciousness.

Reality is simply an information system that involves our consciousness.

That's a lot like the Hindu concept of maya: that this world is an illusion which we create from our desires. I find that a fascinating theory so I decided to take a look at who Lanza is and what he means by "biocentrism."

The word maya is Sanskrit for past/future. There is a Hindu myth that tells the origin of the word and is similar to our story of the Fall of Adam and Eve.

The Hindu "Adam and Eve" were living in the Hindu version of the Garden of Eden. They lived in timeless bliss, the eternal present until "Eve" decided to look back at something she had just seen and she pointed backwards and said to "Adam" "ma." That then made her wonder what was to come so she looked forwards and said to "Adam" "ya." By becoming aware of the past and the future, they both fell from grace and eternal bliss into the illusion (maya) of time and therefore death.

One of the articles that I found when Googling Lanza was "Does death exist?"

One well-known aspect of quantum physics is that certain observations cannot be predicted absolutely. Instead, there is a range of possible observations each with a different probability.
...
Everything you see and experience right now is a whirl of information occurring in your mind. Space and time are simply the tools for putting everything together.

Death does not exist in a timeless, spaceless world. In the end, even Einstein admitted, "Now Besso" (an old friend) "has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us...know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." Immortality doesn't mean a perpetual existence in time without end, but rather resides outside of time altogether.

I think I will read more by Lanza.

The GOP's answer to Obama's "bipartisan health summit" invitation

Stick it where the sun don't shine.

Not really; they were much more polite. It begins:

We welcome President Obama’s announcement of forthcoming bipartisan health care talks. In fact, you may remember that last May, Republicans asked President Obama to hold bipartisan discussions on health care in an attempt to find common ground on health care, but he declined and instead chose to work with only Democrats.

There's a lot more politeness (and politicking) where that came from.

Daily duh! Why Liberal Arts Profs Are "Liberal"

Jonah Goldberg:

While reading about that ISI study mentioned below, I stumbled on a link to this essay over at the Chronicle of Higher Education by Jere P. Surber. It's title: "Well, Naturally We're Liberal." It's an interesting read, chiefly for its honesty. Professor Surber offers three reasons for why liberal arts professors lean left. I like his first reason a lot: Envy.

Oh he doesn't use the E-word, but it's pretty clear that's what he's getting at. He writes (emphasis mine):

First, as the Times article notes, virtually all instructors in the liberal arts are aware of the disparity between their level of education and their financial situation. There's no secret that the liberal arts are the lowest-compensated sector of academe, despite substantially more advanced study than business instructors and the equivalent of those in the natural sciences. Just as important, there are few opportunities for liberal-arts scholars to supplement their incomes by serving on government and corporate boards, filing patents and licenses, and, of course, obtaining generous research grants. You don't have to be a militant Marxist to recognize that people's political persuasions will align pretty well with their economic interests. It's real simple: Those who have less and want more will tend to support social changes that promise to accomplish that; those who are already economic winners will want to conserve their status.

There's much more at the link. The basic motivation of all Marxists is envy.

Ryan's "Roadmap for America's Future"

George Will:

[I]n January 2010, Ryan released an updated version of his "Roadmap for America's Future," a cure for the most completely predictable major problem that has ever afflicted America.
...
To make the economy -- on which all else hinges -- hum, Ryan proposes tax reform. Masochists would be permitted to continue paying income taxes under the current system. Others could use a radically simplified code, filing a form that fits on a postcard. It would have just two rates: 10 percent on incomes up to $100,000 for joint filers and $50,000 for single filers; 25 percent on higher incomes. There would be no deductions, credits or exclusions, other than the health-care tax credit (see below).
...
Ryan would eliminate taxes on interest, capital gains, dividends and death. The corporate income tax, the world's second-highest, would be replaced by an 8.5 percent business consumption tax. Because this would be about half the average tax burden that other nations place on corporations, U.S. companies would instantly become more competitive -- and more able and eager to hire.
...

