Thursday, May 12, 2005

LGBT: Spanish Catholics stand up for LGBT rights

Several Spanish Catholic organizations have taken a position against the Catholic church and are supporting civil marriage rights for LGBT individuals. Finally someone got it right - legal marriage does not force religious groups to recognize those unions. And finally some Catholics are realizing that same-sex unions might not destroy the family... can we say common sense?!?! :)

Of course the Catholic church has called the civil marriage rights "a step backward on the path to civilization." I'm not 100% sure, but the last time I was in a spanish class, I thought that Spain was considered one of the civilized countries of the world. Hm, I didn't know that two people who love each other and would want to obtain legal protection and tax benefits could cause civilization to fall apart or regress. Sounds kinda dramatic to me!

Wednesday, May 11, 2005

Religion and Politics: That Mess in North Carolina

Pastor resigns after political spat, from CNN.com.

I hope the congregation learns a lesson, but at least some of them won't:

"I don't believe he preached politics. I don't believe anyone should tell a preacher not to preach what's in the Bible."
- Rhonda Trantham, church member
What she and lots of her fellow congregants don't realize, of course, is that they have no clue what's written in that thing, or what the heck those documents are going on about. These folks who insist that their Bible is some kind of mystical book that contains magic instructions about how to live every aspect of their lives, and how to behave in every possible circumstance, will never really get it. They'll never ask questions besides, "Should people abort babies, and how should I treat people who do?" Not that they look in there to answer the second question...

Captain Sacrament's analysis? That pastor is a coward and of course he's backtracking. And the people? They're trying to imagine some kind of contrived separation between religious motivations and political actions when they can't clearly define either realm to begin with.

Update!

Monday, May 9, 2005

Evil Empire: No alarms, No surprises

If you're a female Walmart employee, and your coworker likes to brag about the size of his penis, about how girls love the feels of his penis piercing, and how he could make you 'baa like a goat,' make sure you don't complain about it. It might get you fired.

MedEcon: Obese workers' pay lower due to health costs?

Sparkgrass ConservaBuddy Bo Cowgill found an interesting study from his alma mater:

Studies have consistently shown that obese employees are paid less than normal-weight employees doing similar jobs, leading many people to attribute the gap to prejudice against workers based on their appearance.

But new research from Stanford University health economists adds another wrinkle to understanding these pay differentials: obese workers are paid less only when they have employer-sponsored health insurance.
To clear up the logical first question that may pop into your mind,
"We don't think this is a conscious process where the employer says, 'OK, Jane is obese, and we're paying for her health coverage, so let's pay her this much less in wages,'" Bundorf said. But she added that the finding that the pay for obese insured workers rises more slowly than that of their normal-weight counterparts suggests that obese workers may be getting smaller and less frequent raises.

Aside from providing insight into the costs of obesity among workers, the study provides perhaps the strongest evidence to date that the costs of employer-sponsored health insurance are, in fact, passed on to workers through lower wages. By implication, insured workers should be just as alarmed by rising health-care costs as their employers are.
Of course, the interpretation of such a study, i.e. what actions such information should summon, can be spun various ways. I believe that such a study should show employers that they should be vested in preventative health measures for their employees as a way of reducing overall cost. I'm sure the Bill O'Reilly's of the world will say the fat people should 1) get off their fat asses, and 2) have to pay more. Option A (preventative measures) actually addresses the problem, whereas Option B (watching the O'Reilly Factor) ignores it in hopes that the fat people will die and go away.

I think it might be premature to completely disregard the idea that actual discrimination has a part in lower wages for the obese. Of course, this study doesn't make any such claim, noting a discrepancy in raises between obese and non-obese workers which could very well be attributed, at least in part, to discrimination and/or decreased productivity due to complications of obesity.

Sunday, May 8, 2005

Religion: Fighting Fundamentalism

I think at least Garrett will appreciate this: the people in my world are fighting a battle for "hearts and minds" against the creeping fundamentalism endemic to American religious life.

The self-styled "conservatives" think my kind are reprobates, trying to undermine what they think the Christian faith is really about. Liberals don't trust us much because we don't subscribe to that party line, either. It's tough to be nuanced, politically or religiously, but this is what we do; this is what we model for others, while trying to be friends with them. Because if one cannot do that, one can't really influence them, either.

The leader of my own Christian community, Alan, offered this tonight; a shot across the bow in terms of the normal Southern religious discourse:

I suppose, generally speaking (speaking of the Bible and me and maybe you), if you are a very hard-core Sola Scriptura evangelical Christian who's very much into pre-millennial rapture and "fags" going to hell - if you believe every minute detail of how we are to live our lives is found in the black letters (and red) of your King James Bible - if you are a serious 5-point Calvinist who believes that God has a mysterious plan that involves the horrible death of a molested child - if you secretly still think the Roman Catholic Church is the "whore of Babylon" - yeah, uhhh, you're not going to like me very much. You will, perhaps, think I am beyond liberal and perhaps not even truly Christian. I will have to learn to deal with that.
I like to offer sometimes, "See, we're not all like that."

MedPol: Detroit Ponders Fast-Food Tax

A 2-percent tax, to be precise, on top of the 6-percent tax already on prepared food in Detroit.

Mixed feelings, all around.

Revenue = good

Disproportionately affecting lower income folk = bad

Discouraging people from fast food = good

Chance people will actually be discouraged from eating fast food = low

Unfairly punishing one sort of corporate whoredom = who cares?

Pushing businesses out of Detroit = highly unlikely

Chance of passing = close to zero

Politics: South Park Republican Bingo

You can't play, you can't win, but why would you want to?

I am:
27%
Republican.
"You're probably one of those people who still thinks that getting a blowjob is not an impeachable offense."

Are You A Republican?

Friday, May 6, 2005

Religion and Politics: The Culture Wars Heat Up

The pastor of East Waynesville Baptist Church in Waynesville, NC has asked church members who supported Democratic candidates last November to repent, or else leave their fellowship.

There’s video from a local newscast here via Dembloggers.com. (Thanks to Peter and the Daily Kos for the heads-up.)

Was this a violation of religious freedom? Not in terms of civics: there is no constitutional protection that ensures church members won’t be expelled for dissenting opinions and choices.

It is by Baptist standards. Historically, Baptists are really keen on letting people make their own political decisions, and don’t draw battle lines too closely in terms of politics. They have liked to allow disagreement among their own because of their own history of persecution by the politically powerful.

Make no mistake, this will ruffle feathers in the state and local Baptist associations, if EWBC is a member. I’d like to know which seminary the pastor graduated from, if any?

Could there be an IRS problem? Maybe. I’m still waiting to find out if those folks in Louisville see any consequences from that filibuster of faith thing. I don’t know what the rules are for politicking from the pulpit, but if he’s ousting people specifically over candidates instead of talking about specific issues, that should hopefully make things rough legally.

Update: Pastor Runs Away

LGBT: John Kerry, gay marriage douchebag

So maybe he wasn't just talking out the side of his mouth during the presidential campaigns. Of course, Kerry doesn't particularly qualify the reasoning behind his remarks. Still.

U.S. Sen. John Kerry, visiting Louisiana for a forum on children's health care, criticized the Massachusetts Democratic Party for its expected approval of a statement in the party platform in support of same-sex marriage.

"I think it's a mistake," Kerry said. "I think it's the wrong thing, and I'm not sure it reflects the broad view of the Democratic Party in our state."
Update: John McCain rips Kerry for behaving in ways that make it obvious he'd like to run for president again in 2008. Related much? Methinks so.

MedEcon: A Serious Drug Problem

Krugman's latest:

Needless to say, apologists for the law insist that the prohibition on price negotiations had nothing to do with catering to special interests - that it was a matter of principle, of preserving incentives to innovate. How can we refute this defense?

