Volcano monitoring
I finally got around to watching Obama’s speech and Jindal’s response. (Thanks, C-SPAN.) I thought Obama made some bold promises while staying on the whole realistic. I’ll always wince at the stories of regular folks doing great things, though… it sounds so forced, even if they really did do great things.
What I really want to talk about is this moment in Jindal’s speech where he calls out Congress for passing a stimulus bill that includes this silly, silly earmark for “something called volcano monitoring.” Oh, those nutty Congressmen and their pet projects!
I agree that earmarks are to be avoided, and I understand the strategy of naming ridiculous earmark spending in order to embarrass legislators. It’s effective when you point out millions of dollars going to a nonexistent Grape Research Center, or half a million for the Sparta Teapot Museum. But you have to make sure it sounds really silly. It seems that Republicans, in their fervor to criticize legislative pork, have been gradually forgetting how to determine this. At least as it was starting, they were calling reasonable projects by silly-sounding names — which made them sound uninformed, but at least worked on uniformed voters. It would have been unreasonable for a planetarium to spend that much an an “overhead projector,” but that’s not really what it was. It could sound like “fruit fly research” was a waste of time, if you didn’t know that work on Drosophila melanogaster laid the foundation for modern genetic research and is still extremely relevant today.
Tacking on the words “something called” helps when you’re talking about the World Toilet Summit (yes, that’s another real one, apparently) but it doesn’t work when everyone knows why the thing is called that. Something called volcano monitoring? Well, Bobby Jindal, probably that involves monitoring volcanos. You know, like keeping an eye on them. To predict when they’re going to erupt. For someone familiar with the US government’s previous lack of response to national disasters, I’d think you’d want people to be on the lookout for future ones so everyone could be prepared.
Vigilante justice
The ever-fabulous Dinosaur Comics raises some poignant legal issues today. Here’s one panel for a teaser. Go read the rest!
Time to talk
Orac’s post on the National Center for Complimentary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM, part of the National Institutes of Health) reminded me of this card [PDF] made by them that I’ve been carrying around in my coat pocket for a while now. It says “Ask” and “Tell” in friendly orange speech bubbles, and it encourages me to speak to my health care provider about CAM treatments. I found it in my doctor’s office, and I wasn’t sure what to make of it.
On the one hand, this card tells me that NCCAM is “[my] source for reliable information about complimentary and alternative medicine.” Reliable is good. I checked out the website for the Time to Talk campaign, which these cards are a part of, and the point of it seems to be that patients should tell their doctors (and doctors should ask their patients) about any CAM treatments they may be pursuing on their own, so that doctors can advise patients about potential health concerns. The patient tip sheet says: “If you are considering a new CAM therapy, ask your health care providers about its safety, effectiveness, and possible interactions with medications (both prescription and nonprescription).”
On the other hand, CAM is still CAM. The best way I’ve ever heard to describe the crux of the issue: “You know what they call ‘alternative medicine’ that’s been proved to work? Medicine.” If NIH’s NCCAM is doing anything other than telling people to get as far away from CAM as possible, they’re doing a deplorable job of promoting public health. From the postcard and the Time to Talk site, it seems like they could be encouraging patients to find out about how pretend acupuncture has the same effects as real acupuncture, or about how homeopathy makes no sense whatsoever. However, as Orac’s breakdown of NCCAM grants makes clear, these are not their priorities. The vast majority of their grant funding is going either to things that shouldn’t be categorized as “alternative” (such as studies of the effects of particular diets on health) or — and this is the real issue — studies of therapies based on truly ridiculous ideas that shouldn’t be getting any credibility from a national research institute. For example: NCCAM funded a study to examine homeopathic succussion (vigorous shaking, claimed to make homeopathic treatments more effective; never mind that shaking doesn’t change the fact they are pure water) and to compare succussion to regular stirring, in order to “improve standardization of homeopathic remedy manufacturing and prescribing.” It’s terrifying to think that real money was spent on this so-called study, and others like it. Orac made the very apt comparison: “it’s like studying whether eye of newt or pixie dust is more efficacious in curing cancer.”
If NCCAM was there to provide an authoritative bank of data showing which supposedly alternative therapies were actually real medicine and which were “alternative” because they were pure garbage, that would be fine with me. I would be very excited about that, to be honest. Unfortunately, no matter how scientific the stated intentions of the center’s directors, they seem dead-set on promoting CAM rather than critically examining it.
Time for Kennedy to go
[Note from Z: Hey, look! My coauthor A is back!]
Ted Kennedy has, without doubt, had a long and influential career in the US Senate. While I’m not far enough to the left to idolize him in the way that some do, there is little question that our country is better off because he served. He has been an excellent senator. However, as he has struggled with illness recently, I have increasingly wondered whether it was wise for him to remain in his seat. With his most recent difficulties, my mind has been made up. The responsible thing for Senator Kennedy to do now would be to resign his seat.
