Our media?  Apparently falling all over themselves to be the very first to diagnose the entire event down to political ideology, caused by heightened rhetoric, hopefully with easily attacked names attached, all without anything remotely resembling even a slight understanding of the shooter.

It is impressive in not only how fast this meme started, but also the complete coverage of it.  Almost anywhere you read this news or watching it discussed on tv, the attempt to blame is either extremely obvious or being discussed as being extremely obvious.

Liberals blame Sarah Palin, which the right absolutely abhors….  And besides, according to them, the shooter was a leftist anyway (irony?).

But wait!  If you don’t like that, it’s ok, because really the level of vitriol is the real problem.  Ask the Collegian, this conversation has to take place….  after of course the author talks about Glen Beck and Fox News’ level of rhetoric (irony?).

Irregardless, this conversation is important – just listen to the investigating sheriff, and you suddenly learn it’s Rush Limbaugh’s fault.

(side bar: Notice that word “investigating” always precedes the Sheriff… as if the mere act that the crazy guy with a gun pulled the trigger in his jurisdiction, gives him the right, knowledge, or understanding of political rhetoric and its ramifications)

Ahh, the Sheriff, proving, just like Katrina where rumors ran rampant due in large part to public officials, the propensity for public officials to cast off the shackles of thoughtful and deliberate actions and act irrationally.  Just listen to the Sheriff’s words “I have a feeling” and “millions agree” – as if this would be considered “proof” of anything.  Not to mention the fact that a public official should be duty-bound and intelligent enough to know not to make things worse through public speculation.

 But I digress, because in case you didn’t know, there’s a reason for his behavior too.  The Sheriff is a leftist.  & like other leftists, whether the level of rhetoric is high or low is meaningless, because it’s time for gun control.

Neither of which will work of course, because the real problem is that violence is rooted in American culture – so basically it’s everyone’s fault….

Though Jon Stewart assures us it’s not the level of rhetoric which is to blame, & he does have friends; according to a recent poll, 60% agree with this thought as well.

But let’s do note at least one decent posting on the subject, discussing this tragedy in light of other mass murderers (small mass, think group), including the divergence between what we thought we knew instantly and what we found out (here).

Aside from the few however, it appears stating openly “we don’t know enough and will not speculate” isn’t near as interesting nor attention grabbing as the fear inducing meme that speech, tv, political rhetoric, guns, or anything else which is all around you, is in fact out to get you.

It just goes on and on and on and on….  & just like the debates about which party is more closely linked with the actions of Hitler; is it Bushitler the warmonger?  Or the Democrats and the “can’t smoke in private restaurants” crowd? 

Or arguments about who Jesus would vote for; is it the downtrodden protectors the Democrats or the “teach a man to fish” Republicans?

Or what Jesus would drive; a Prius for the environment or an F150 for a carpenter? 

All impossible to answer, all nothing more than mere guilt/credit by association, yet the fight is feverish as many try to answer this very question about one lone gunman.

& All of it presented to you, with the air of intelligent thought and analysis, by the self-proclaimed 4th Estate.

Jon Stewart on the “Mosque @ Ground Zero” (here).  Well worth the 6 minutes and highly illuminating.  While all news reports seem to state the same “Mosque @ Ground Zero” it’s more appropriate to say the truth:  it’s an Islamic Cultural Center close to ground zero – not on it.

Maybe it’s just me, but there seems to be a lot of faux outrage on this one.

@ ScienceBlogs.Com they have a bizarre reading of what they are calling a bizarre reading (here):

CNSNews, formerly the Christian News Service, has the most bizarre way to frame Judge Walker’s Prop 8 ruling that I’ve seen yet:

U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who ruled last week that a voter-approved amendment to California’s constitution that limited marriage to the union of one man and one woman violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, based that ruling in part on his finding that a child does not need and has no right to a mother. Nor, he found, does a child have a need or a right to a father….

But if you go to the full article on CNSNews, they are specifically disputing claims the judge used in “finding of fact” papers, which ultimately were then used as justification for his ruling.