One way is to challenge claims that the pharmaceutical industry needs high prices to innovate. In her book "The Truth About the Drug Companies," Marcia Angell, the former editor in chief of The New England Journal of Medicine, shows convincingly that drug companies spend far more on marketing than they do on research - and that much of the marketing is designed to sell "me, too" drugs, which are no better than the cheaper drugs they replace. It should be possible to pay less for medicine, yet encourage more real innovation.

Thursday, May 5, 2005

LGBT: FDA set to implement new rules rejecting gay men as anonymous sperm donors

"To the dismay of gay rights activists, the Food and Drug Administration is about to implement new rules recommending that any man who has engaged in homosexual sex in the previous five years be barred from serving as an anonymous sperm donor. The FDA has rejected calls to scrap the provision, insisting that gay men collectively pose a higher-than-average risk of carrying the AIDS virus. "
I find this particularly interesting since the FDA currently bans ALL donations by gay men, not just anonymous ones for blood, tissue, and marrow. The "anonymous-only" ban makes me wonder if this is an attempt to curtail the birth of potentially gay children by making sure sperm recipients know what they're getting into.

Wednesday, May 4, 2005

LGBT: Now ABC is starting to piss me off!

Thy won't air a gay-friendly commercial about a church, but they will air James Dobson and his "Focus of the Family" commercial? Come on!!

Tuesday, May 3, 2005

Media: Colbert Gets His Own Show!!!

Good news for Daily Show fans - everybody's second favorite Steve is getting his own show. The show will be the comic version of the pundit shows: The O'Reilly Factor, Scarborough Country, Hannity & Colmes (Sorry, I stole that joke from Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right) and the like.

Yet another reason to keep me up late during surgery.

International: China offers Taiwan giant pandas


Chinese intelligience infiltrates Taiwan
China has announced a series of goodwill gestures towards Taiwan, including the gift of two giant pandas. Pandas are considered China's ultimate diplomatic gesture, though it is not clear if Taiwan will accept the offer.
What Taiwan doesn't know is that the pandas are actually elite assassins sent to eliminate Taiwanese heads of state. Hasn't anyone heard of the Trojan horse? Notice the agents as they survey their targets.

Medicine: Babies inherit 9/11 moms' stress

From the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism:

Pregnant women who witnessed the World Trade Center attacks on 9/11 passed on biological signs of stress to their babies, researchers suggest.

Scientists from Edinburgh and New York say tests on infants when they were a year old showed they had low levels of the stress hormone cortisol.

Their mothers also showed low cortisol levels, a sign someone is affected by PTSD the researchers say.

The researchers will follow the babies as the grow up to see if those with lower cortisol levels go on to develop psychological disorders when they are older.

A separate study by Columbia University Medical Centre researchers found one in three New York schoolchildren suffered mental disorders in the wake of the September 11 attacks.

And a quarter experienced one or more of six anxiety disorders in the six months directly after the terrorist outrage.

Medicine: Clinton, Huckabee Announce Childhood Obesity Plan

Laudable quote of the story:

Glancing at Clinton, himself a former Arkansas governor, the Republican Huckabee joked: "I'm going to outlive all the Democrats." Then he added: "This is so not a political issue. This is about people and their health."
I Heart Huckabee.

Health/Politics: Cover the Uninsured Week

This week (May 1-8) is Cover the Uninsured Week, sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Despite my recent laziness, I am going to try to post information on the uninsured all week. I personally believe that it is a national embarrassment that we have people without access to healthcare in the United States. I believe this is a basic violation of human rights, but if you don't buy that argument for the uninsured, there are many other reasons why you should be concerned about the rising number of uninsured persons in the United States, such as the negative effect that a large number of uninsured people have on the health care of an entire community.
One quick example: in Arizona, a bill was passed in 11/2/04that aims to restrict illegal immigrant's access to public, tax-payer funded services. Many want this bill to also restrict nonemergent health care coverage (provided by the public health authority and other taxpayer-funded sources) access to illegal immigrants, but thankfully this has not occurred. Now let us take a step back and think logically about some of the possible effects of restricting health care to illegal immigrants- there are a large percentage of illegal, uninsured immigrants in Arizona, who bring with them all of those infectious diseases that we only read about in our infectious disease books - you know, things like leprosy and TB, diseases that also happen to be highly transmissible to other people. If you deny illegal immigrants treatment for such infectious diseases simply because they are not taxpayers, you are also increasing the risk of spreading diseases to others in the community. Infectious diseases know no insurance status boundaries, and having a population with untreated TB and leprosy does not exactly do much to increase the public health of a community (and yes, Maricopa County in Arizona actually has one of the 4 leprosy (Hansen's Disease) clinics located in the United States). The illegal status of the immigrants adds some complexity to this tale of the uninsured, but it does demonstrate one way in which the health of the uninsured affects everybody in a community. This same theory could be applied to the lower rates of childhood immunization in areas where the levels of insurance are also low. Even if you do not believe that health care is a right, you might want to at least be concerned on how a lack of health care in others affects you. More to come....

Medicine: 13 year old girl update

Another Florida court has ruled that the 13 year old Florida girl mentioned two posts down will be allowed to have her abortion.

Monday, May 2, 2005

MedEcon: A Private Obsession

Krugman's latest on health care, lost in the Step 1 fray.

Medicine: Florida Court says 13 year old girl mature enough to have baby, not mature enough to make a simple medical decision

The state decides she can't have an abortion because the teenager, who is under the care of the state, is too young and immature to make an informed medical decision. And all this DESPITE the fact that Florida state law specifically does not require a minor to seek parental consent before an abortion.

But never fear, the ACLU to the rescue!

This seems like a huge case, given that Roe pretty specifically protects first term abortions, and no existing federal or Florida state law justifies this decision in the case of a minor (which is of course not true in many other states).

In summary:

The American Civil Liberties Union's executive director in Florida, Howard Simon, said forcing a 13-year-old to carry on an unwanted pregnancy to term, against her wishes, is not only illegal and unconstitutional, it is cruel.
Three cheers for the ACLU! Of course, this isn't the most strictly legally tenable position, but I can't say I don't agree with it absolutely.

Medicine: Obesity a problem among the affluent

It's not just the poor people packing on the pounds any more:

Money for quality food aside, higher-income people are thought to be better educated and to have better access to health care, so why such a jump among them? In an interview, Robinson said no one yet knows. But she speculated that longer commutes, growing popularity of restaurants and possibly longer work hours since the 1970s are playing a role.

The poor still are the most likely to be fat, said Dr. Adam Drewnowski of the University of Washington, an expert on the problem. Moreover, since the '70s, rates of extreme obesity — being 90 to 100 pounds or more overweight — have ballooned among lower-income groups, something the study doesn't address, he said.

Further complicating attempts to compare income and obesity are cultural factors. Certain racial and ethnic groups positively equate a man's girth with wealth — it's a sign of success, Drewnowski said.

"I would caution against any attempts to interpret these data to say social differences have disappeared," he said. "It just shows that obesity is a general problem and it's now affecting pretty much everybody. ... But it would be very shortsighted to stop paying attention to the people who are most vulnerable."

LGBT: Oregon next?

Is Oregon the next state in line to establish same-sex partner benefits? Why am I still living in MI? Will some other corporate giant do in Oregon what Microsoft did in Washington?

Thursday, April 28, 2005

MedWar: Belgian Doctors Bill U.S. for Treating Iraqi Girl

Poignant:

Doctors brought Kassim to Belgium last year to try to save her left ankle, seriously injured by a cluster bomb that also killed her brother in Baghdad in 2003.

After five operations and weeks of physiotherapy, Kassim is able to walk again, but with a slight limp.

De Belder said he sent the bill to the U.S. embassy because international law dictated that an occupying force was responsible for the well-being of the country's people. U.S. embassy officials were not immediately available for comment.

Medicine: save us from our sins

Placebo Gazette #33 is up.

