Fear and uncertainty in politics

The New York Times has a long and interesting article about one politicians truth seeking process, when trying to decide what to vote on the issue of a ban on genetically modified crops in Hawaii.

A Lonely Quest for Facts on Genetically Modified Crops

It is not unreasonable to have some concerns when discussing genetically modified crops, especially related to cross-pollination, patents, and the business practices of the companies providing such crops. All of these things are touched upon in the article, as the politician, Greggor Ilagan, tries to understand the issue, and the science relating to it.

Unfortunately, as Mr. Ilagan, also finds out, there is a lot of FUD (Fear-Uncertainty-Doubt) going on when it comes to G.M.O.s. None of it fact-based, but it sounds just plausible enough that people will believe it (especially when used in connection to phrases like "Frankencrops").

There have been some studies that indicates higher risks of cancer when eating G.M.O.s, but the scientists behind these studies appear to have been ideologically against G.M.O.s, and the studies have been found to flawed and has largely been retracted (including the much spoken about 2012 rat study from France). Indeed, the general consensus among scientists doing research into the subject, is that there is no difference in risks between conventional crops and modified crops - something which is hardly surprising, considering the biology behind it.

In 2010, the European Commission (hardly a strong proponent of G.M.O.s) released their research into the harms from G.M.O. In the press release it was described thus:

In order to help inform debate on genetically modified organisms, the European Commission is publishing today a compendium entitled "A decade of EU-funded GMO research". The book summarizes the results of 50 research projects addressing primarily the safety of GMOs for the environment and for animal and human health. Launched between 2001 and 2010, these projects received funding of €200 million from the EU and form part of a 25-year long research effort on GMOs.

As I said before, the EU and the European Commission can hardly be considered strong proponents of G.M.O.s. Indeed they put off allowing G.M.O.s for a long time, while researching the potential side-effects. This is part of the general principle of caution, under which the EU usually handles these things - in the EU it generally has to be demonstrated that there are no harmful side-effects, before it is allowed, while in the US, the tendency is to demand that a harmful side-effect be proven, before not allowing it.

The summarization of 25 years of research into the potential side-effects of G.M.O.s was summed up thus in the press release:

According to the projects' results, there is, as of today, no scientific evidence associating GMOs with higher risks for the environment or for food and feed safety than conventional plants and organisms.

I highly recommend downloading and reading the book (pdf).

Back to the NY Times article. Mr. Ilagan spent the time necessary, and talked to the people with the proper expertize, in order to get to understand the subject well enough to make an informed vote. He appears to have been alone, or nearly alone, in this, and instead the anti-science ignorance spread by anti-GMO advocates were allowed to carry the day. The ban was approved 6 votes to 3.

Many issues related to science are complex, and it is even harder to get to understand them when there are people actively promoting misinformation, no matter whether they are grassroots organizations or think-tanks.

When politicians face decision making relating to such an issue, they could much worse than try to follow in the footsteps of Mr. Ilagan. As the EC compendium correctly states:

Sound policy, while needing to take account of a wide range of views, must be based on sound science.

All to often, anti-science is allowed to carry the day.

Acceptance of evolution in the US

There is a new Pew survey on the US Public’s Views on Human Evolution.

As these surveys tend to be, it is depressing reading for science-minded people.

According to the survey, 60% of the US public believes that humans have evolved over time, while 33% thinks that humans have existed in the present form since the beginning.

This means that 1/3 of the US population doesn't accept the evidence for human evolution.

While this number is lower than in other polls, it is still a depressingly high number of people who simply disregards what science shows us, and instead goes for something which there is not just no evidence for, but something which there is actual evidence against!

It probably comes as no surprise to you that the acceptance of evolution very much depends on peoples' religious view, with unaffiliated and white mainline protestants having the highest acceptance rates (76% and 78% respectively) and white evangelical protestants having the lowest (just 27%).

White evangelical protestants are quite influential on the Republican party, and help define their policies - also on scientific issues. This might explain why the acceptance of evolution among GOP voters have dropped from 54% in 2009 to just 43% now, and the belief that humans haven't changed over time, have gone up from 39% in 2009 to 48% now.

The survey clearly indicates just how damaging it would be to sound science if the GOP got into power.

Words have consequences, part two

Back when Dr. Tiller was murdered, I wrote a blogpost called Words have consequences, in which I wrote about Operation Rescue

Calling someone "America's Doctor of Death" is dehumanizing him to an extreme degree, allowing people to ignore the fact that he is a person, which again allows people to do things like murdering him. Operation Rescue might not have pulled the trigger on Dr. Tiller, but they created an environment, where someone could pull the trigger on him.

Now, after the Tucson schooting where several people, including a child and a federal judge, were killed, and a congresswoman, Gabrielle Giffords, was critically wounded, I want to revisit this theme.

