Mmmmmmmm

November 26th, 2008

Let the American quality, the dream
Of a land where men shall work their destiny
Deeply as they will, give you the power
To realize with proud and reverent heart
The strange identity of man as man
And fling it up against the dark of time
Where it may loom forever as the bright
Image of godhead in the simple man
That now has risen from this American earth
And shall but with the bitter end of things
Go back again into the humble earth . . .

– Paul Engle, America Remembers

beauteous thing

November 25th, 2008

Via Ace of Spades. Bruce Lee parleys ping pong balls . . . with numchuks.

Covetousness

November 24th, 2008

Whether or not you agree with Christian theology, you will probably admit that the 10 commandments did a pretty good job of proscribing behaviors that will otherwise disrupt the fabric of a community.

E.g. adultery. You don’t have to believe adulterers burn in hell to recognize that there’s often a big pile o’ nasty fallout when someone cheats on a spouse.

Which is why the tenth commandment addresses covetousness.

You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

Coveting is a destructive behavior. It shifts one’s focus to the wrong things.

First, and fundamentally, it shifts one’s frame of mind to an inner state of envy and frustration.

What good can come of that?

None.

Next, from this starting point of envy and frustration, a person has only two choices. Stew and be miserable. Or act out by stealing, or cheating, or tearing down the object of his envy.

Guess where I’m going with this, yet?

When our politicians propose that we tax “the rich” in order to pay for services for “the poor,” are they not encouraging covetousness?

Are they not — in fact — institutionalizing covetousness?

Welcome to the post post modern ethical wilderness. Where behaviors once regarded as destructive are now celebrated openly by our political leaders.

Think we aren’t going to reap what we sow?

When your doc is stumped

November 23rd, 2008

Salley Satel, a psychiatrist and resident scholar at The Enterprise Institute, has written an article about a new study on the placebo effect.

The study, by the National Institutes of Health, surveyed practicing U.S. internists and rheumatologists about whether they prescribe placebos. It was published in the British Medical Journal. Half of the MDs surveyed say they prescribe placebos. More than two-thirds say they think prescribing placebos is an acceptable thing to do.

One way to “read” the study, of course, is that MDs are leading patients down the proverbial path. Prescribing sugar pills. But as Satel points out, the reality is a bit more complex:

[O]nly a handful of the almost 700 physicians who completed the survey claimed to use inert substances such as sugar pills or saline. The vast majority offered innocuous over-the-counter products, sometimes called “impure” placebos, such as vitamins or Tylenol, though 13% used antibiotics and another 13% used sedatives. By offering an actual pharmaceutical, doctors stand on firmer ground in telling patients that what they are prescribing is a medication whereas describing a sugar pill as medication is much harder, perhaps impossible, for most to justify as a matter of conscience.

The other important factor is that the research “targeted” internists and rheumatologists — whose patients, in Satel’s words, typically suffer from “chronic illnesses, such as fibromyalgia, that are notoriously refractory to care.”

In other words, these are docs who are unable to help a significant percentage of their patients.

So they’re “prescribing” vitamins or Tylenol or sedatives.

Satel then goes on to discuss the psychological implications of placebos: that even sugar pills bring short term relief if patients believe they’re therapeutic.

But (she notes) there’s a risk as well. If patients begin to feel they’ve been duped, their trust in their physicians, and in the medical profession itself, will be lost.

What Satel doesn’t say is that the loss of trust has already happened. Or is, at least, in the process of happening. Which is why so many people gravitate to alt medicine.

To tease it out a bit more, the most important element at play, here, is the doctor’s fallibility.

Imagine what it must be like to be an MD facing a patient you do not believe you can help.

This person wants to trust you; this person believes you are his only hope; he needs you to stop the hurting, to ward off Death, to restore him to the full and happy life he’s watched slip away.

And you can do nothing. You know you cannot help; you are stumped. There is no drug, no therapy that has shown to reliably erase this condition. Any that have shown promise, you’ve already tried, and they’ve failed. You are stumped. You know it, even if you don’t quite dare let that thought form in your mind as you sit there in the exam room, facing the poor wretch. There is nothing in your bag that will make things better, no wand you can wave.

But you can’t say it. If you say it, everything crumbles. Saying it means you admit your fallibility, it means you admit how tiny and precarious your understanding is, how close to you is the drop-off into the pitch-black gulf of your ignorance. To say it is to let your patient fall off into that gulf, both of you helpless to save him.

So instead you — the MD — reach for what is, in fact, your OWN placebo. In the lingo of the study, you reach for “[A] medicine not typically used for [your patient's] condition, but [that] might benefit.”

The placebo makes YOU, the doctor, feel better. It gives you the illusion that you do have some control, some authority; it relieves you of having to speak aloud the unmentionable.

Most likely you can also discern at least some relief in your patient. The tension in that exam room is eased.