Just so you don’t lose hope, I wanted to update you on the state of health insurance in this country. Good news! UnitedHealthcare Group saw its first quarter earnings rise 41% from last year. Yes! And they pulled this off only by increasing premiums and getting more people to join the plan and not by cutting salaries of their executives. Thanks goodness. As the AP reported, Chairman and Chief Executive William W. McGuire told analysts it was "about as good a quarter as we have seen, and the outlook for the future (is) very strong." Later in the article he even admits that medical costs are dropping. Wow! I wondered to myself, with medical costs dropping, maybe they can cut premiums? Then I thought, why should they? They can just keeping raising their rates and make mo’ money, mo’ money and mo’ money. Since this was a business article, by the way, it was intended for stockholders or potential stockholders and not for people who want to make the healthcare system more affordable (like me and you).

Wednesday, April 27, 2005

Politics: House GOP yields on ethics rules

So it looks like the Republicans are going to reverse the unethical ethics rules. I'm actually a little disappointed, this is one less issue to unite the Democrats and their base against a power hungry corrupt Republican political machine (not to be confused with the power hungry corrupt Democrat political machine which is currently in the shop for repairs).

Politics: So What's this Filibuster Crap About?

Ever since Jimmy Stewart wouldn't shut up in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Senators have been using the filibuster to prevent the majority party from railroading through legislation and Presidential nominations. Well all of that could change. Democrats in the Senate have blocked about 10 of Bush's nominations and only approved 195 judges, provoking the wrath of the Republicans (and God). The Nation has a nice review of the filibuster issue including the following myths:
Myth 1: Judicial filibusters are unconstitutional.
Myth 2: Judicial filibusters are unprecedented.
Myth 3: Republicans have the moral high ground.
Myth 4: Filibusters are more appropriate for legislation than judges.

Games/Politics: So, you think that you can do better?

Ahhh...it's nice to be able to finally stop worrying about the boards. To help unwind, I present to you the free online game of NationStates. The basic premise is simple: You run the government. You set up a flag, a currency, and a name, then fill about a brief survey about your politic opinions. The game then creates a snapshot of what a country run by you would look like. Each day, a new political issue is presented for your government to decide upon, allowing your country to evolve. It's not very time intensive, but it is an interesting experiment in what your utopia (or dystopia) would look like. Cheers to pointless fun!

(In case anyone was curious, The Federation of Krugg is considered by the game to be a "Left-Leaning College State").

Monday, April 25, 2005

MedSchool: Mercy on our souls

Those of you who pray, do so vigilantly for your second year medical students at Sparkgrass, most of whom will be taking the most important exam of our lives over the next few days.

And for you Mormoms who are into that retroactive prayer thing, I think Geoff took his late last week, so ya know. We'll take all the help we can get.

Sunday, April 24, 2005


Memorial: RIP Marla Ruzicka

I might just be in an overly emotional mood given a high level of stress induced by an evil medical school test, but the story of Marla Ruzicka really touched me. Ms. Ruzicka had enough courage to go to Iraq and help count the number of Iraqi victims of war - the people we hardly hear about here in the US, and the people of whom the US "officially" does not keep tallies . Her memorial service was held Saturday, and there is more about her work trying to get surgery for a 12-year-old Iraqi boy, Rakan Hassan, who was injured when US troops mistakenly fired on his family's car. I'm not quite sure I was moved to start sobbing while reading this story, but here is one of the quotes that really got the tears flowing:

Rakan said he felt sorry for Ruzicka's parents because "she cared about me. I should care about her family in return."
The simplicity in this young man's statement is breathtaking, and I wish more of us in the world could have this attitude of caring for others. Maybe I feel bad because it's easy to forget or become desensitized to the fact that there are still a large number of people dying in Iraq, both Americans and Iraqis, while I sit here in Ann Arbor feeling sorry for myself. I have the luxury of attending medical school and studying for 12 hours a day, while sipping expensive coffee at Starbucks, safely and securely, while across the world there are people like Ms. Ruzicka and most of our US troops who are risking their lives to help out a citizens of a country in turmoil. This story puts life into perspective, as hokey and blase as that sounds, and the passion that Ms. Ruzicka had for her work inspires awe. May she rest in peace, and may the good works that she started continue on in Iraq.

Friday, April 22, 2005

Medicine: Amish Community Builds Mental Health Home

This is sweet.

The house known as Green Pastures will allow the Amish to live among their own people and maintain a lifestyle that eschews modern conveniences — no television or radio — while receiving outpatient clinical treatment.

Known for their plain style of dress and their use of horse-drawn buggies, the Amish tend to avoid seeking psychiatric help in secular settings, fearing their religious traditions will be viewed as part of the problem.

World: Spain Approves Gay Marriage Despite Church Anger

So Spain has approved gay marriage, but what's really interesting is why this is happening. The Socialists won the 2004 election largely due to the negative impression of the incumbent People's Party. The People's Party lost support due to its backing of the war on terror, the invasion of Iraq, and the subsequent bombing in Madrid (click here for more background). The Catholic conservative People's Party backs Bush and the war on terror, alienates its base, and subsequently paves the way for a liberal law that allows gay marriage. What other repercussions will the highly unpopular "War on Terror" have in other countries?

Literature: Novelists to Oprah: "Sell our books for us, please!"

Harry Potter

Caramel Mocha Chip Light Frappuchino (no whip)

Jesus Christ

Oprah Winfrey

No four figures things have made more people visit bookstores.

The starving fiction writers appeal to Oprah, "Save Us!"

Oprah says, "I never knew ye."

So, with all due drama, fanfare, and histrionic personality disorders, we proudly announce the Sparkgrass Bookclub! And our first selection is none other but Samuel Shem's internship epic of comedic proportions, The House of God.

We're guaranteed to sell "the limit as x approaches infinity of 47 / (3x + 1)" books for these starving authors!

Thursday, April 21, 2005

YUM Brands: Balance in the Force

KFC is once again Kentucky Fried Chicken.

Politics: values fight back

John Kerry:

I am sick and tired of a bunch of people trying to tell me that God wants a bunch of conservative judges on the court and that's why we have to change the rules of the United States Senate. I am sick and tired of (them saying) they somehow have a better understanding of Christianity, of the Judeo-Christian ethic, of values. We're talking about values? You show me where in the New Testament Jesus ever talked about the value of having taxes and taking money from poor people to give to the rich people in this country.
I'm not precisely sure what he means by that last statement (the tax is at least progressive in theory), but you've gotta love the spunk!

Update: And a video message from Kerry. Excellent message, if you can stay awake for it. I think I like post-election Kerry much better than pre-election Kerry. He's re-embraced the "most liberal Senator from Massachussets" charge in a push for national health care for children, and can come out and knock on DeLay and Frist unabashedly. And with Hillary shifting from "most liberal" to "most doing-whatever-it-takes-to-try-to-get-elected," I think Kerry can now pick up the "New England liberal" congressional slack.

Religion and AIDS: Does Roman Catholic Teaching Kill?

In the Melbourne Herald Sun, Andrew Bolt challenges the conventional wisdom on AIDS prevention, suggesting that multiple sexual partners, not the lack of condoms, is the real problem in the spread of HIV/AIDS in the developing world.

An excerpt:

It is a fact that Pope John Paul II opposed condoms, telling African bishops again not long before his death that "fidelity within marriage and abstinence outside are the only sure ways to limit the further spread of AIDS infection".

So is this the advice that killed millions?

First, to believe that we must believe Africans are so obedient to the Pope that they won't wear a condom, but also so disobedient that they'll still have casual sex.

We’d also have to believe that more were killed by having unprotected sex outside marriage than were saved by doing as the Pope said and zipping up. We must further believe that most or very many Africans are Catholic, and are hit hardest by AIDS.

Naturally, the truth is the very opposite.

The countries with the worst HIV infection rates in the world turn out to be Swaziland and Botswana, where more than a third of adults have the virus -- but only 5 per cent are Catholic.

Botswana, incidentally, is pro-condoms, not that it seems to have helped much.