Ever since the Obama election, the rhetorics on the right have been vitriolic, and used violent images. There have been cases where people carried weapons at events where the President spoke. There have been talks of "revolution" and sedition - heck, the Tea Party crowd takes their name from the very concept of an American revolution.

In this sort of environment, it is hardly surprising that someone will follow up on that rhetoric, and take violent action.

The choice of victim is not surprising either.

After all, a public supporter of the Tea Party, and a senior figure of the Republican Party, had used violent imagery targeted specifically at congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.



Before the midterm election, Palin posted the above map, showing which members of congress she wanted people to target, using cross-hairs to show the location of their districts.

After congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords managed to win over tea party favorite Jesse Kelly, Palin posted the following tweet



Combining the image of a cross-hair and using the word "RELOAD" sends a very violent message indeed, even if it is unintended - something which I don't believe it is for a second, given the general usage of such in the current US political environment. This imagery was meant to intimidate, to threaten even. Since the congresswoman didn't hide, someone took the rhetorics to its next logical level, and tried to murder her.

This is the sort of actions that the current US political environment breeds.

Yes, there were vitriolic, perhaps even violent, rhetorics under the George W. Bush presidency, but not as part of the mainstream debate, not from leading political figures. To try to make it seem so, is to make a false equivalent, and to let the people who created this political environment get away with it.

It is no coincidence that militias have been on a rise in the US since President Obama was elected.

At the moment, Sarah Palin and others of her irk are busy trying to distance themselves from the shootings, even to the degree of scrubbing the web from the sort of messages I've posted above. I don't for a second doubt that they are shocked, perhaps even horrified, over the fact that someone did the very thing that they have been implicitly advocating for two years. Yet this doesn't absolve them of their guilt, and we should not let them get away with having creating the environment where this sort of actions happens more easily. The people who uses violent imagery should be shunned by the rest of society, not get their own TV-shows.

Words do have consequences, and it is high time that Palin and her irk started to feel the consequences of their words.

You don't get to redefine words just to make a political point

Ever so often you come across some book, article, or blogpost where people try to redefine a word so it means something else than it originally did - e.g. Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism. This can be done either to taint someone by associating them with something bad (as in the example I just mentioned) or in order to take credit for other peoples' hard work.

An example of the later is Danielle Bean's column Sarah Palin does feminism better

Or maybe it is really an attempt to taint feminism by associating it with Palin. No, probably not. Oh, well, let's wade into the drivel, shall we?

Who gets to decide what a feminist is? Does one need a license to use the word or to wear the label?

Generally speaking, any group gets to decide who is part of their group. This means that feminists get to decide what a feminist is. There are many groupings within feminism, but they share some fundamental similar views which one should share in order to be considered part of the broader movement (and dissimilar views which one should share in order to be considered part of specific groupings).

Failing the ability or opportunity to engage with feminists about what one should believe in order to be considered part of the movement, one could of course start out by looking at the dictionary definition: the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.

An interesting consequence of Sarah Palin's enduring popularity has been the fact that liberal feminists have become increasingly irritated by her use of the word "feminist" to describe herself. She shouldn't be allowed to do that, they say.

Yes, it interesting that the fact that people who belong to a movement get increasingly annoyed when someone, who goes against what that movement stands for, claims membership of said movement. No, not really. It's quite understandable.

What exactly is it that disqualifies Palin as a feminist? Why, it's her stubborn insistence that women deserve better than abortion, of course.

If she was really insisting that women deserve better than abortion, that would be fine. That would indicate that she believed that abortion was the bare minimum of rights that women should have. No, the fact is that Palin insists on much less than abortion - she insists that women shouldn't have control over their own bodies, and that they should be reduced to being breeding machines.

Much to old school feminists' dismay, Palin's brand of "new feminism" -- one that truly respects women and celebrates the differences and equality between the sexes -- appears to be catching on. Especially in politics.

It's to the dismay of all feminists, not just "old school feminists", whatever that might mean.

Trying to take away women's right to their own bodies does not in a way respect women, and while it is true that Palin probably celebrates the fact that women are still suffering from systematic sexism, it's hardly something to brag about.

Though there are currently no pro-life women in the Senate, the recent primaries produced no fewer than four pro-life female nominees: California's Carly Fiorina, Nevada's Sharron Angle, New Hampshire's Kelly Ayotte, and Delaware's Christine O'Donnell, all endorsed by Sarah Palin.

There are many pro-life women in the Senate. There are just no anti-choice women. The current women in the Senate understands that the right to choose is a fundamental right, while at the same time, they often also work for making life better for children living below the poverty line. A much more pro-life stance than the politics espoused by Palin and her irk.

While the rise of pro-life women in politics and Sarah Palin's popularity in particular have left some scratching their heads and others donning bear costumes and acting out their frustrations on camera (see video below), this trend doesn't surprise the rest of us at all.

