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.

Michael Moore is at it again. In Fahrenheit 9/11, he took on US foreign policy as brought to us by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. In Sicko, he dissected the health insurance industry. And in his new documentary, Capitalism: A Love Story, he challenges the fundamental organizing principle of American society: private enterprise….

Yes, it’s yet another propaganda film  from Michael Moore (as if he’s capable of much else).  As with his previous films, it will probably be entertaining and no doubt some parts of society will use it as proof that capitalism is evil.  All the while, they will ignore the irony that the system the are despising is responsible for the very freedom they use to speak against it.  That capitalism has done more to raise people out of poverty than Hugo Chavez, Che, Trotsky, and all the other “revolutionaries” combined.  History has proven this to be true time and time again.

I know what they’ll say though, “All we need is the right leaders this time and all will be well.”  So they might as well use their idol to sum up the film:

…The film climaxes with never-before-seen footage Moore’s researchers uncovered of FDR telling the American public in 1944 on the radio that the nation needed a second Bill of Rights that would guarantee Americans the right to a job, to a home, to an education, and to medical care. “Unless there is security here at home, there cannot be lasting peace in the world,” Roosevelt says….

Ah, the fabled FDR… fabled that is so long as you ignore history; like the fact he made the Great Depression 7 years longer through his “New Deal” policies:

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt….

…”Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump,” said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA’s Department of Economics. “We found that a relapse isn’t likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies.”…

Or the fact he tried to use court stacking tactics to bypass that pesky, out of date, worthless document formerly known as the US Constitution, basically making the point that “If it’s unConstitutional, find new judges”:

…Since the U.S. Constitution does not limit the size of the Supreme Court, Roosevelt, having won an expanded electoral mandate in his reelection, sought to counter this entrenched opposition to his political agenda by expanding the number of justices to create a pro-New Deal majority on the bench.  Opponents viewed the legislation as an attempt to stack the court leading to the name “Court-packing Plan”….

Or the fact he ran for his fourth term when he was too ill to govern.  Yes, let’s ignore the fact he was so self-absorbed and arrogant, that he demonstrated through his actions, he was willing to stay President of the US, with all its power, even though it was obvious he was no longer up to the task (here):

…Roosevelt, who turned 62 in 1944, had been in declining health since at least 1940. The strain of his paralysis and the physical exertion needed to compensate for it for over 20 years had taken their toll, as had many years of stress and a lifetime of chain-smoking. By this time, Roosevelt had numerous ailments including chronic high blood pressure, emphysema, systemic atherosclerosis, coronary artery disease with angina pectoris, and myopathic hypertensive heart disease with congestive heart failure. Dr. Emanuel Libman, then an assistant pathologist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, reacting to Roosevelt’s appearance in newsreels, remarked in 1944 that “It doesn’t matter whether Roosevelt is re-elected or not, he’ll die of a cerebral hemorrhage within 6 months” (which he did, five months later)….

Yes, after all those reasons to re-think the glory that is the Presidency of FDR, we know have, thanks to Michael Moore, proof that FDR was a true socialist.  Like many socialists, he was more than willing to spend your money in furtherance of his goals, even though it’s failed ever single time it was tried…

But when defeating evil, the goal is righteous:

…”Capitalism is an evil,” Moore narrates, as the film concludes, “and you cannot regulate an evil. You have to eliminate it.” …

It’s an odd position to take that allowing people the freedom to enter into contracts for work or to barter or for any other economic reason they choose is evil, but he knows what’s best and that’s just the way it is.  After all, if you disagree, you’re probably “evil”.

Irregardless of Michael Moore’s lack of understanding as it relates to gun rights, health care, 9/11, and now… his complete lack of critical thought on capitalism, there is a silver lining:

…After a screening in Washington on Tuesday night, Moore told the audience that if people don’t rise up and take action after watching this film, that’s it—he’s done making movies. I can do other things, he remarked….

One can hope those other things include spending his own money to provide health care and housing for the poor, instead of using the government as his weapon to force everyone else to do what he thinks is right.

But what seems to be a general rule of celebrity status in this country, is that once you get large enough to have thousands of individual “yes” men running around claiming you’re a genius, it seems inevitable that for you to begin to believe it and slowly, but surely, remove rational thought.

Enter Bill Maher as a perfect example of just such a person.  Just less than a decade ago, he went from a thoughtful individual, to a guy who not only believes the absurd, but is completely certain that his beliefs are truly righteous.  For someone who supposedly disdains religious folks for believing in such nonsense, he certainly has a lot of faith in ideas with no basis in reality.