In contrast, Uganda, where half the people are Catholic, is the one African country that has slashed its rate of infection -- from a devastating 15 per cent of all adults to "just" 5 per cent. And, heavens, it worked this miracle by doing much as the Pope had preached.

Since 1986, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, backed by religious leaders, pushed his ABC program – telling people to Abstain until marriage, Be faithful to their partner, and, if all else fails, to wear a Condom.

This morals-heavy message was not welcomed by the usual condoms-please AIDS experts, many the kind of folk now heckling the dead Pope. Yet it worked so well that Dr Edward C. Green, a prominent AIDS adviser and medical anthropologist from Harvard's School of Public Health, was driven to write Rethinking AIDS Prevention, to warn us to learn this lesson.

"I said it in my 2003 book that the single most important behavioural change (in Uganda) was fidelity, and most of that is marital fidelity," Green has explained.

"The second change is the proportion of youth engaging in sex – that went down in a big way."

Fancy that. Christian morality makes you safer. How scary is that to a progressive? And in case you're wondering, Green says he's a "flaming liberal" who doesn't go to church or even vote Republican. He just follows the facts.

To make things worse, he adds: "Twenty years into the pandemic, there is no evidence that more condoms leads to less AIDS."

If they did Africa, which imports about 700 million condoms a year with the help of international agencies, would not today have 25 million people with AIDS.

Indeed, the University of California's Professor Norman Hearst, who has studied infection rates in condom-happy countries such as Kenya and Botswana, warns that pushing condoms and the safe-sex message so hard encourages people to be promiscuous, thinking they're protected.

They're not, of course. As Hearst says, condoms sometimes fail; so if you have enough sex with enough people enough times, you're flirting with danger.

The moral of the story? The Pope was largely right: saving sex for marriage is the best defence against AIDS. Save sex, not safe sex. We've seen it work, as other leading AIDS workers agree.

Last year, for instance, respected AIDS experts appealed in the British Medical Journal for more to be done to preach faithfulness instead of just condoms.

"It seems obvious but there would be no global AIDS pandemic were it not for multiple sexual partnerships," said the gurus, from groups such as the Global Fund for AIDS, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the US Agency for International Development.

Emphases mine. Thanks to Ken’s comment at Kendall Harmon’s blog for the heads-up.

My question: does Bolt set up a straw man? Is the argument he’s answering really as simplistic as “Catholic teaching causes AIDS?” Is it really one of the biggest problems of the developing world that so many of its people are devout Catholics who want to behave and shun condoms, while misbehaving and fornicating constantly? Are those men really going to start using condoms because the church says so? Or is that even the charge?

So much debate over this and every other charged issue gets reduced to polemical soundbites instead of nuanced discussion. Maybe we can see some of the latter in this space...

Marriage: A Personal Observation

Opponents of same-sex marriage accuse legislators and judges of "redefining marriage", but in my personal experience marriage is a reflection of the intimacy a couple has achieved, not a definition of what that couple is. Marriage doesn't hold families together or make people better parents or bring couples closer; the high rates of divorce attest to that. Rather, when a couple have reached a point where they realize that their lives depend on each other and will forever, they decide to recognize that publicly by being wed. My parents were married for 34 years, not because of a certificate or a wedding ceremony, but because every day they made that decision to continue their relationship. Healthy marriage depends on re-affirming that union on a daily basis. Whatever is written in law books or religious texts merely seeks to explain what it is already exists. And so to say that anyone could re-define marriage misses the point. Many same-sex couples have reached that point of intimacy whether or not it's legally recognized, and they merely want to express it like anyone else, in a marriage. To refuse to recognize that, to exclude a couple that has already bound their lives together due to your own moral beliefs, is the redefinition. In our country today, marriage is no longer a reflection of the intimacy between to people; it's a political tool used to oppress those we disagree with.

LGBT: Two steps forward, one step back

Connecticut govenor Jodi Rell signed into law a bill that legalized same-sex civil unions (two steps forward) while "defining" marriage as a union between one man and one woman (one step backwards). While we're certainly making progress here, there's still a hint of fear in my mind.

But I say that first and foremost, lets celebrate this accomplishment and work to preserve it. We know that opponents of gay rights are going to attack this bill like none other. Instead of spending all our energy on pushing for same-sex marriage in CT, let's spend a little time trying to convince the CT public that this bill is good and not a threat to them. Once we've won them over, then we can start thinking about pushing for marriage rights. Let's not get too greedy and end up losing what we've already won.

Medicine: Fat not THAT bad?

A new study from the CDC significantly downgrades the risks of obesity, especially moderately overweight folks with well controlled cholesterol and blood pressure. Under the new study, obesity falls right behind guns and car crashes in the preventable death counts. Could we see the 25-30-35 BMI dogma bumped up a little? Diabetes seems to demand a big "not yet," but stay tuned.

Wednesday, April 20, 2005

Politics: Save Phil A Buster!

Save Phil, while simple propaganda, is awfully darn cute.

Tuesday, April 19, 2005

Medicine: does birth control save lives?

With the election of the new pope, and the use of birth control in the third world a hot topic, I decided to peruse the medical literature to see what I could come up regarding whether it is valid to say that a lack of access to contraception leads to poor maternal-fetal health. Here's a sample of what I've found. Those without Medline access may have trouble with the links.

Women in developing countries suffer considerable morbidity and mortality due to inability to control their own fertility and lack of access to family planning services. Over 500,000 deaths each year are related to pregnancy. Two thirds of these maternal deaths could be prevented by providing contraception to those women who wish to use it in developing countries.
The fifth freedom. Kincaid-Smith P. Bioethics. 1995 Jul;9(3-4):183-91.
Increased use of family planning and safe abortion might avert 100,000 maternal deaths each year due to pregnancy related causes and 200,000 maternal deaths due to unsafe abortion.
Curlin P, Tinker A. Women's health. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 1995 Jun;9(2):335-51.
And some info derived from the very important World Fertility Surveys from the early 80s, compiling data from 41 developing countries:
Only about 6000 of the estimated half million maternal deaths each year occur in developed countries. The indirect causes of maternal mortality are related to the unfavorable status of women reflected in poverty, illiteracy, lack of access to health care, and procreation patterns. The World Fertility Surveys indicate that 200,000 maternal deaths would be avoided each year if women not wanting more children had access to contraception. Contraceptive use would also prevent most of the estimated 100,000-200,000 maternal deaths from complications of abortion each year.
Aizenman DE. Impact of family planning on maternal-child health. The future of humanity depends on our children. Profamilia. 1988 Dec;4(13):28-33.
The Catholics for Choice website lists the following information, but there aren't proper citations. However, the information seems very consistent with previously properly cited work.

Access to contraception is proven to reduce maternal and infant deaths, slow the spread of HIV/AIDS, reduce the number and need for abortions, and improve the life expectancy of children. Every year:

Regardless of whether the Catholic doctrine against contraception is consistent or inconsistent with scripture, it is a public health disaster of severely epic proportions that is simply unacceptable to non-Catholics, and should be realized and considered by the Catholic church itself. A ban on contraception may very well be inconsistent with support for a 'culture of life.'

Religion: Now What Could This Mean?


Update: This was posted before the election of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger of Germany, who is very conservative and probably not a fan of pink smoke. The BBC has described Ratzinger as:
While many theologians strive for a Catholic Church that is more open and in touch with the world around it, Ratzinger's mission is to stamp out dissent, and curb the "wild excesses" of this more tolerant era.

He wields the tools of his office with steely efficiency. By influencing diocese budgets, bishops' transfers and even excommunications, what an opponent calls "symbolic violence", Ratzinger has clamped down on the more radical contingent of the Church.
He has even claimed the prime position of the Church of Rome over other Christian Churches. Although he has apologised for this, he has never been so contrite about excluding liberation theologians, more progressive priests or those in favour of the ordination of women.