Your relationship with your patient, and your profession, is intact.

You can continue to practice, because you have proven again that you always have at least some answer. And it might help. It might relieve the symptoms, it might make the patient feel better, and who knows. The patient might even get better, maybe for reasons out of your control, but in the meantime, you’ve done something.

The patient, meanwhile, has gained a slightly better grip on hope. It might not last very long. Maybe only until the physician leaves the room. Or until the symptoms worsen again, and it becomes clear that this “medicine not typically used for your condition” isn’t really helping you at all.

Of course, this isn’t an ideal situation, by any stretch. Our study into the mechanics, and then the biomechanics of the human body have improved our ability to patch it together — and a godsend that is in many cases. But there’s still so much we cannot do.

There’s still so much we don’t understand. By some estimates, the human body comprises 10 trillion cells; each cell comprises trillions of molecules (for instance, there are 10,000 different proteins in a single human liver cell, and millions of molecules of each of those proteins). And each cell is perpetually busy, moving molecules about, assembling them, cutting them up, generating signals for other cells, reacting to signals it receives. All this at speeds we would call “lightening” if we could perceive it.

It’s unimaginably complex. Throw out those drawings you made in high school biology — the circle with the nucleus in the center and maybe a mitochondria or some other “organelle” alongside. That was a cartoon. It wasn’t even close.

The best minds in alt medicine (many of whom are not practitioners, but lay people with an aptitude for chemistry or who have used their own “incurable” illnesses as a catalyst for studying biochemistry) have grasped the implications of this complexity, and are humbled by it. They realize what mainstream practitioners dare not admit: that the drugs we purchase from pharmacies are crude instruments at best. Big, foreign molecules that blunder about in our cells, changing things, yes, which sometimes does bring relief from our symptoms, yes — but also knocking about like the proverbial bull and inevitably, at times, disrupting cellular processes that are better left alone. Causing “side effects.”

Alt medicine, at its best, looks instead to juice the body’s own inherent healing processes. It’s such a simple and logical concept that it amazes me that people dismiss it, but they do. They do. People laugh at the notion, for example, of “detoxification.” Quackwatch, the smarmy online bastion of mainstream medical fanaticism (run, btw, by a man who is himself a quack in the truest sense of the word), calls detoxification “an elaborate, manipulative hoax,” for instance.

But who can argue that the body’s cells know how to eliminate “waste” — molecules which are of no use, and which if retained would be dead weight at best? Of course cells “know” how to do that. They do it all the time. So the question becomes, what processes do cells use to eliminate waste molecules, and are there ways to support those processes, so that cells become in effect cleaner and better able to function?

You can argue that there are effective ways to support given cellular processes, and ineffective ways, but the basic premise is unassailable. As is the premise that nutrients — those molecules our cells have used, for billions of years, as their natural building blocks — are the basis for fundamental health. Cells need nutrients to survive. Not just calories. Much more than just calories. Nutrients — all those oddball molecules that do things like make an tomato red or a piece of salmon savory. Those are the things our cells reach for when they need to patch something up or build an enzyme or produce a secretion.

Meanwhile, mainstream medicine hopes our understanding of biochemistry will eventually become so sophisticated that we’ll be able to craft molecules that deliver “cures” — meaning, molecules that alter certain cellular processes without disrupting others. So one day, a pharmaceutical sales rep will stroll into our MD’s office, open his briefcase, and hand out samples of the pill that cures fibromyalgia.

When that happens, the placebo can be tossed away for good.

And so our mainstream practitioners mark time, and wait.

And roll their eyes when people lose faith in them, leave their offices, log onto the Internet, and type “alternative cure” in the google keyword search.

It’s not “our” money, dontcha know. That Congress wants to hand out to the auto industry.

November 19th, 2008

Just to prove I don’t pick on Dems just because they’re Dems.

I’m an non-partisan critic of corruption, hooray!

Vid below a Republican talking. Michigan Rep. Joe Knollenberg.

Subject: auto bailout.

Revealing moment: at 30 seconds in, when Knollenberg objects to Cavuto presuming to call the bailout funding “our” money.

Cavuto: “Where do you draw the line with OUR money?”

Knollenberg: “It is not your money.”

This is what happens, folks, when you build out and fund huge centralized governments. They don’t see themselves as stewards. They don’t see themselves as entrusted with the care of precious and finite resources that belong to the citizens of our country.

They see themselves as elites with a blank check backed by Magic Dollars that they can replenish any time they want by just, ya know, letting the Bush tax cut lapse.

When are we going to learn?

Via Ed Morrissey at Hot Air.

No, your taxes will NOT be “cut”

November 19th, 2008

If you’re nervous about your finances today, wait until the Obama tax plan kicks in.