To demonstrate this, look no further than his numerous writing on Huffington Post. He uses such flawless logic as guilt by association.  Since Sarah Palin & Karl Rove are very polarizing figures, might as well lump them in with Mitt Romney.  Since Bill doesn’t like their politics, they must all be the same:

New Rule: Just because a country elects a smart president doesn’t make it a smart country. A few weeks ago I was asked by Wolf Blitzer if I thought Sarah Palin could get elected president, and I said I hope not, but I wouldn’t put anything past this stupid country. It was amazing – in the minute or so between my calling America stupid and the end of the Cialis commercial, CNN was flooded with furious emails and the twits hit the fan. And you could tell that these people were really mad because they wrote entirely in CAPITAL LETTERS!!!

Apparently he’s just too busy to understand that if the President is this great genius and wonderful communicator, he might be doing a whole lot better in this health care thing… but that might cause cognitive dissonance.  So instead of having to contemplate the opposition, it’s just easier to think of all of them as stupid.

Further showing his stupidity, he decides to bash the freest economic system mankind has ever seen:

How about this for a New Rule: Not everything in America has to make a profit. It used to be that there were some services and institutions so vital to our nation that they were exempt from market pressures. Some things we just didn’t do for money. The United States always defined capitalism, but it didn’t used to define us. But now it’s becoming all that we are.

Did you know, for example, that there was a time when being called a “war profiteer” was a bad thing?

Yeah, there was a time when that happened and the eminent Milton Friedman proved how stupid this thinking was.  Recounting the debate in his book titled Two Lucky People:

“In the course of his [General Westmoreland's] testimony, he made the statement that he did not want to command an army of mercenaries. I [Milton Friedman] stopped him and said, ‘General, would you rather command an army of slaves?’ He drew himself up and said, ‘I don’t like to hear our patriotic draftees referred to as slaves.’ I replied, ‘I don’t like to hear our patriotic volunteers referred to as mercenaries.’ But I went on to say, ‘If they are mercenaries, then I, sir, am a mercenary professor, and you, sir, are a mercenary general; we are served by mercenary physicians, we use a mercenary lawyer, and we get our meat from a mercenary butcher.’ That was the last that we heard from the general about mercenaries.”

On Bill’s list of priorities however, rational thought and actual logic don’t seem that high.  Dissing anyone more interested than he is with one of the greatest advancements to human kind, he opines:

New Rule: if you’re excited about a new search engine, then the thing you should be searching for is a life…

It seems as if Bill just can’t understand why people might be interested in the easy distribution of knowledge throughout the world.  Yep, the internet, the greatest advancement to human knowledge since Gutenberg would be about as useful as all of Bill’s knowledge combined if the search results return junk, but discussing that makes you a nerd.

But why would he stop there?  As with most self absorbed and arrogant people, not only is he right, but his dissenters must be wrong for nefarious reasons.  In an attempt to marginalize those who disagree with King Maher:

New Rule: The Republican Party needs to just get it over with and tell the entire Hispanic community to go f*&$k themselves…

The point?  Well, it’s not really to bash Bill.  First, it’s really not worth it to continue to concern yourself with the rantings from the insane.  Even allowing anger at his arrogance gives him power over you he doesn’t deserve.  Additionally, it’s really too easy pointing flaws into Bill rantings… it’s about as difficult to do this as it is do simple addition with the help of a calculator.

No, he is just another crackpot, but he can serve an excellent example of what arrogance and self built echo chambers inevitably achieve.

& It’s truly sad to contemplate… In a world with the internet with all it’s free content, differing view points, ability to look at multiple sources instantly (thanks to search engines), and really, the ability for people to truly become informed, it appears that most of us, like Bill, only seek out people who agree with us and help us prove our own presumptions.

According to recent research:

We show that the demand for news varies with the perceived affinity of the news organization to the consumer’s political preferences. In an experimental setting, conservatives and Republicans preferred to read news reports attributed to Fox News and to avoid news from CNN and NPR. Democrats and liberals exhibited exactly the opposite syndrome – dividing their attention equally between CNN and NPR, but avoiding Fox News.

Just as a reporter from the NY Times once candidly said “I don’t know anyone who voted for Reagan”, we seem to be a world population motivated only to prove ourselves correct.

If we continue down the Road to Serfdom, I can see a future where historians will write about this time as one of squandered opportunities and deliberate ignorance.

Let’s hope some day soon, facts become required for evidence and emotional appeals using faulty logic are rightfully laughed at.

Let’s hope before we make too many very large mistakes, we start learning how to think, instead of just working on how to score political points.

Yeah… let’s hope.