Medicare and Social Security would be preserved for those currently receiving benefits or becoming eligible in the next 10 years (those 55 and older today). Both programs would be made permanently solvent.

Universal access to affordable health care would be guaranteed by refundable tax credits ($2,300 for individuals, $5,700 for families) for purchasing portable coverage in any state. As persons younger than 55 became Medicare-eligible, they would receive payments averaging $11,000 a year, indexed to inflation and pegged to income, with low-income people receiving more support.

Ryan's plan would fund medical savings accounts from which low-income people would pay minor out-of-pocket expenses. All Americans, regardless of income, would be allowed to establish MSAs -- tax-preferred accounts for paying such expenses.

There's more good stuff there.

PS Kathryn Jean Lopez got a great email:

Rush made the point this morning that Republicans should JUST SAY NO
to Obama's transparent attempt to put them in the corner as
obstructionists with his TV gambit. There's no way that 535 members
and senators can succeed in a meaningful dialogue with one guy,
especially when that one guy is the president. But if they are
incapable of just saying no, then this might be even better: Inform
the president that since it's impossible for 535 to engage in a
meaningful back and forth dialogue, they have appointed Paul Ryan as
their spokesman for the purpose of discussing health care, and then
take the president up on his invitation to talk — but that the
conversation will be with Ryan one-on-one for five televised hours.

Fit as a fiddle

I don't know if it's regular Western meds or the herbal remedies that have made me feel better because I started taking them at the same time just over a week ago but I'm really feeling better than I have in years.

Fit as a fiddle and ready for love.
I can jump over the moon up above.
Fit as a fiddle and ready for love!

I haven't a worry, I haven't a care,
I feel like a feather that's floating on air,
Fit as a fiddle and ready for love!

Donald O'Connor and Gene Kelley sing "Fit as a Fiddle" in "Singin' in the Rain":

Beer good for bones

That's good news!

If you downed one too many while watching the Super Bowl, here's at least one reason to hold your head high: Drinking beer can be good for your health.

But seriously, a new analysis of 100 commercial beers shows the hoppy beverage is a significant source of dietary silicon, a key ingredient for bone health.
...
The silicon levels of beer types, on average:

* Indian Pale Ale (IPA): 41.2 mg/L
* Ales: 32.8 mg/L
* Pale Ale: 36.5 mg/L
* Sorghum: 27.3 mg/L
* Lagers: 23.7 mg/L
* Wheat: 18.9 mg/L
* Light lagers: 17.2 mg/L
* Non Alcoholic: 16.3 mg/L

Their research showed the malting process didn't affect barley's silicon content, which is mostly in the grain's husk. However, pale-colored malts had more silicon than the darker products, such as the chocolate, roasted barley and black malt, which all have substantial roasting. The scientists aren't sure why these darker malts have less silicon than other malts.
...
"Beers containing high levels of malted barley and hops are richest in silicon," Bamforth said. "Wheat contains less silicon than barley because it is the husk of the barley that is rich in this element. While most of the silicon remains in the husk during brewing, significant quantities of silicon nonetheless are extracted into wort and much of this survives into beer."

(Wort is the sweet liquid that comes from mashing the grains and eventually becomes beer.)
...
The type of silicon in beer, called orthosilicic acid, has a 50 percent bioavailability, meaning that much is available for use in the body. Some foods, like bananas are rich in silicon but only 5 percent is bioavailable.

Well, I like bananas and beer. And I prefer pale ales to dark beers. I also prefer barley beers to wheat beers. So I guess I won't have to worry about my old bones.

Murtha dead

As Bette Davis said when Joan Crawford died: "My mother told me never to say anything bad about the dead. So I say: 'Good!'

And I say good riddance and may he rest in peace - he needs it.

Obama pays back his puppet-master, Soros

I got this in my email this morning:

This is a perfect example why people refrain from watching the news on CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, or MSNBC.