I see little reason for him to stay. He is fighting serious health problems, and unable to put the time and focus on his work that should be expected of a senator. I could of course understand someone pushing to stay when they know their replacement will have a different political stance. If you think certain policies are what are best for the country, then just keeping a vote in the Senate for those policies is very important. Kennedy, though, is from Massachusetts, a state with a Democratic governor who will appoint someone with very similar stances, and a state with no shortage of qualified Democrats to consider for the position. That person will continue to hold the seat easily in future elections. There really seems to me to be little reason for him to stay other than a desire to be personally involved in the decisions. That urge is of course totally understandable, but I think it would be appropriate if at this point, when a massive workload is being dumped on Congress, Senator Kennedy let someone else step in and take up the torch.
Kennedy hasn’t even been able to vote in the Senate recently. If he is unable to vote, there is no doubt that he is also unable to thoroughly research and understand whatever decisions he does make, and unable to try to influence other senators, participate in negotiations, and in general do his job. Naturally, it’s hard to push for someone who has serious health problems to resign. Everyone supports him personally and wishes him well with his illness. Being a senator is not a normal job, though, and you have an obligation to put your constituents above yourself. If an action is good for your constituents, you should do it, even if it’s unfair to you. This is one of those things, and it’s time for Kennedy to move on.
Asking for higher taxes
I saw a great op-ed in the New York Times last week by Reed Hastings, the CEO of Netflix. It’s called “Please Raise My Taxes.” He proposes that government regulators should form a new tax bracket, taking 50% of salaries above one million dollars, rather than follow President Obama’s proposal of capping executives’ salaries at $500,000. I think this idea makes a whole lot of sense.
A salary cap sounds good, but it’s not actually helpful. Another NYT article recently pointed out that given the cost of living in Manhattan and the pressures of social expectations, it would actually put some families at the point of “selling their home in a fire sale,” despite how weird that seems. Of course, if all those salaries were capped, social expectations would change, and this isn’t the real problem. However, this salary cap would only apply to companies supported under TARP, and there are plenty out there that aren’t. All these highly-paid executives are extremely capable of finding other jobs when their current ones are suddenly a lot less high-paying. Offering high salaries is the way companies compete for the best CEOs. If you can’t pay at least as much as the other guys, you haven’t got a chance of getting top-notch management. It’s not good for the public’s investment to set these corporations up to fail, but that’s what salary caps are ultimately doing.
The higher tax bracket, on the other hand, gets plenty of benefits, but none of those harms. It allows companies to offer varying salaries to compete with each other. Additionally, this rule applies broadly to anyone making over a million dollars — whether their company is TARP-supported or not, whether they’re a CEO or a movie star or an athlete or a plumber named Joe. After all, it’s easy to make CEOs out to be the bad guys, but that’s not fair. People are generally paid according to how valuable their work is, and surely the head of a major investment bank is at least as valuable as the star of “Confessions of a Shopaholic.” Finally, of course, we have to remember that the government needs to be taking in more revenue somehow. That’s the main reason this nearly-trillion-dollar bailout is so terrifying: we were already $10 trillion in debt. The cap is more like scapegoating, blaming CEOs for being too greedy and decreeing how much they deserve to make. The tax increase actually addresses the underlying problem and increases government revenue. This is exactly where taxes ought to be raised if they have to be, because the marginal utility of money is much lower for the outrageously wealthy.
I think there are lots of good reasons to listen to Hastings’ proposal. But seriously, when someone’s begging the government to raise their taxes… that in itself is a pretty good indicator that there’s a solid case behind it.
Skeptics’ Circle #105: The Shakespeare Edition
Welcome to the 105th edition of the Skeptics’ Circle. It’s a privilege to be hosting such a fine carnival here at It’s the Thought that Counts. I hope you enjoy your stay at our humble blog.
In honor of the 105th edition, we’re going to take a look at William Shakespeare’s Sonnet 105. Although of course it’s actually about the beauty, gentleness, and loyalty of one’s beloved, I think we can give it a skeptical reading if we try hard enough. And with Valentine’s Day right around the corner, a love poem seemed appropriate. So let’s get right to it!
Let not my love be call’d idolatry,
Nor my beloved as an idol show,
What better way to open a meeting of skeptics? Several submissions focused on questioning facts assumed to be unchallengeable. One blogger unwilling to engage in such idolatry of assumptions was Karl Haro von Mogel at Biofortified, who can’t find a kernel of truth to anti-GMO groups’ claims that President Obama promised to mandate labeling of genetically modified foods. In other biology idolatry news, Jeremy at the Agricultural Biodiversity Weblog discussed the claim that 98% of the world’s seeds come from six companies. Is that a real fact, or is it a great example of Bellman’s Theorem?