So while I probably don’t agree with CNSNews 99% of the time, they didn’t frame anything.  They didn’t make any assertions.  A judge, wrote papers which are now considered legal facts (as if a jury had made the same decision) & CNSNews responded directly to those papers.

Even if you disagree with CNSNews, I think the judge is the one who framed the debate, they just followed it by responding directly to them.

In Psychology news, apparently they’re running out of problems.   Even as the DSM has grown from 182 disorders and 34 pages long in 1968,  to 297 disorders in 886 pages in 1994 (via Wiki here), it’s not big enough.

Speakers on Sunday at the 118th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association have a new scourge to talk about:  super heroes in comic books (via EScienceNews here):

Watching superheroes beat up villains may not be the best image for boys to see if society wants to promote kinder, less stereotypical male behaviors, according to psychologists who spoke Sunday at the 118th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association. “There is a big difference in the movie superhero of today and the comic book superhero of yesterday,” said psychologist Sharon Lamb, PhD, distinguished professor of mental health at University of Massachusetts-Boston. “Today’s superhero is too much like an action hero who participates in non-stop violence; he’s aggressive, sarcastic and rarely speaks to the virtue of doing good for humanity. When not in superhero costume, these men, like Ironman, exploit women, flaunt bling and convey their manhood with high-powered guns.”

The comic book heroes of the past did fight criminals, she said, “but these were heroes boys could look up to and learn from because outside of their costumes, they were real people with real problems and many vulnerabilities,” she said….

Even if I were to accept the idea that everything they are stating is true in that a) today’s superheroes are giving superheroes a bad name & that b) this affects some percentage of readers – the numbers are still too low in my estimation to warrant further research.

I mean really, what exactly is the percentage of population who routinely read comic books?

& out of all of them, not all will be effected in the same way, while most will not be impacted either way (other than knowing the comic book material itself).

My point is that while figures aren’t easy to come by, we’re probably talking about less than 1 percent of the population who routinely read comic books and only a very small percentage of them will ever be overly effected by it.

Maybe it’s just mean, but seems like a waste of time and research money.

Side note: for a better understanding of the pressing issues facing pyschology today, there is a great article via FAQs.org via The Skeptic Magazine here.

Lastly, will Israel attack Iran (debate via The Atlantic here):

In the few days since the current issue of The Atlantic came out, Jeffrey Goldberg’s cover story, “The Point of No Return,” has already prompted sharp thoughts, big feelings, and intense discussion. Among the early responses, we’ve seen a quick, widespread recognition of scope of Goldberg’s reporting and the depth of his analysis. Fred Kaplan comments over at Slate….

I don’t always concur with Mr. Goldberg, but his analysis is spot on.  The question isn’t whether Israel will do it, but when (assuming Iran continues forward with their ambitions).  The possible results of Israel having a neighboring country whose leaders have consistently espoused the complete removal of Israel and all Jews from the area, puts them at a risk level where the alternatives are limited.

To put it another way – Israel’s government, the US government, the Russian government…. all of them have the primary responsibility of keeping their nation secure & a nuclear Iran not only makes Israel quite a bit less safe, but increases the risks of a nuclear bomb being released to a degree which is simply too high for Israel to ignore.

The new series, Mr. Hanks tell us, will be different from traditional war films in that it will include American racism and terrorism.  Quoted in an interview with CNSNews when asked about his racism comments (here):

…I have talked to all sorts of people who have, in the vernacular, used incredibly racist terms about the people on the other side of the fence, and we can see all the time that comes over in the regular news media from their side, from the other side, terms that can only be viewed as racist…

Now I don’t disagree with Mr. Hanks at all in that war vets from today and yesterday tend to still hold disdain for their once mortal enemies and that they do in fact use “racist” terms and in the course of war, some have committed acts which when viewed on the sidelines can appear inhuman.

However, Mr. Hanks continues:

But let’s just take the word “racism” out of it and put “ignorance” instead, because it’s, racism, is a mere virulent form of what that ignorance is….

& here’s where Mr. Hanks & I part ways, because what he describes isn’t “ignorance” any more than any other normal emotion is ignorance.

Don’t misunderstand me – racism is one of the lowest forms of thought in existence, but using dehumanizing and racist terms during war shouldn’t necessarily be on the same continuum because it’s foundation is not one of hatred, but one of survival.