Today on a segment of the "Glen Beck Show" on FOX (Fox Cable News) was the following:

"Today, even though President Obama is against offshore drilling for our country, (The United States) he signed an executive order to loan 2 Billion of our taxpayer US Dollars to a Brazilian Oil Exploration Company (which is the 8th largest company in the entire world) to drill for oil off the coast of Brazil ! The oil that comes from this operation is for the sole purpose and use of China and NOT THE USA! Now here's the real clincher...the Chinese government is under contract to purchase all of the oil that this oil field will produce, which is hundreds of millions of barrels of oil."

We have absolutely no gain from this transaction whatsoever! Are we Fools?

Wait, it gets more interesting!

Guess who the largest individual stockholder of this Brazilian Oil Company is and who would benefit most from this transaction? It is American BILLIONAIRE, George Soros, who was one of President Obama's most generous financial supporters during his campaign. Now -- IF you are able to connect the dots and follow the money, you will witness the Truth!

Not a word of this transaction was broadcast on any of the other News Networks! (Friday - January 15, 2010)

Forward this factual E-mail to everyone you know who cares about this country called the United States of America -- and where it is going. Also, Please let all of your Government representatives know how you feel about this.

Here is the Wall street Journal article to confirm this.

I checked the Soros connection and sure enough according to Bloomberg: Soros Hedge Fund Bought Petrobras Stake Worth $811 Million.

The redneck teleprompter

That's what Kate McMillan call's Palin's hand notes.

Quote for the day

I fpou8nd thisd at Boortz who does not give a link to the article. Burt Prelutsky in the LATimes:

Frankly, I don't know what it is about California , but we seem to have a strange urge to elect really obnoxious women to high office. I'm not bragging, you understand, but no other state, including Maine, even comes close. When it comes to sending left-wing dingbats to Washington, we're number one. There's no getting around the fact that the last time anyone saw the likes of Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, and Nancy Pelosi, they were stirring a cauldron when the curtain went up on 'Macbeth'. The three of them are like jackasses who happen to possess the gift of blab. You don't know if you should condemn them for their stupidity or simply marvel at their ability to form words.

The funny thing is that I was just thinking the same thing about Oregon Democrats. Every time I see one of them on TV, my testicles shrivel up because they are so damn creepy looking. Most of them look like pod people from "The Invasion of the Body Snatchers."

The Boy Scouts are 100 years old

Well, the American organization is; most boy scouts are tweens and teens of course.

Today the BSA celebrates its centennial:

They are young symbols of virtue: honest, trustworthy, doers of good deeds and builders of campfires. For a century, the national organization Boy Scouts of America has been living its pledge to do its duty for God and country.

But the Boy Scouts were actually founded long before that in England:

According to Boy Scout lore, American W.B. Boyce was given directions by a young man after becoming lost in a London fog. The boy refused a tip for the good deed, saying he was a Scout. Boyce was so impressed by the young man's actions that he brought scouting to America in 1910.

But scouting really does have its roots in the USA:

BSA had two notable predecessors in the United States: the Woodcraft Indians started by Ernest Thompson Seton in 1902 and the Sons of Daniel Boone founded by Daniel Carter Beard in 1905. In 1907, British General Robert Baden-Powell founded the Scouting movement in England using elements of Seton's works.

Lord Baden-Powell was inspired to create the Boy Scouts while serving in the British Army bny his experiences during the Boer war in South Africa:

In 1899, during the Second Boer War in South Africa, Baden-Powell successfully defended the town in the Siege of Mafeking. Several of his military books, written for military reconnaissance and scout training in his African years, were also read by boys.

I joined the Boy Scouts as a Cub when I was 6 years old. My first assignment was to grow a bean in a pot. I cut a twig off a bush in our yard. The bean grew and I got my badge. But the twig also grew into a beautiful hibiscus bush and I was told that I had a green thumb. That may not have been true before being told that but it sure made it true afterwards. And I learned what a green thumb means. It's pretty simple and is a not a gift. It just means water your plants regularly.