Personally charming, quick-witted and fluent in four languages, the Cardinal is a convincing orator. Jesuit Father Thomas Reese calls him "a delightful dialogue partner", but adds that most of the Cardinal's fellow clergy would be too worried about the prospect of excommunication to enjoy talking to him.

Religion and Politics: JPII would have voted for Bush

Want to hear a couple of Republicans talk about how closely the political viewpoints of the American President are aligned with that of the late Pope John Paul II?

When asked whether it was really appropriate for the President to use JPII’s famous phrase, “culture of life” to describe his political stances in light of papal opposition to the death penalty and the Vatican’s descriptions of the Iraq war as a “…defeat for humanity…” “illegal,” “immoral,” and “unjust,” White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan responded,

I think that the president’s views on the matter are well known; I don’t think now is the time to talk about how they may have differed on one or two areas.

I’m sure the Holy Father thought they were pretty minor as well.

Click here and find “Papal Talking Points” to see the clip from Comedy Central’s Daily Show pages.

Religion: No New Pope Yet


Is anyone else expecting a bunch of British chimney sweeps to pop out and start dancing on the rooftop of the Sistine Chapel?

I think the whole smoke idea is kind of antiquated. How about a ball that drops or flashing lights? Dancing Oompaloompas with their cryptic songs? Do any of you have better ideas for how to notify the world that a new religious leader for millions of people has been selected?

LGBT: Britain's best mum?

Perhaps the most important pageant of them all may be turning LGBT friendly...

The best mother in Britain could be a gay man
Now wouldn't that just blows a conservative gasket to two?

Mebbe I ain't such a suth'ner afta awl, ya thanks?



Your Linguistic Profile:



65% General American English

20% Dixie

5% Midwestern

5% Upper Midwestern

0% Yankee


Monday, April 18, 2005

Religion: pissed off feminist nuns!

Freakin' sweet.

From feministing:

“We have to tell the cardinals this: We no longer want a secret, sexist selection process,” said Sister Donna Quinn of the Coalition of American Nuns. Many of the protesters there said that this message is also directed towards the new pope-to-be.

After the morning mass at Holy Name, the women set off some small smoke bombs (pink smoke, I must add) as a symbol of their movement.

Health Care: Satisfaction Rates

Kevin Drum blogs about a new study from some Harvard policy folks looking at satisfaction rates for heath care in our country and elsewhere.

Interestingly enough, the study finds that the poor and the elderly are, by and large, much more satisfied with their health care experiences than everyone else.

Drum's conclusions:

It's hard to know what to say about this. Americans in general are highly dissatisfied with their healthcare system — the one that's supposedly the "best healthcare in the world" — and yet they've been conned into thinking that a national healthcare system would be even worse. This is despite the fact that people in America who are enrolled in a national healthcare system (most of whom have previous experience with private employer programs) like it better than the working stiffs who have private coverage. What's more, people in other countries that have national healthcare systems report much higher satisfaction levels than Americans do.
Now, I do take issue with the study, since it uses "customer satisfaction" rather than more objective health measures. The elderly and the poor may very well just have different expectations of health care than everyone else, and that could easily explain away any confident conclusion. The "everyone else" category in America expects to receive the best health care in the world. The poor and the elderly, possibly more used to government assistance, aren't quite so hopeful of their treatment. Maybe.

However, a point's a point, and I think this paper makes a pretty decent one that shouldn't be entirely ignored, even if it's ship isn't the most sea-worthy.

The debate really comes down much simpler than this. National healthcare reduces overhead. Dramatically. Absurdly. For real. So the question becomes: can the money saved in overhead translate into better, more equitably distributed health care?

With competent administration, the answer is certainly yes.

But competent administration. Easier said that done.

Politics: much better, Howard

Better. Not perfect.

I think we need to talk about abortion differently. Republicans have painted us into a corner where they have forced us to defend abortion. I don't know anybody who's for abortion.

We can make common ground with folks. The issue we need to debate is not whether abortion is a good thing. The issue we need to debate is whether a woman gets to make up her own mind about her health care or whether Tom DeLay gets to make up her mind.
The issue of course then becomes, why would Dems not be "for abortion," but defend it legally? Wouldn't Dems be defending murder?

Well, if Howard doesn't watch his rhetoric, that's the logical attack to follow.

Of course, the reason why pro-choice Dems shouldn't be "for abortion" is because abortion is a rough thing for a women to go through, physically, psychologically, financially, socially, etc. Nobody wants to have an abortion. But that isn't necessarily because their is some sort of unilateral consensus that abortion is murder. And I think that's the distinction that will neutralize this kind of well-meaning change in rhetoric.

If the pro-lifers think that Dems are still defending murder, for any reason, then nothing has changed from their perspective. There's no room for nuance on the religious right. If the Dem leadership thinks otherwise, maybe they should simply stop thinking at all.

Sunday, April 17, 2005

Politics: Michael Savage pissing me off (imagine that)

Why? Because I saw his new book at Barnes and Noble the other day.

The title: Liberalism is a Mental Disorder : Savage Solutions.

Thanks for encouraging the stigma of mental illness, asshole.

I mean, if you're going to write a hack piece of talking point bullshit, at least name it something cool like South Park Conservatives : The Revolt Against Liberal Media Bias. Written by Manhattan Institute wanker Brian C. Anderson, it might not be worth the paper it's printed on. But at least the title is pretty cool and doesn't further reinforce negative images of those who suffer from mental illness

I would consider myself a South Park liberal, even if Matt Stone and Trey Parker are the biggest dicks on the planet. At least they're also the funniest dicks on the planet. So it works out.

Election '08: Wes In

According to Mark Kleiman, it looks like Wes Clark is in for '08. It will be interesting to see him take on (presumably) Hillary Clinton, given that the General was Clinton's private choice for the '04 nomination after Kerry's early primary campaign looked moribund. Personally, I'm interested in hearing what Clark has to say. I was against him in '04, but only because I couldn't be sure this guy was a Democrat. It was, after all, his first political campaign ever. But the man seems to have stuck with it, so I guess he deserves a look.

On a side note, prior to joining the '04 fracas, Clark was seen as a good friend to Dean, a candidate who was disliked by the Clinton wing and now the head of the Democratic party. How that will affect the '08 primaries is anyone's guess.

Politics: Dean Says Democrats Will Make Schiavo Case an Election Issue

For the love of God, please leave it alone.

Did certain Republicans make total asses of themselves on the issue?

Sure.

Will anything good come of drudging it up again?

No way.

If that's the only way to beat Dr. CatKiller and his minions, Dems should just give up now. If they haven't already.

Politics: John McCain, portrait of right-wing sanity

McCain's comments to Chris Matthews on Hardball Thursday night:

Look, we won't always be in the majority, I say to my conservative friends, someday there will be a liberal Democrat president and a liberal Democrat Congress. Why? Because history shows it goes back and forth. I don't know if it's a hundred years from now, but it will happen. And do we want a bunch of liberal judges approved by the Senate of the United States with 51 votes if the Democrats are in the majority?
The rest of the article is interesting, because it's basically full of folks from the Frist camp taking headshots at McCain. 2008 Electioneering much?

Non-violence: Garrett goes postal

So I felt like getting a little rascally over on Kyle's blog about some nice pro-animal veggie-type treehugging issues. A predominantly Christian, speculatively right-of-center audience will likely not take kindly to my ramblings, but I thought maybe some non-violent Sparkgrassateers might want to peruse the fray, if only to watch me be as squirrely as possible.

Saturday, April 16, 2005

Daily Show: You, Your Health, and You

Some funny shit.

MedEcon: The Medical Money Pit

Krugman's latest. Apparently the beginning of a series on how we spend our medical cash.

Politics: at least they didn't have sex with them, too

Just floating around the 'sphere this morning while I didn't study Neuroanatomy, I ran across two articles of animal abuse from two prominent conservatives:

Bill Frist adopted cats from the humane society during medical school so he could sharpen his surgical skills. Psychopathic much? And bonus kudos to Harvard's admissions office, for admitting a nut like that.