When society, asks of its people, to go to war, face death, whether for the just cause of self-defense or the noble cause of stopping the ongoing Holocaust, they ask a great deal.  While historically this might not seem true, we know that humans are not born with a desire to kill other humans.  Taking a human life, even in self defense for most people is difficult and fraught with psychological consequences.

One of the ways societies, military units, and even individuals prepare themselves to take human life in war is to devalue it through language.  The use of racist terms is one of the consequences of this behavior and serves as a coping mechanism for those asked to kill.

Additionally, the term itself is meaningless, so long as it be negative and collective.  If I think about individual combatants, they become more human than if the group is just a bunch of  ________.

Even during the beginning of the Revolutionary War, our freedom fighters would pick fights with armed British soldiers, get fired upon, then make claims of oppression & murder.  The most famous example being the “Boston Massacre“.

A mob fully angered provoked armed sentries who fired in self-defense.

One of our founding fathers, John Adams, successfully defended the 6 soldiers against trumped up murder charges.  The press and many average citizens saw the enemy that was the British solider as a terrorist and themselves as saviors of freedom.  Stated simply, for most people, we were the good guys and they were bad guys.

& the same happened during WWII.  Even with noble and just causes, we tried to dehumanize the enemy in an attempt to reconcile the need for war.

Mr. Hanks continue:

“I’d like to think that as our time has gone by and as Americans have found themselves in 2010, ignorance is being replaced by a certain amount of enlightenment and racism is going to be replaced eventually by an acceptance. It’s just taking an awfully long time.”

Here again, I agree with Mr. Hanks.  Racism is a childish ideology, but so long as people on this planet want to do others  harm, we will need to be willing to do seemingly unbearable things to stop them.  As has been stated many times over, freedom is not free.

Let’s just hope that the certain amount of enlightenment Mr. Hanks discusses includes a basic understanding of human nature, combined with enough humility to not judge others as “ignorant” when in reality all they are trying to do is reconcile their desire to see others live compared to the actions required of them when called.

At first thought, I thought no.  Her ideas are mostly superficial and without critical thought, but is she really changing minds?  What we do know is that most of the people who watch these shows, or any other talk/political show, are generally seeking out information for which their beliefs already align.  Our tendency as humans is to do this – to seek out others who are similar in thought and background – to keep us comfortable with our thoughts & beliefs.

However, I don’t watch Oprah so I’m not familiar  with the consistency of her programming.  From that conversation I went to see what exactly Oprah does after book clubs and working out and found her anti-science stance can and does indeed harm others.

In a great article detailed by Newsweek, they demonstrated Oprah’s movement into the pseudo-medical realm with shows providing powerful anecdotes, while ignoring true scientific study to the contrary (whole thing here).  With the sub-headline of Wish Away Cancer! Get A Lunchtime Face-Lift! Eradicate Autism! Turn Back The Clock! Thin Your Thighs! Cure Menopause! Harness Positive Energy! Erase Wrinkles! Banish Obesity! Live Your Best Life Ever!, the document Oprah’s true harm to her audience.  First Suzanne Somers:

…Each morning, the 62-year-old actress and self-help author rubs a potent estrogen cream into the skin on her arm. She smears progesterone on her other arm two weeks a month.

…According to Somers, the hormones, which are synthesized from plants instead of the usual mare’s urine (disgusting but true), are all natural and, unlike conventional hormones, virtually risk-free (not even close to true, but we’ll get to that in a minute).

Next come the pills. She swallows 60 vitamins and other preparations every day….