Palin's Tea Party speech

I found a transcript at a blog to which I will not link. Here's part of it:

And so in 2010, I tip my hat to anyone with the courage to throw theirs in the ring, and may the best ideas and candidates win.

But while I hope that you’re going to give these candidates that you chose your best effort, please understand that they’re human. There’s no perfect candidate, and they’re going to disappoint occasionally. And when they do, let them know, but don’t get discouraged and sit it out, because the stakes are too high. The stakes are too high right now, and your voice is too important. So work hard for these candidates, but put your faith in ideas.

And in that spirit, I caution against allowing this movement by be defined by any one leader or politician. The Tea Party movement is not a top-down operation. It’s a ground-up call to action that is forcing both parties to change the way they are doing business, and that’s beautiful. This is about the people! This is about the people, and it’s bigger than any king or queen of a Tea Party. And it’s a lot bigger than any charismatic guy with a teleprompter.

The soul of this movement is the people—everyday Americans who grow our food and run our small businesses, and teach our kids, and fight our wars. They’re folks in small towns and cities across this great nation who saw what was happening, and they saw, and they were concerned, and they got involved. Like you, they go to town hall meetings, and they write op-eds. They run for local office. You all have the courage to stand up and speak out. You have a vision for the future—one that values conservative principles and common sense solutions. And if that sounds like you, then you probably too are feeling a bit discouraged by what you see in Washington D.C.

Precisely. Palin and Scott Brown are going to campaign for the obviously imperfect McCain. But not even Scott Brown is the "perfect conservative" as he believes that abortion "is between a woman and her doctor" and gay marriage is "settled law in Massachusetts and should be decided by the states." However Brown will work to stop the Obama-Democrat socialist train from leaving the station and is unwavering in his determination to defeat the terrorists. Those are the most critical priorities and quite enough for me. As far as I'm concerned the other stuff is like re-arranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic. As Reagan said: "An 80% friend is not a 20% enemy."

You can see the whole of Palin's speech at YouTube.

Sitting rooms #24

"Blogging is the uncoolest thing you can do on the Internet"

Nick Carr:

Did you see that new Pew study that came out [this week]? It put a big fat exclamation point on what a lot of us have come to realize recently: blogging is now the uncoolest thing you can do on the Internet. It's even uncooler than editing Wikipedia articles or having a Second Life avatar. In 2006, 28% of teens were blogging. Now, just three years later, the percentage has tumbled to 14%. Among twentysomethings, the percentage who write blogs has fallen from 24% to 15%. Writing comments on blogs is also down sharply among the young. It's only geezers - those over 30 - who are doing more blogging than they used to.

Reagan's 99th birthday

Paul Kengor tells this story at The Corner:

Reagan was just plain likable. Of all the subjects I’ve studied, few were as universally liked. Sure, Reagan, as president, was demonized by the Left, but that’s what the Left does: indecent, ugly rage. Still, even most liberals muster nice words about Reagan personally.

Central to that likability was Reagan’s humility. The word “I” didn’t dominate his conversation, unless he was poking fun at himself. He was no narcissist. Ronald Reagan was not full of pride; he was thoroughly unpossessed of self-love.

And so, with that background, I’d like to take the opportunity presented by Reagan’s time of year — not to mention the month of Presidents’ Day — to share an anecdote that was told to me by Bill Clark, Reagan’s close friend and most significant adviser.

At the time this happened, Clark was serving as Reagan’s national-security adviser. He had previously been deputy secretary of state, and would later be appointed secretary of the interior. His driver all this time was a man named Joe Bullock, a Georgia native who had moved to Washington during the Great Depression. Joe was a victim of the cruel Jim Crow laws that afflicted the South. He went to Washington for a better life.

Joe first found employment as a mule driver. He eventually began chauffeuring various senior people in the federal government, some of whom, including a high-level figure in the Carter administration, didn’t treat him well; in fact, that previous cabinet secretary didn’t speak a word to Joe in three years.