James Dobson, the guy that wrote the book on how to raise a child, beat the shit out of his dachsund with a belt because it wouldn't go to bed immediately.

Friday, April 15, 2005

Science: Gotta Love Peer Reviewing

Scientists hail the peer-reviewed journal as the fortress of truth: you do the research, a bunch of people who know what's going on read it and make sure that it makes sense and the experiment was good, you get published, grant money, and the ability to continue to be a scientist. Unfortunately, not all peer-reviewed publications and events are the same. A bunch of MIT students were able to get a paper approved for a peer-reviewed conference via creating a computer program to generate research papers complete with nonsensical text, charts and diagrams.

Imagine, the future of computer science could be in their hands! Not to mention all the politics that surround biomedical research, and therefore the treatments you're going to get when you get sick.

Politics: Tom DeLay's House of Scandal

The DCCC sent out a James Carville-authored email advertising their new site, Tom DeLay's House of Scandal.

If nothing else, it's fun to play with the web'0'badness on the front page.

Politics: Frist Set to Use Religious Stage on Judicial Issue

This is a bit scary. Once again, I find it a bit sad that because democrats are the ones who push more vehemently for the separation of church and state, they then get labeled as anti-religion. Heaven forbid it be possible to be a democrat and be religious!

Senator Bill Frist will participate in a telecast portraying Democrats as "against people of faith" for blocking the president's nominees. Fliers for the telecast, organized by the Family Research Council and scheduled to originate at a Kentucky megachurch the evening of April 24, call the day "Justice Sunday" and depict a young man holding a Bible in one hand and a gavel in the other. The flier does not name participants, but under the heading "the filibuster against people of faith," it reads: "The filibuster was once abused to protect racial bias, and it is now being used against people of faith."
Update: A little more over at BlueGrassRoots.

Religion: An African Pope?


An African Pope?

For those of you who have wondered about the results of an African cardinal being elected Pope in the next few weeks, Philip Jenkins’ article, “The Next Christianity,” in the October 2002 issue of The Atlantic Monthly (reproduced here) is informative.

Pointing out the great numerical differences and theological perspectives of the “first” and “third” worlds, Jenkins argues that the big issues for Western Catholic Christians – birth control, homosexuality, the ordination of women, et al. – are not such big issues in the minds of Catholics in the Global South.

As a result, the great liberal reform of the Roman Catholic Church that many North Americans and Western Europeans hope for could go the other way altogether.

An ever greater reliance on individual choice, the argument goes, will help Catholicism to become much more inclusive and tolerant, less judgmental, and more willing to accept secular attitudes toward sexuality and gender roles. In the view of liberal Catholics, much of the current crisis derives directly from archaic if not primitive doctrines, including mandatory celibacy among the clergy, intolerance of homosexuality, and the prohibition of women from the priesthood, not to mention a more generalized fear of sexuality. In their view, anyone should be able to see that the idea that God, the creator and lord of the universe, is concerned about human sexuality is on its way out.

If we look beyond the liberal West, we see that another Christian revolution, quite different from the one being called for in affluent American suburbs and upscale urban parishes, is already in progress. Worldwide, Christianity is actually moving toward supernaturalism and neo-orthodoxy, and in many ways toward the ancient world view expressed in the New Testament: a vision of Jesus as the embodiment of divine power, who overcomes the evil forces that inflict calamity and sickness upon the human race. In the global South (the areas that we often think of primarily as the Third World) huge and growing Christian populations — currently 480 million in Latin America, 360 million in Africa, and 313 million in Asia, compared with 260 million in North America — now make up what the Catholic scholar Walbert Buhlmann has called the Third Church, a form of Christianity as distinct as Protestantism or Orthodoxy, and one that is likely to become dominant in the faith. The revolution taking place in Africa, Asia, and Latin America is far more sweeping in its implications than any current shifts in North American religion, whether Catholic or Protestant. There is increasing tension between what one might call a liberal Northern Reformation and the surging Southern religious revolution, which one might equate with the Counter-Reformation … an enormous rift seems inevitable.

...

It may be true that from the liberal Northern perspective, pressure for a Reformation-style solution to critical problems in the Church — the crisis in clerical celibacy, the shortage of priests, the sense that the laity's concerns are ignored — seems overwhelming. Poll after poll in the United States and Europe indicates significant distrust of clerical authority and support for greater lay participation and women's equality. The obvious question in the parishes of the developed world seems to be how long the aloof hierarchy can stave off the forces of history.

From Rome, however, the picture looks different, as do the "natural" directions that history is going to take. The Roman church operates on a global scale and has done so for centuries. Long before the French and British governments had become aware of global politics — and well before their empires came into being — papal diplomats were thinking through their approaches to China, their policies in Peru, their views on African affairs, their stances on the issues facing Japan and Mexico. To adapt a popular activist slogan, the Catholic Church not only thinks globally, it acts globally. That approach is going to have weighty consequences. On present evidence, a Southern-dominated Catholic Church is likely to react traditionally to the issues that most concern American and European reformers: matters of theology and devotion, sexual ethics and gender roles, and, most fundamentally, issues of authority within the Church.

Thoughts?

Thanks to Terry Mattingly at the GetReligion blog for the heads-up on this.

Pax,

Captain Sacrament

MedEthics: Executions not as "Humane" as we thought

A recent letter in this week's Lancet demonstrates that victims of capital punishment might not be receiving enough anesthesia.

Unlike in medical applications, anesthesia in executions has not been subjected to clinical trials or government regulation, nor have the practitioners received even basic training to do this," said Dr. David A. Lubarsky, one of the researchers. " This caused us to wonder whether anesthesia methodology in lethal injection might be adequate."

In a study of post-mortem toxicology results from 49 executions in Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina, they found in 43 cases the concentrations of thiopental in the blood were lower than required for common surgery. In 21 of those cases they found the concentrations "consistent with awareness" -- in other words, the inmates could have been awake.
The ethical dilemma stems from the fact that doctors may not participate in executions, leaving undertrained or untrained technicians to fulfill the role. Would it be ethical for a doctor to participate in lessening a condemned man's pain? Or would this merely be window dressing on an already barbaric practice. Is it progress if a cannibal uses a knife and fork?

International: Whatever happened with that dead Italian secret service man?

Italian agent Nicola Calipari
Stories like the killing of Italian Secret Serviceman Nicola Calipari by US soldiers always get reported and then dropped from the US papers before anything happens. What's going on now, more than a month after the incident? Mainly US obstruction of the Italian investigation.
Italian investigators have clashed with Americans over plans to absolve US soldiers of any blame for the death of the Italian secret service agent Nicola Calipari, killed while escorting an Italian hostage out of Iraq last month.

The Italians are also unhappy that the US will not let them examine the car in which Mr Calipari was traveling when shot. The joint investigation is deadlocked and the dispute is holding up the final report on the incident.

Thursday, April 14, 2005

MedPol: Congress to consider birth control bill ensuring that pharmacies fill prescriptions

One of these quotes was by a sane person. The other was by an insane person. See if you can guess which is which.

1) Let a woman be treated with dignity. When she has a prescription from her doctor, that privacy should be respected. - Rep. Carolyn Maloney, a New York Democrat

2) They'll force women to kill their children ... It will be like China. It's the next logical step. - Karen Bauer, pharmaceutical whackjob
Now, which of these two quotes is by A) pharmaceutical whackjob Karen Bauer, and which is by B) Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)?

Update: James Rodgers has unleashed his seering wit (and MSPaint prowess) on Bauer's comments.

Supreme Court: Do you Sodomize your wife?

An article from the New York Post describes what must have been an uncomfortable moment for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Mr. Scalia was at NYU giving a talk, and after a question regarding the Supreme Court's decision in its infamous Texas sodomy case when a student asked Mr. Scalia if he sodomizes his wife. Crude - yes, especially given that Mrs. Scalia was in the room. I know I personally would have never asked such a question. I do get a chuckle of this, though. This just goes to show that what goes on in any consenting adult's bedroom needs to stay in the bedroom, especially if you are a Supreme Court Justice.