Since all alike my songs and praises be
No problem — skepticism doesn’t have to be applied only to rare or outlandish things. Sometimes the everyday provides perfect opportunities to exercise one’s critical thinking skills. Marty, of Marty’s Place, wrote about the natural explanations for his apparent telekinetic and psychic powers over his refrigerator and car stereo. Meanwhile Matt, the Skeptical Teacher, explained how fortune cookies don’t know your fortune, even if they appear to help someone win the lottery on occasion — and how the same is true for psychics.
While we’re on the subject of psychics: Seth Manapio, of Whiskey Before Breakfast…The Blog reminded us that psychics are con artists, using false advertising to trick people into believing them. He argued that we shouldn’t blame a psychic’s customer for getting scammed, just as we shouldn’t blame a rape victim for getting raped.
To one, of one, still such, and ever so.
Some people think that if you hold a particular viewpoint, you’re never allowed to do anything that might reveal slight complicity in anything perceived by anyone as contradictory. TechSkeptic, of Effort Sisyphus, found an article on Fox News criticizing environmentalists for ever using electricity, using manufactured items, or doing anything with any environmental cost. TechSkeptic explained why, if we encouraged that attitude, we’d all be living without the convenience of indoor plumbing.
Kind is my love to-day, to-morrow kind,
Still constant in a wondrous excellence;
Love may be constant, but the American Psychological Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is not. The Socratic Gadfly described how the definition revisions that took place between the DSM-III and DSM-IV may have contributed to the increase in autism diagnoses.
Therefore my verse to constancy confined,
One thing expressing, leaves out difference.
Yes, staying constant might be romantic, but it’s not always rational. Sometimes the difference is important, and shouldn’t be left out! It’s important to challenge our beliefs and see if a change is necessary. Barbara Drescher, at ICBS Everywhere, described her attempts to convince Frank Ferris to allow controlled tests to see if his dog Dave can really do math. Will she succeed? Stay tuned to her blog; there is some hope. TechSkeptic also gave us a great post on the challenge paradigm and its many manifestations. Check it out to see who’s doing it right, and who just doesn’t get it.
‘Fair, kind and true’ is all my argument,
‘Fair, kind, and true’ varying to other words;
Fairness, kindness, and truthfulness are certainly things we skeptics can get behind. (Heck, we’re even respectful while we’re insolent.) The emphasis is on that third one, though, so let’s take the time now to discuss evidence and how to examine it to find truth. Greta Christina, at her eponymous blog, asked if theists are really being intellectually honest when they say that the question of the existence of God(s) deserves “further exploration.” She argues that their version of exploration seems to involve a lot more omphaloskepsis than evidence-gathering. Over at Skeptimedia, Bob Carroll (of The Skeptic’s Dictionary fame) explained the importance of evaluating evidence. The class he used to teach on this topic sounds really interesting. Matt, the Skeptical Teacher, found some people who seem like they could use a lesson from Bob. He bravely delves into the strange and baseless claims made by conspiracy theorists worried about the Hudson River plane landing.
And in this change is my invention spent,
Okay, this is getting tricky, but I’m going to use the word “invention” to transition into publication of scientific research. Please imagine that that was graceful. Andrew of The Evolving Mind brought us the happy news of a paper published that gives a null result which may surprise you. Finding no relationship between variables is worth noting! I wrote about how papers posted on the freely available arXiv database do not necessarily contain reliable science, so they should be approached with caution. Blake Stacey, at Science after Sunclipse, shared a similar sentiment as well as a great example of some “alternative” genetic research he found there.
Three themes in one, which wondrous scope affords.
Skeptics know well that when you combine seemingly unrelated things into one new thing (think: quantum harpsichord bubble bath, sounds so curative!) you can make miracles… or at least a lot of money off the uninformed. Bing McGhandi, at Happy Jihad’s House of Pancakes, used this philosophy to bring us chapter 1 of his Feng Shui Diet book, all about preventative feng shui. So convincing, it’ll make you wonder why no one’s tried to sell this before. Over at Ionian Enchantment, Michael Meadon showed us a story that was all too real: a Reuters piece on what feng shui masters have to say about finances in the coming year.
‘Fair, kind, and true,’ have often lived alone,
Which three till now never kept seat in one.
As Shakespeare closes, so will we, with Kylie’s review of the show “Lie to Me,” at Podblack Cat. She wrote, “They don’t seem to be short-changing the science” of lie detection, and she says it’s also pretty interesting and entertaining. Three for one; I may start watching the show myself!
That’s it for this time around. Join us for the next Skeptics’ Circle on February 26th, to be hosted by Disillusioned Words.