Thus, Joe was taken aback when Bill Clark not only talked to him, asking questions about his life and family, but also asked whether he could sit up front. Clark rode shotgun with Joe, drawing more than a few stares and safety concerns as well, since Clark, given his influence in national security, was a target of America’s enemies.

One morning, Clark’s father visited Washington. He hit it off with Joe. Clark’s father was a rancher, a man of the West. He gave Joe a gift: a Western-style belt, with a kind of “John Wayne belt buckle,” as Clark described it. Joe loved it, proudly displaying it by always leaving his blue suit-jacket unbuttoned.

That belt soon assumed a life of its own. A state visit by England’s Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip was upcoming, and protocol demanded that the White House provide gifts. Clark, Reagan, and a few others brainstormed following a morning briefing. For Philip, Clark suggested a “Western belt.” He had one in mind, made by Si Jenkins, a Santa Barbara friend of both Clark and the president. (Reagan, too, was a California rancher.)

“Well, what does it look like?” asked Reagan. Clark noted he had a model in the car: Joe, who was wearing the belt. “Send him up,” ordered the president. They called for Joe, who entered via the door of Reagan’s secretary.

Joe had worked for the federal government for half a century, but had never been within 50 yards of the Oval Office. He walked in. He saw Clark, Vice President Bush, the senior aides, and the president of the United States. He was in awe, overcome. Suddenly, this tough six-foot-four man began weeping: He had come so far since Jim Crow and the Great Depression. He was choked up.

No one in the room was prepared for that reaction. They were dead silent, uncomfortable, unable to respond — except for Ronald Reagan. The president rose, walked over to the driver, extended his hand, breathed in, and said matter-of-factly, “Mr. Bullock, I understand you have a belt to show me?”

It was an “everyman” touch. And it put old Joe immediately at ease. Business-like, Joe showed the belt, and then he and Reagan began swapping stories, chatting away like old friends.

“The rest of us just faded away,” said Bill Clark, “as the two got along famously.” President and driver, remembering the old days.

Bullock left with a story to tell his fellow drivers, and his grandchildren. He died a few years later.

DC snow

K-Lo posted some pics.

The streets are almost deserted.

Two daily duhs for the price of one

Gallup - Majority of Dems View Socialism Positively:

The Gallup Poll reports that a majority of Democrats, 53%, have a “positive” image of socialism, which includes independents who lean toward the blue party.

Only 17 percent of Republican and GOP-leaners hold socialism in a positive light. In total, more than one-third of Americans, 36%, have a positive image of socialism.

Also viewing socialism positively: 61% of liberals, 39% of moderates and 20% of conservatives.

Well, I didn't need a poll to tell me that a "Majority of Dems View Socialism Positively." Duh! But who the hell are the 20% of conservatives and 17 percent of Republican and GOP-leaners who "hold socialism in a positive light"? Oh right, maybe those are the confused folk who think Huckabee is a conservative.

And a related topic - Why are liberals so condescending?

Liberals have dismissed conservative thinking for decades, a tendency encapsulated by Lionel Trilling's 1950 remark that conservatives do not "express themselves in ideas but only in action or in irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas." During the 1950s and '60s, liberals trivialized the nascent conservative movement. Prominent studies and journalistic accounts of right-wing politics at the time stressed paranoia, intolerance and insecurity, rendering conservative thought more a psychiatric disorder than a rival.

Another daily duh! Everyone knows that liberals are on the side of the angels and have every right to be sanctimonious and self-righteous while conservatives are simply greedy selfish hard-hearted capitalist pigs.

Thank you for the music

Chas and Andy were kids when ABBA was in its heyday and love them just as I love the music of my childhood: Bing Crosby, Doris Day etc. But, in ABBA's heyday, I was already in my thirties and an opera snob. I couldn't stand them but now the more I hear them, the more I like them. On the way home from dinner at Sizzler, Chas played an ABBA CD and I've really grown to love this song.