LGBT: Christian Groups Fight Anti-Bigotry Day

CNN has an article today about the efforts of some Christian conservative groups to counter the anti-gay bias event known as the "Day of Silence." These groups see the day, where students go an 24 hours without speaking to draw attention to the harassment of gay students, as a way of broadening acceptance of homosexuality. In response, they created what they call the "Day of Truth," encouraging students to wear shirts and talk about their belief that homosexuality is wrong.

You know, there are a lot of things right-wing groups do that I dislike, but very few which outright piss me off. This is one of those few. How can they honestly take a day designed to end bigotry, harassment, and discrimination and decide that it's something that needs to be countered? Their excuse, as the article points out, is that they believe the event is meant to be "cloaking their real message -- that homosexuality is good for society." They also continue their incessant whining that Christian students are being censored as school (despite the fact that they're being censored for prejudice and discrimination). They point to a student who was disciplined for wearing a shirt at school which reads "Homosexuality is shameful." I wonder if they would have thought "rights were being trampled" if the offensive shirt read "African-Americans are shameful" or "Judaism is shameful."

I can understand (even if I do not accept) the belief that homosexuality is a sin. But fighting against a day designed to promote the acceptance of any group of humans as just that, human beings with normal rights and individual dignity is beyond me.

Wednesday, April 13, 2005

Politics: The DeLay Scandal and Councilman Cole

Drop the Hammer, a website encouraging corporations to stop giving money to Tom DeLay's defense fund, obviously is not too popular with some of Congressman DeLay's supporters. One such man, Councilman Kevin Cole of Pearland, TX, shared his thoughts with Drop the Hammer. Here is Mr. Cole's letter to Mr. DeLay's critics:

Hey ass hole [sic]. Tom Delay happens to be my congresman [sic] and I am happy with the job he does for me and my district. Why don't you get the F@&* out of our district and leave us alone. Better yet, come speak to me personally and I will show you what I think of you.

Kevin Cole
Pealrand [sic], TX
[Cell Phone # Redacted]

Since I found Mr. Cole's logic about other people having no right to criticize Congressman DeLay a little flawed, I decided to write to Councilman Cole (his e-mail address is cole.jk@sbcglobal.net). I even BCCed Garret if you don't believe me. We'll see if Mr. Cole responds. Here's the e-mail:
Hello Mr. Cole! I am writing in response to a letter you wrote to dropthehammer.org. I just wanted to inform you that your Congressman Tom Delay affects policy for us all, so I don't think we as Americans have to get the "f***" out of your district and leave Mr. DeLay alone. Your Congressman happens to be a very important and powerful person in Washington, and if he acts unethically, it affects us all, not just those in his district. For instance, his efforts to take the lead on the Terri Schiavo tragedy demonstrate that he has enormous power and influence, and therefore his actions extend far beyond Texas. His attack of our Judiciary is another example of the power he yields. Personally I wish he would just represent you and your district and step down from having such a prominent role in the Republican Party, so that his policies would have a more limited effect on the rest of the United States. I have nothing against you or the great state of Texas (which I recently visited for the first time and had a delightful experience), but I do have big problems with your Congressman, so if your district could work on electing somebody ethical and moral, that would be swell. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and have a great day!

Sincerely,

Stephen J. Warnick Jr
2nd Year Medical Student, University of Michigan
I hope I wasn't inflammatory.

Pop Science: Why Adolescent Girls Become Obese

I found this linked off of CNN:

There are lots of reasons why adolescent girls grow obese, but apparently binge-eating and physical inactivity aren't important ones. On the contrary, laxative or diuretic abuse and depression seem to have more major roles in why young girls edge into obesity that lasts into adulthood.
Reasons I hate pop science articles that seek to interpret research:

1) This article suggest that you should be concerned that your depressed patients are at risk of obesity. WRONG. You should be worried that your depressed patients are at risk for DEPRESSION, which is much worse. The day we sit down with Susie and tell her to cheer up or she might get fat is the day I quit medicine.

2) The opening line suggests that food intake and exercise aren't important, but the actual text of the primary resource really says that the studies on this are mixed and limited since people tend to unreliably report food intake and exercise. Laxative use and depression scales are pretty objective though, and more likely to show results.

3) I'm not even going to get into the underrepresentation of African Americans, the exclusion of boys, and the limited geography of the study.

The source of the primary reseach article is: Psychological and Behavioral Risk Factors for Obesity Onset in Adolescent Girls: A Prospective Study. Eric Stice, Katherine Presnell, Heather Shaw, Paul Rohde. Journal of Consulting And Clinical Psychology, April 1, 2005, Vol. 73, Issue 2.

Tuesday, April 12, 2005

LGBTPolitics: Fear and Loathing in the GOP

I've been chewing this one over as I eat my yogurt and peanut butter and jelly sandwich for lunch, and I've decided it's okay if I admit that I'm not quite sure how I feel about Bill Clinton's recent statement (semi-quoting David Brock) that with regards to a GOP political consultant (who recently married his gay partner in Massachusetts and who is organizing an anti-Hillary fundraiser), there might be "some sort of self-loathing" for Arthur Finkelstein, the longtime GOP operative who helped Gov. George Pataki unseat Democrat Mario Cuomo in 1994.
At a news conference Monday about his foundation's AIDS initiatives, the former president was asked whether the anti-Hillary efforts made him angry.

"Actually, I was sort of sad when I read it," he said.

"I thought, one of two things. Either this guy believes his party is not serious and is totally Machiavellian in its position, or you know, as David Brock said in his great book 'Blinded by the Right,' there's some sort of self-loathing or something. I was more sad for him."
And yes, that's David Brock of Media Matters for America.

The expected PC response by a Republican of course followed:
Kieran Mahoney, a GOP consultant who has worked with Finkelstein, said Clinton was "engaging in pretty basic stereotyping by suggesting that because somebody's gay they have to be a Democrat."
Andrew Sullivan endorsed John Kerry in the last election, and the Log Cabin Republicans refused to endorse Bush as well. And of course there's Mary Cheney. And Alan Keyes' daughter.

So is a homosexual Republican self-loathing?

Well, there's certainly a conflict of interest being a member of a party that actively fights against your civil rights. But again, that same statement could be said about women, minorities, the working class, and apparently any person who doesn't want to have her face plastered all over the media as her husband fights for her right not to be a vegetable.

Or anyone with a pulse, in my opinion.

So what would be the alternative for a gay conservative? The Democratic party has certainly become wide open enough to accomodate anybody who could win an election. I'm pretty certain if a gay hispanic totalitarian communist could beat Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania, the Democratic party would sign him and run him. If a piece of fruit could beat Santorum, Howard Dean would be making phone calls to its jungle nightly.

There are of course other memberships for conservatives, for wacko religious righters and libertarians. And it's not as if the Democratic party is really the only valid home for a liberal. In fact, it may be the worst home.

But I suppose the issue at hand is really tantamount to whether people can support a political party which acts against their personal or social interests. And resoundingly, that answer seems to be yes. I'm a married white male in medical school. Certainly, the Republican party would better support my heterosexual marriage, my whiteness, my maleness, and my eventual status in the upper middle class. Certainly tax breaks, private accounts, anti-affirmative action policy, and blanket tort reform would bolster my future, even at the expense of others.

But my conception of what the world ought to be for everyone, not just myself, is very dissonant with the policies of the Republican party. And thus, I'm very much allowed to not be a Republican. I voted Green in 2000; Democrat in 2004. And no one would accuse me of being self-loathing.

So if I can be a Democrat, then a gay person can damn well be a Republican without someone, even a very well-meaning demigod of the centrist movement, accusing him of hating himself.

Even if there might be a little bit of truth to it.

Update: Welcome to all of you coming to Sparkgrass Community from AOL Blog Zone.