Reminder: Skeptics’ Circle
Don’t forget: if you’re planning to submit a post to the Skeptics’ Circle this time around, get it to me before midnight EST tonight. You can leave a comment here if you like, but the preferred method of submission is to email z [at] thoughtcounts [dot] net.
Oh, dear
It seems Italy just wrapped up their own version of the Terri Schiavo case. From BBC News:
Eluana Englaro, the Italian woman at the centre of a right-to-die debate, has died, the health minister has said.
Maurizio Sacconi made the announcement in Italy’s Senate as politicians were debating a law that would have forced doctors to continue feeding her.
Ms Englaro, 38, had been in a persistent vegetative state since being injured in a car crash in 1992.
…Ms Englaro’s father, Beppino, had been battling with the courts in Italy to let his daughter die since 1999, insisting it was her wish.
It’s still a sad story. People so obsessed with their own outlook on life that they assume everyone else must share it, and worse that it’s appropriate to legally mandate it. But that’s old news. Rather than rehash it, I’d like to call your attention to this choice bit at the end of the BBC article.
Italy does not allow euthanasia. Patients have a right to refuse treatment, but they are not allowed to give advance directions on the treatment they wish to receive if they become unconscious.
Are. You. Kidding. Me. They agree with the principle that patients should be legally able to refuse treatment. They’re just not okay with allowing those patients to put that refusal down on paper, to remove ambiguity. In other words, patients have the right to refuse treatment, except for the vast majority of cases in which patients might want to refuse treatment.
Oh, dear.
Mandatory ultrasounds
Via blog.bioethics.net: 11 state legislatures are facing proposed legislation to offer or require women seeking abortions to see ultrasound images of the fetus, and in some cases listen to the heartbeat. Lest you be confused, these are women who have, in at least the vast majority of cases, already decided to have an abortion. Some of these proposals allow the ultrasound to be done right up to 30 minutes before the abortion procedure. Several of the states graciously allow an 18 or 24 hour waiting period. (The AP story lists 12 states in total, but one in their list is actually South Carolina’s extension of an existing 1-hour law to a 24-hour one. Very sweet of them.)
The goal of these proposals is obviously, in Dr. Johnson’s words, “that [the woman] might catch a glimpse of her unborn fetus and change her mind.” If only they knew it had a heartbeat! pro-life legislators are musing. They assume that women getting abortions are doing so on a whim and have never really thought about the implications. This is insulting. It’s obviously a terribly difficult decision which every woman facing it agonizes over. Admittedly there is the occasional irresponsible person, but the real effect of any of these laws passing would be to put thousands of women through intense psychological trauma, on top of what is already an emotionally taxing experience.
Unable to actually ban abortion outright, these lawmakers are erecting bizarre barriers around the procedure to serve as criminal sentences. Their intentions are plainly to punish women, but they do so in a cruel and scarring way and under the perverse pretext of medical regulation. If abortion is not illegal, we shouldn’t be punishing the act.
I know random and strange legislation gets proposed all the time without any real hope of passing. However, the fact that this has popped up in a dozen states at once makes me worry that there’s some real initiative behind this horrible idea. I hope the other legislators step it up and vote it down.
Aerodynamics for fuel economy
I am incredibly impressed by Mike Turner’s modification of his Honda Civic for increased fuel economy. He says, “Since it didn’t look like the car companies were planning to do anything in the foreseeable future about introducing a small car that would get good fuel economy on the highway, I decided to see what I could do towards improving my existing car’s gas mileage.” Way to take the initiative!
By modifying the tail and nose of the Civic’s body, covering the wheel wells, bringing the sideview mirrors inside the car, and several other adjustments, Turner has achieved a drag coefficient of 0.17. (For comparison, a bullet’s drag coefficient is about 0.3.) He gets 95 miles per gallon (US) when travelling at 65 mph. How much of a difference does it make? When he finds himself driving an unmodded car, he says “it feels as if I am driving on a road covered with molasses.”
There are a lot of other surprising benefits which Turner details on his site. One that made me briefly doubt if he was for real was “protection from damage when encountering deer.” He writes, “the low sloped front of the car scoops them up and over the top of the car with minimal damage to both deer and car.” Convenient! (If a little bit scary-sounding. Hey, it’s certainly better than killing the deer and wrecking your car.)
Turner says the materials for this modification cost him $400. Clearly if it had been done by someone else, there would have been a charge for the design as well as the labor – but if his plans had been the original vehicle design, the labor cost could hardly be much different from making a regular Civic. So my question is: why aren’t car companies building anything like this? I don’t see any good reason. Does it just look too space-age and weird? I think we could get used to the looks if it meant getting 95 miles to the gallon.