Medical bills - Whew! and Grrr!

I spent the day going over my medical bills with a fine-tooth comb and found that I was over-charged nearly $1,300. Well, of course I was over-charged by a lot more than that (with the over-pricing to cover uninsured patients) but that's the amount that they tried to cheat me out of. That's enough to pay for the Alaska cruise that I intend to take my son on when he comes to visit this summer. Guess which I prefer to spend my money on.

Now we're going out to dinner: steak and lobster at Sizzler for $14.99.

Quote for the day

John Derbyshire at The Corner:

A friend just alerted me to this Pew Research Center report, which came out last week.

The news quiz, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press Jan. 14-17 among 1,003 adults reached on cell phones and landlines, asked 12 multiple-choice questions on subjects ranging from economics and foreign affairs to prominent people in the news. Americans answered an average of 5.3 questions correctly.

Bottom line: Republicans are more knowledgeable than Democrats, men more than women, the old more — way more — than the young, whites more than blacks.

Republicans even know more about Democrats than Democrats do:

About half (48%) of Republicans are able to identify Reid as the current majority leader, while only a third of Democrats can name their own party's Senate leader.

That average 5.3 out of 12 is 44 percent, and these are real softball questions. I'll register some mixed feelings. Beyond constitutional basics — the kind of thing we immigrants have to swot up for our citizenship exam — I wouldn't want citizens to be too interested in politics. I've spent a lot of time around people who are really, really interested in politics, and let me tell ya, a high proportion of them need help tying their shoelaces.

In a nation under restrained, minimal government, politicians wouldn't bother us much, and we wouldn't bother them much. We could then, without guilt, concentrate our attention on things it is fun to concentrate one's attention on: family, money-making, sport, movies, the distribution of prime numbers. Alas, we have wandered far from that ideal, to a place where we have to keep our eyes on the critters or they'll pick our pockets and shut down our freedoms. That makes this poll bad news.

As a fellow immigrant and libertarian-leaning Republican, I agree with Derb on nearly everything except his stubborn atheism.

Vegetative state patients can respond to questions

Scientists have been able to reach into the mind of a brain-damaged man and communicate with his thoughts:

The study in the New England Journal of Medicine shows that scans can detect signs of awareness in patients thought to be closed off from the world.

Patients in a vegetative state are awake, not in a coma, but have no awareness because of severe brain damage.

The scientists used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) which shows brain activity in real time.

They asked patients and healthy volunteers to imagine playing tennis while they were being scanned.

In each of the volunteers this stimulated activity in the pre-motor cortex, part of the brain which deals with movement.

This also happened in four out of 23 of the patients presumed to be in a vegetative state.

I volunteered to test out the scanning technique.

I gave the scientists two women's names, one of which was my mother's.

I imagined playing tennis when they said the right name, and within a minute they had worked out her name.
...
Dr Owen says this opens the way to involving such patients in their future treatment decisions: "You could ask if patients were in pain and if so prescribe painkillers and you could go on to ask them about their emotional state."

It does raise many ethical issues - for example - it is lawful to allow patients in a permanent vegetative state to die by withdrawing all treatment, but if a patient showed they could respond it would not be, even if they made it clear that was what they wanted.

When science works well, it really is a blessing.

Stop the world - I want to get back on...

... but it's going too fast to grab hold.

During the past two months while I was sick, I've only put in a few days at the office here and there. Chas and Andy have been running things superbly and I'm very grateful to them.

Today was my first day back at the office in a week and it's been pretty hectic - beginning of the month and rent collection time. I've just fired up my computer for the first time today.

It will probably hectic for the next few weeks. I have an apartment that we are fixing up and getting ready to rent and taxes are soon due plus I have to go through my hospital bills with a fine tooth comb because I've already spotted some "cheating." And they have already started to phone me to nag for payment.

I used to "thrive" on stress - or so I thought. But I'm seeing now that I was actually making myself sick by going too fast and being too anxious and controlling. My "condition" has forced me to slow down and I realize I prefer living slowly. I don't curse slow drivers anymore or get impatient waiting in lines.