…In addition, she wears “nanotechnology patches” to help her sleep, lose weight and promote “overall detoxification.” If she drinks wine, she goes to her doctor to rejuvenate her liver with an intravenous drip of vitamin C. If she’s exposed to cigarette smoke, she has her blood chemically cleaned with chelation therapy. In the time that’s left over, she eats right and exercises, and relieves stress by standing on her head. Somers makes astounding claims about the ability of hormones to treat almost anything that ails the female body. She believes they block disease and will double her life span. “I know I look like some kind of freak and fanatic,” she said. “But I want to be there until I’m 110, and I’m going to do what I have to do to get there.”…

For Oprah’s part, she did allow some doctors into the discussion, but severely limited their ability to affect the discussion:

That was apparently good enough for Oprah. “Many people write Suzanne off as a quackadoo,” she said. “But she just might be a pioneer.” Oprah acknowledged that Somers’s claims “have been met with relentless criticism” from doctors. Several times during the show she gave physicians an opportunity to dispute what Somers was saying. But it wasn’t quite a fair fight. The doctors who raised these concerns were seated down in the audience and had to wait to be called on. Somers sat onstage next to Oprah, who defended her from attack. “Suzanne swears by bioidenticals and refuses to keep quiet. She’ll take on anyone, including any doctor who questions her.”…

As with many of Oprah’s crusades, the anti-science crusade wasn’t just about hormone treatments which are proven harmful, but to give Jenny McCarthy a voice to go after vaccines, which are truly helpful:

…In 2007, Oprah invited Jenny McCarthy, the Playboy model and actress, to describe her struggle to find help for her young son. When he was 2½, Evan suffered a series of seizures. A neurologist told McCarthy he was autistic. “So what do you think triggered the autism?” Oprah asked McCarthy. “I know you have a theory.”

McCarthy is certain that her son contracted autism from the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccination he received as a baby. She told Oprah that the morning he went in for his checkup, her instincts told her not to allow the doctor to give him the vaccine. “I said to the doctor, I have a very bad feeling about this shot. This is the autism shot, isn’t it? And he said no, that is ridiculous; it is a mother’s desperate attempt to blame something on autism. And he swore at me.” The nurse gave Evan the shot. “And not soon thereafter,” McCarthy said, “boom, soul gone from his eyes.”…

Again, she’s follows the same modus operandi, lots of targeted emotional and anecdotal discussions (read: propaganda), followed up with very little in the way of scientific evidence:

…But back on the Oprah show, McCarthy’s charges went virtually unchallenged. Oprah praised McCarthy’s bravery and plugged her book, but did not invite a physician or scientist to explain to her audience the many studies that contradict the vaccines-autism link. Instead, Oprah read a brief statement from the Centers for Disease Control saying there was no science to prove a connection and that the government was continuing to study the problem. But McCarthy got the last word. “My science is named Evan, and he’s at home. That’s my science.”…

The question I think all this raises, is have we gone to a point where civility is seen as more important that truths.  You see, I think most of us would have a hard time going against Ms. McCarthy.  Due to her tragic circumstances, we can easily see in ourselves the need to find the answer which others can’t seem to find.  We want things to make sense, in a world with more randomness that we are willing to admit.

But should this civility prevent us from saying what’s true?  You might have strong beliefs about something, and you might even be able to bring self-serving anecdotal evidence to bear, but none of that matters.  In the long run, Ms. McCarthy’s beliefs are not only irrelevant, but should be generally dismissed as they come from an uneducated (on her topic of choice anyway) and grief stricken celebrity.

Instead of reason winning out however, the power of celebrity, combined with the power of wanting more concrete answers to life’s questions the crusade against life saving vaccinations continues forward.  From Wired:

To hear his enemies talk, you might think Paul Offit is the most hated man in America. A pediatrician in Philadelphia, he is the coinventor of a rotavirus vaccine that could save tens of thousands of lives every year. Yet environmental activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. slams Offit as a “biostitute” who whores for the pharmaceutical industry. Actor Jim Carrey calls him a profiteer and distills the doctor’s attitude toward childhood vaccination down to this chilling mantra: “Grab ‘em and stab ‘em.” Recently, Carrey and his girlfriend, Jenny McCarthy, went on CNN’s Larry King Live and singled out Offit’s vaccine, RotaTeq, as one of many unnecessary vaccines, all administered, they said, for just one reason: “Greed.”

…So what has this award-winning 58-year-old scientist done to elicit such venom? He boldly states — in speeches, in journal articles, and in his 2008 book Autism’s False Prophets — that vaccines do not cause autism or autoimmune disease or any of the other chronic conditions that have been blamed on them. He supports this assertion with meticulous evidence. And he calls to account those who promote bogus treatments for autism — treatments that he says not only don’t work but often cause harm….