From Ned Barnett at The American Thinker, who by way of background notes that over the past 10 years, he’s earned from $50,000 to $100,000 per year — so he’s not in the category of the “more than $250K ‘evil rich’”:

I’ve worked as the state level media and strategy director on three Presidential election campaigns — I know how “promises” work — so I analyzed Senator Obama’s promises by looking for loopholes.

The first loophole was easy to find: Senator Obama doesn’t “count” allowing the Bush tax cuts to lapse as a tax increase. Unless the cuts are re-enacted, rates will automatically return to the 2000 level. Senator Obama claims that letting a tax cut lapse — allowing the rates to return to a higher levels — is not actually a “tax increase.” It’s just the lapsing of a tax cut.

See the difference?

Neither do I.

When those cuts lapse, my taxes are going up — a lot — but by parsing words, Senator Obama justifies his claim that he won’t actively raise taxes on 95 percent of working Americans, even while he’s passively allowing tax rates to go up for 100% of Americans who actually pay Federal income taxes.

Making this personal, my Federal Income Tax will increase by $3,824 when those tax cuts lapse. That not-insignificant sum would cover a couple of house payments or help my two boys through another month or two of college.

Barnett encourages us to go to this page on the IRS website, look up the tax tables for 2000 and 2007, and check his assumptions for ourselves.

In addition, Obama plans to eliminate the income cap on Social Security tax. So, for example, individuals making more than $94,700 will now pay an extra 12.4 percent tax on every dollar earned above that figure.

And he’s going to raise Capital Gains taxes. Too bad for you if you are one of the 50 percent of Americans who own stocks in, say, your 401K, and the market turns around.

Ah. No worries. What’s important is that 67 percent of Americans BELIEVE Obama is going to cut middle class taxes.

I bet he can keep insisting he’s cutting taxes, and his adoring public will continue to “know” that he has. Just like they “know” so much else about him. Democracy in action!

NOW we realize we should have shown some fiscal responsibility

November 18th, 2008

Good on Gov. Paterson. NY State is facing a $2 billion budget shortfall, but so far, he’s resisting calls to raise our taxes. Even on the evil rich.

“[T]he higher we tax even the wealthy, the more we lose population and the less job creation there is,” Gov. Paterson said in an interview Friday. “We’re pretty resigned to the fact that we’re going to have to do this with spending cuts.”

We’re already losing population, of course. Especially here in Upstate New York, where the economy-killing tax structure (we have the highest taxes of any state in the country) is even harder to shoulder because there’s less wealth here to start with — which precipitates a downward spiral, as those of us who haven’t left yet must shoulder larger and larger shares of the tax burden.

In a press conference Wednesday, the New York State Association of Counties presented county population estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau for the period of April 1, 2000, through July 1, 2007. Culled from examinations of local birth and death rates, as well as migration within the state, and international migration, these estimates paint a bleak picture for much of upstate.

“Of the 33 counties that lost population since the last census, 32 are upstate,” said Jeffrey Osinski, NYSAC’s director of research and education. He added that only three of New York’s counties grew at a rate exceeding the national population growth rate of 7.2 percent.

As a whole, New York had a population growth rate of 1.7 percent, ranking the state 43rd in the nation, he said. Five counties, all of which are upstate, grew less than 1.7 percent since 2000, Mr. Osinski said. Thus, 38 counties either lost population or grew at less than the state’s overall 1.7 percent rate.

“State and county leaders are concerned about our flat growth,” said Stephen J. Acquario, NYSAC’s executive director. “The fact that 38 of our counties either lost population or have grown at less than the state rate … is a troubling trend. If it continues, we will have fewer taxpayers to pay for an increasing number of services at a time when our property taxes are already too high.”

Exactly. And of course, the people who leave first are the ones who can afford to — young people, educated people, people who may already own a second home somewhere else, people whose earning power is on the way up. The sort of people who make a region prosperous if they decide to call it home.

But here’s the punch line. From the WSJ article I linked in my first paragraph (published in yesterday’s print edition):

New York’s governor blames the state’s current shortfall, in part, on its failure to better manage revenue during the years of soaring Wall Street profits. “What’s actually more embarrassing than the fact that we have such a huge deficit now, when bonuses are down and capital gains are down, is the fact that when there was…wealth, we overspent,” says Gov. Paterson.

Yeah. I’ll say it’s “embarrassing.”

That’s what happens when “we” are spending other peoples’ money though, isn’t it, guvnor.

Oh, but they seemed like such NICE guys

November 13th, 2008

Via Instapundit, Damon Root, associate editor of Reason, has a piece up that argues that libertarianism is more important now than ever.

Rhetorical point I know — but that’s like saying that Love is more important some times than others. Principles are always equally important. That’s what makes them principles. There’s never a good time to stick libertarianism in a shoebox and kick it under the bed. In fact, if the current political nightmare has taught us anything, it’s that we need to be equally vigilant when the GOP is in control. Ya know. Guard against being pimped vs. guard against being criminalized.