Spring has sprung

Spring has sprung
The grass has riz
I wonder where the birdies iz

Yep, Spring comes to the Northwest at the beginning of February. That doesn't mean that we won't have anymore frosts or snow. We could have both as late as April and you often see cherries and daffodils covered in snow in March.

I drove to the dentist today for a cleaning. It is 13 miles south of the farm and the cherry trees in the street in front of the dentist's office were in full bloom. On the way home I noticed that the daffodils in front of our local village church were blooming.

Today's chicken blog post

Gays in the military and the religious objection

I've often argued here that this should not be an issue (just as it is not an issue in Israel) but sometimes I will read an argument against it that sounds quite convincing.

Mac Owens has a piece today arguing the case against open homosexuality:

The presence of open homosexuals in the close confines of ships or military units opens the possibility that eros . . . will be unleashed into the environment. Eros manifests itself as sexual competition, protectiveness and favoritism, all of which undermine the nonsexual bonding essential to unit cohesion, good order, discipline and morale.

As Sen. James Webb (D., Va.), who was awarded the Navy Cross for valor as a Marine officer in Vietnam, wrote in the Weekly Standard in 1997, "There is no greater or more natural bias than that of an individual toward a beloved. And few emotions are more powerful, or more distracting, than those surrounding the pursuit of, competition for, or the breaking off of amorous relationships."

The destructive impact of such relationships on unit cohesion can be denied only by ideologues. Does a superior order his or her beloved into danger? If he or she demonstrates favoritism, what is the consequence for unit morale and discipline? What happens when jealousy rears its head? These are questions of life and death, and they help to explain why open homosexuality and homosexual behavior traditionally have been considered incompatible with military service.

Owens is arguing against "open homosexuality" and I agree with him. There is no place for it in the military. The interesting thing is that, when the ban on homosexuals was lifted in the UK and Israel, very few "came out." The only thing that changed was that they no longer had to be deceitful if confronted and did not live under the threat of having their careers destroyed because of their private penchants.

The fact is that the type of homos who enlist in the military are obviously not screaming queens who prance around naked at gay parades. No, they're serious and patriotic and mostly conservative. So, as many of the military brass said at yesterday's hearings, there really is no practical objection.

However there is the religious objection which is not insignificant. Just as homos in the military are more conservative than their brethren at gay parades, so are straight soldiers usually more conservative than most ordinary civilian guys. And part of their conservatism often stems from their religious convictions which precludes any sort of acceptance of homosexuals because of biblical injunctions against them.

But not everyone believes that every passage in the bible is relevant to modern life. Yes, many do and that is why, even though I am not a bible believer, I am respectful towards bible believers and do not use insults to criticize them. I admire their seriousness and wholeheartedly agree with them on many other political and cultural issues. However I can think of a lot of much more evil things that men can do with each other than express their affection for each other physically.

Yes, most people find the idea disgusting and even I really don't want to know (or think about) the details of anyone else's amorous life whether gay or straight - thank you very much. But, come on, let's get it in proportion. Bible believers think homosexuality is a sin. Fine. Maybe it is. It certainly is silly and probably immature and ridiculous. So are a lot of peoples' personal tastes. But, in my book, lying, stealing, killing or any of a number of other really nasty stuff is much more disgusting that two guys fooling around with each others' private parts.

And there's the rub, as Admiral Mullen testified yesterday: currently gays in the military have to lie and that is not a cloud which honorable men, our defenders, should have to live under.

PS And this has to be the dumbest argument I've ever heard. Senator Saxby Chambliss says that allowing gays in the military will lead to "alcohol use, adultery, fraternization, and body art." Yeah right - straight soldiers don't booze, fornicate and have tattoos.

PPS When I told my Andy (former military) about this, he said Chambliss must have said that with tongue in cheek or else he's never known a soldier, sailor or marine.