When reality demonstrates that many people ignore scientific evidence and their facts are replaced with celebrity hubris and propaganda, it should be a sign that all of us should take the time to understand where our true beliefs emanate.

Because please know, while many might read this and think, “that’s not me”, they mean that in a narrow sense as this is part of the human condition which we all share.  Only the truly arrogant among us can believe they can escape the human condition.

For those brave souls willing to go beyond our tendencies, I suggest we should all truly question our deepest beliefs in the face of new or competing information.  Anything less does a disservice to you, your family, and society at large.

While debating Warren Ballentine on the O’Reilly Factor, Juan Williams defended Rush Limbaugh against the constant attacks since the public caught wind of his potential investment in the St. Louis Rams.

Apparently a combination of the celebrity culture that is today’s professional sports and the proclaimed self-righteousness of the NFL, their players’ union and professional race “leaders” can actually lead to a temporary peace deal between  Rush & Juan.

That’s only part of the story – the rest of the story should be the blatant hypocrisy of an organization which demonstrates regularly that it could care less about real criminal acts, much less controversial statements from within their ranks.

The easiest example for analyzing the league’s value system based upon their actions is Michael Vick.  Giving this guy a job after he was convicted of torturing animals to death for their unwillingness or inability to fight very well was a calculated decision about money.  But that’s really just the start of the NFL’s long tradition of tolerating and enabling criminals.

It seems we can’t go more than a couple weeks without a players getting arrested for drinking and driving.  For example, the St. Louis Rams are still allowing Leonard Little to play football, even after killing someone in a drunk driving incident which he followed up with another DWI (here) arrest.

Even more recently the Rams have shown a complete disregard for the community by their willingness to take a firm stand on behalf of players killing innocent citizens.  Ignoring their past problems, they thought it might be a good idea to bring on a new player with prior DUIs.

No worries to the citizens of St. Louis though, according to the Ram’s GM, he passed the “character” test during background investigations.   I’m sure the friends and family of the deceased are glad to know this player received the all important, “I looked into his eye and saw his character” test.

Of course it’s not just the Rams.  Let’s not forget Dante Stallworth recently entered into the “NFL players who  killed innocent people” club as well.

& as NFL traditions go, drinking and driving is just one of the time honored ones.  Another tradition  is using their strength to assault others.   Domestic violence seems to be the most popular  form of this tradition (here, here, & here), including the amazing amount of courage it takes to beat your babys’ momma with an aluminum mop handle while the kids watch (here).

As bad as all that is by itself, this information truly is a very small percentage of the NFL’s actions as it relates to criminal behavior within their ranks.   The endless stream of examples includes all types of crime including assaulting cops, assaulting security guards, shootings, drug rings, weapon’s charges,  probation violations, coaches assaulting other coaches, and even just plain ole indecent exposure – which in some cases can result in a being forced to register as  sex offender.  There are literally so many available examples of NFL players’ crimes, it’s challenging to pick and choose enough examples to be convincing, while ensuring this post doesn’t end up longer than the health care bill.

Indeed, so much information exists that at least one website is dedicated to tracking it (NFL Crimes News Blog).   A while back they even promised to take down their entire site if they could go 60 days without seeing an arrest posted on ProFootballTalk police blotter.  The closest they’ve gotten is 29 days.

The basic point?  For an organization with such a demonstrable history of ignoring and enabling real crime, their attempt to come off as self-righteous based on someone’s past comments is another perfect example of style over substance.  It would almost be amusing if it didn’t show how shallow our celebrity obsessed culture can be.

Standard Libertarian Disclaimer:  As a private business the NFL can pick and chose its investors at will.  I really don’t care all that much that the NFL pulled Rush’s bid nor would I ever want to take away their rights to do so.

Of course as a corollary to their freedom to chose their investors, we all have the freedom to point out the hypocrisy of such a decision.  When the NFL, the players, and the players’ union collectively run around throwing matches at people while they know full well they are standing in a house full of gun powder & explosives, they deserve nothing more than ridicule.