That said, the article is a keeper, if for no other reason than Root’s summary of how “progressive” politicians have historically used high minded-sounding power grabs to screw people.

Here’s a taste:

[A]s economist Tim Leonard points out, progressives believed in a “powerful, centralized state, conceiving of government as the best means for promoting the social good,” a belief that directly contributed to the widespread progressive support for eugenics, racial collectivism, and various coercive “reforms.” Progressive darling Theodore Roosevelt, for instance, held notoriously racist and imperialist views, including the notion of “race suicide,” which held that the white race faced the risk of being out bred by its “little brown brothers.” He also believed that the 15th Amendment should never have been ratified since the black race, in his words, was “two hundred thousand years behind” the white.

In opposition to all that stood libertarians like Moorfield Storey, the great lawyer and activist who helped found both the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the Anti-Imperialist League. A proponent of the gold standard and laissez-faire economics, Storey argued and won the NAACP’s first victory before the Supreme Court, a 1917 decision that relied on a defense of property rights to squash a residential segregation law.

I’d sure like to see some of today’s so-called “progressives” sober up a bit and admit their history.

And then tell me how they’re going to protect these wonderful government programs they want to push on us from devolving into corrupt political debacles like the Farm Bill.

Good luck with supporting that position, guys.

Political parties

November 11th, 2008

I am not a Federalist, because I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever . . . Such an addiction is the last degredation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.

– Thomas Jefferson

[quoted in American Sphinx, Joseph J. Ellis]

Tracing mischief to its source

November 11th, 2008

Eric Sheie, at Classical Values, surveys the West Coast brouhaha over Proposition 8 and writes:

I’d hate to think all this fuss is over a desire for official state imprimatur, but I worry that it is. Like almost everything else (soon including the auto industry), marriage is seen as something you get from the government. Maybe it would be better to see it as something that the government cannot interfere with, the way genuine rights are.

Exactly. And this is why I just want to scream, sometimes.

Why can’t the so-called “Left” understand that the government is NOT its friend — that a government is NOBODY’S friend? That we’d all be better off if we curtailed the government’s intrusion into our lives — instead of investing so much time and energy into trying to manipulate it into saving us from the very problems it has created in the first place?

What is so difficult to grasp here?

It seems so obvious to me. It seems a kindergartener could grasp it.

Take this WSJ A-head that features a gay couple. They have been married — to each other — four separate times. The reason: they are trying “to garner in a piecemeal way the legal, social and emotional perks of marriage:”

It’s tough going. Three states recognize same-sex marriage. Eight others, plus more than 70 cities, offer civil unions or domestic partnerships with varying rights. The laws can affect everything from discounts on car rentals to hospital-visiting rights. None are recognized by the federal government for matters such as immigration, income taxes and Social Security benefits.

Notice anything? Notice anything?

In the last sentence?

Income taxes? Social Security?

First, the federal government grabs new powers to tax us and create programs that expand its role beyond that the Framers envisioned — beyond what the Constitution provides.

Decades later, the effects continue to ripple through peoples’ lives.

“Save-the-world” Federal solutions turn out to create hassles and inequities for certain groups. Gee, what a surprise.

And what’s “the only answer”?

More legislation, of course! Federal-level, if we can get it, to stitch together the whole damn messy blanket from sea to shining sea.

I’m not arguing that the gay marriage issue would be un-messy under any circumstances. Clearly some issues — like hospital visitation rights, which should absolutely be granted to gay couples — could exist even if our government had adhered to a more restrained vision of its powers.

But let’s use some common sense, people! ANY time the Federal government assumes the power to manage individuals’ day-to-day fortunes, it creates whole new sets of problems — problems that, if you accept that those powers have been assumed legitimately, can only be solved by at the Federal level, since that’s where they originate.

What’s it going to take for people to understand what has really happened, here?

I mean, Imagine this, all you Lennon fans. Imagine if “marriage” had nothing to do with the government. Imagine if the “marital status” of ANY American was a totally PRIVATE matter. Gay people could “marry” and it would be nobody’s business. Straight people could “marry” and it would be nobody’s business. Polygamists could “marry” and it would be nobody’s business.

There would be no instrument in place for anyone to control what’s going on in someone’s household, relative to who is sleeping with whom. If someone disapproved of a union based on some personal moral code, he’d have to content himself with assuming his god would take care of accounts in the afterlife. No imposing that moral code on other human beings who might not share it.

Private entities like hospitals would have to set policies based on common sense and human decency and adherence to basic criminal codes, instead of hiding behind government-sanctioned labels.

Is it so hard for people to envision that?

Is it so hard for people to understand that the beauty of our Constitution is that it laid the groundwork for our evolving into that place, had we only sense enough to refrain from infantilizing ourselves?