Monday, April 11, 2005

Economics: A Roshanda by Any Other Name

Interesting entry on the use of unique names amongst the African American community in California is at Slate.

Nearly 30 percent of the black girls are given a name that is unique among every baby, white and black, born that year in California. (There were also 228 babies named Unique during the 1990s alone, and one each of Uneek, Uneque, and Uneqqee; virtually all of them were black.)
The data show that, on average, a person with a distinctively black name—whether it is a woman named Imani or a man named DeShawn—does have a worse life outcome than a woman named Molly or a man named Jake. But it isn't the fault of his or her name. If two black boys, Jake Williams and DeShawn Williams, are born in the same neighborhood and into the same familial and economic circumstances, they would likely have similar life outcomes. But the kind of parents who name their son Jake don't tend to live in the same neighborhoods or share economic circumstances with the kind of parents who name their son DeShawn. And that's why, on average, a boy named Jake will tend to earn more money and get more education than a boy named DeShawn. DeShawn's name is an indicator—but not a cause—of his life path.
Maybe if all of us white med students name our kids with unique black names we can combat this biased name statistic. A new series of Jewish power names: DeShawn Zuckerman has a certain ring to it.

Feuds: The New Hatfields & McCoys

Montagues and Capulets, Hatfields and the McCoy's, and now the Soliz's and Ortiz's. See Family feud erupts after teens date; 6 wounded.

Members of the Soliz and Ortiz families say their feud with the neighboring Riojas family has simmered for more than a year and became more heated when Riojas' teenage daughter started dating Miguel Soliz, 15, who was among the wounded.
Isn't young love sweet? Those of you wondering what ever happened to the real Hatfields and the McCoys can buy merchandise at real-mccoys.com or attend the annual Hatfield-McCoy reunion June 9-12 in Pikeville, KY. I wonder how long it will be until the Soliz's and the Ortiz's start selling merchandise?

Politics: The Tom DeLay Scandals - A score card

Nicholas Thompson summarizes which scandals will and will not get Tom DeLay into real trouble.

Sunday, April 10, 2005

State Government: The Lesser of 2 Assholes

Many (including myself) have condemned Kansas AG Phill Kline for requesting unedited patient records from 2 abortion clinics, in his crusade to limit a women's right to choose. The clinics involved weren't even permitted to notify patients their records were being requested, nor were they able to respond to press inquiries due to a court gag order. Kline, however, felt the gag order didn't apply to him as he traveled across the state giving press conferences.

However, on another issue, Kline has said that Kansas' new amendment banning same-sex marriage would NOT prevent same-sex benefits offered by any state or local government. This is in direct opposition to MI's AG Mike Cox (aptly named) who gleefully announced that government entities were no longer permitted to offer same-sex benefits in contract negotiations, due to MI's similar amendment.

Now I ask you, who is the lesser of 2 assholes?

Saturday, April 9, 2005

Politics/Religion: Sick and Tired of Being a "Bad" Catholic

Wolf Blitzer, with whom I have never had any particular beef, called out Paul Begala of CNN:

"I'm sure Bob [Novak] is a good Catholic, I'm not so sure about Paul Begala"
as reported on Media Matters for America. This hit a particular sour note with me, since I happen to be liberal and Catholic. I am tired of the right-wing rhetoric that states that one cannot support liberal views and be Catholic. Last time I read the bible, I do remember finding much more on helping the poor, not hoarding your wealth, not judging others, and respecting the life of everybody (not just the unborn).

I'm throwing in one more quote from the Washington Post, this one about Reagan-appointed Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.
Phyllis Schlafly, doyenne of American conservatism, said Kennedy's opinion forbidding capital punishment for juveniles "is a good ground of impeachment." To cheers and applause from those gathered at a downtown Marriott for a conference on "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith," Schlafly said that Kennedy had not met the "good behavior" requirement for office and that "Congress ought to talk about impeachment."
I did not realize that prohibiting the execution of minors was one of the parts of the judicial "war on faith". I'm glad that George W. Bush, who oversaw the killing of 152 people as Governor of Texas, and the right-wing war that he is leading on America have such a clear vision on what lives God wants them to hold high (fetuses, Terri Schiavo), and which lives are expendable (prisoners, Iraqis, worldwide HIV/AIDS victim). If our country is going to be overtaken by Christian conservatives, I just wish they could respect all human life as instructed by the bible, instead of picking and choosing whose lives are worth their time and energy. I know it's not as sexy to some segments of the American people to be anti-death penalty and anti-war, but I do believe these two attributes are pretty in line with the bible, and are thankfully two of the legacies of our former Pope.

Politics: Conservatives dislike the Constitution

MSNBC has a good article today about why conservative groups are determined to increase congressional control over the judicial branch. Some are calling for the ability to impeach or remove judges who don't hand down decisions that they like.

You know, I remember back during the 2000 election and the start of the Iraq war, when these same conservatives would tell complainers, "If you don't like it, too bad. That's the way this country works, so like it or leave it." Guess what? The Founding Fathers made the judges judges, not pollsters. They interpret and apply law, not figure out how a particular segment of the American population feels about an issue. And if you don't like it, then get the hell out of my country.

Jackass quote of the article goes to (you guessed it) Tom DeLay for: “I believe the judicial branch of our government has overstepped its authority on countless occasions, overturning and, in some cases, ignoring the legitimate will of the people." At least this time he's not overtly threatening anyone.

MedPol: National Republican Congressional Committee Physician of the Year? Yours for only $1250!

I'm not sure whether this is despicable or simply amazing.

But to receive the award in person at a special two-day workshop in Washington last month, Mueller found out that he would have to make a $1,250 contribution to the National Republican Congressional Committee. It was a disturbing discovery, he said.

"To actually buy your award and it's not from your peers or from your patients or from the community that you serve, it's really deceptive," said Mueller, author of "As Sick As It Gets: The Shocking Reality of America's Healthcare, A Diagnosis and Treatment Plan." "It's not being honest, it's just not right."

To see what the award process was all about, Mueller sent in his $1,250 contribution and ABC News paid for his travel to Washington for the scheduled events March 14-15, which included a tax-reform workshop as well as appearances by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, and President Bush.

Mueller soon found he was not the only winner. There were hundreds of Physicians of the Year present, many of whom found the criteria for being selected equally as opaque.

"You know, nobody knows, so don't feel bad about it," Mueller said one attendee told him. "I think that more than likely it's to get us Republicans together under the pretense that maybe you will work a little harder to keep Republicans in office."

Another winner was more blunt. "I don't think it's worth it from the standpoint of your own qualifications, but I think it's worth it to support the party," he said. "Basically it's one big monstrous donation to the party."

"It's like the old diploma mills," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a government watchdog group. "It's the kind of scam that we've seen congressional investigations look at when they take place in the private sector. But here, since members of Congress are doing it, we're not going to see any investigation."

Oh, the irony.

A Republican congressional spokesman said DeLay stopped direct involvement in the program two years ago, but the majority leader was the guest speaker this year at the awards ceremony luncheon, giving a speech that included proposals well-tailored to the doctors' interests...

... Mueller said most of the talk at the sessions was about marketing, lawyers and taxes, and that he was met with silence when trying to raise the issue of the lack of affordable health insurance.

"This is the real crisis," Mueller said he told the congressmen on one panel at the events. "Please, I am begging you."

The congressmen said nothing and quickly called for a question from another Physician of the Year, Mueller said .

And even better:
And some of the other winners told Mueller that his $1,250 fee to the NRCC was a wise investment indeed. He should use the award as a marketing tool, they said, as an impressive honor he could tell patients. And on the Internet, ABC News found physicians across the country doing just that -- listing NRCC's Physician of the Year among their honors and credentials.

Wertheimer warned that the award was misleading and that they should add the award was given "because I paid for this certificate, not for anything else that happened."

A Republican spokesman said there were thousands of doctors around the country content with their Physicians of the Year awards, and that there was nothing about the program to apologize for.