Palin's popularity among the demented right (such as the tea-party morons) doesn't surprise me. So far, her ideological allies have scored some victories, but only among the Republicans - judging from the up-tick for the Democratic side recently, Palin is actually doing more harm to the Republican party in the long run. Something I, personally, is quite happy about.

Palin is both widely popular and widely despised for the same reasons. Those of us who recognize, respect, and celebrate the unique God-given strengths of women -- as nurturers, as relationship-builders, and as fierce protectors of children and other vulnerable human beings -- find an inspiring role model in Sarah Palin. She is a strong woman who finds joy in motherhood and a traditional family life, and yet she has managed to achieve professional success in the traditionally male-dominated field of American politics.

First of all, it's good that she acknowledges the inherent sexism in her religious view. Most people try to hide it, but Danielle Bean doesn't.

Second of all, there are so many things wrong with the paragraph that it's amazing.

Basically, it's a load of bunk. Women have traditionally been nurturers, but as we have progressed (say within the last couple of thousands of years), there are many of possibilities for women, so there is no need for them to be only nurturers (or for men not to be).

And seriously, where and when has Palin managed to achieve professional success? She was a failure as a vice presidential candidate (doing more damage than good), and she gave up midway through her governorship. Not exactly an impressive resume.

It is these same things that make old school feminists want to spit nails. They've spent lifetimes fighting nature's plan for their bodies and standing strong for every woman's right to destroy any human life that threatens to grow within her. Traditional family life? Why they've fought long and hard to deny the differences between men and women and to afford every woman the "right" to separate sex from the natural consequences of bringing forth new life.

I think she should stick to invoking God, rather than Nature. There is nothing unnatural about women not wanting to be breeding machines, and abortions happen all the time, naturally

Never mind that old feminists' plan for women's liberation, including the right to premarital sex without consequences and easy access to abortion, leaves women in a strikingly vulnerable position -- to be used by men as sexual objects and abandoned when the fun is over.

Because abortions, rape and extra-material affairs didn't happen before abortion became legal. Have she read the Bible? Plenty of examples there.

Never mind that God has specifically designed women to be mothers -- physical or spiritual mothers of all kinds -- and that those of us who reject this notion do so at the peril of our own happiness.

Never mind that you don't have any evidence for this, let alone the existence of any gods.

I find it beyond ironic that after decades of fighting for a woman's right to be heard and to determine her own destiny, pro-abortion rights feminists are now eager to put limits on what pro-life women are allowed to call themselves, the kinds of questions they are allowed to ask, and debate the legitimacy of pro-life women's meaningful participation in politics. All because strong women such as these give voice to the unpopular truth that women deserve better than abortion.

Nobody is, to my knowledge, trying to introduce laws prohibiting people from neither calling themselves feminists nor to not have abortions. So their choices are unaffected. Palin and her irk is, on the other hand, actively trying to remove the choices of others.

And again, they don't think that women "deserve better than abortion" - they think they deserve much less. If they really thought that women deserved better, they would work for helping supporting e.g. single women, so they could afford living a reasonable life with their children.

Palin's detractors are eager to declare that Sarah Palin does not speak for them, but I am proud to stand beside any pro-life woman and say: This woman does speak for me. She speaks for and defends the well-being of all women, whether they want her to or not. She speaks for children too -- both born and unborn. She speaks for true equality between the sexes and every woman's right to dignity and respect.

Well, it's always good when idiots stand up to be counted. So, consider yourself counted. Oh, and there is no such thing as an unborn child. The very definition of a child, is that it is born. Otherwise you might as well call yourself a "pre-dead corpse".

Even if it ruffles some old feminist feathers, it's about time someone said that.

No it was. Really. And it is not like it is something new and original. The anti-choice crowd has been sprouting the same kind of bullshit for decades.

For a more coherent take on Palin's fake feminism, read Jessica Valenti's May 30th column in the Washington Post.

Why protest votes are counter-productive

Before starting on this post, I should probably make clear that it's only relevant in relation to the US political system, not in relationship with the other, more democratic political systems, which many of us live under (where it is actually possible for more than two parties to exist on a national level).

It is getting close to the midway elections in the US, where a number of members of congress are going to get elected, rather than the president. Still, the president's popularity traditionally has a lot of effect on the midway election, which is often considered a referendum on his (so far, it is always a he) policies.

A lot of people who voted for President Obama has become disillusioned by him and indeed the whole Democratic party, and are now talking about either not voting or to vote for a 3rd party or even for the Republican candidates.

I would strongly recommend against this.

As the current US electional system works, voting for a 3rd party is basically throwing your vote away. Not logging a protest, but wasting the vote, and in the process harming your side.

Why?

Well, two reasons:
1) You can be sure that Republicans are going to vote for their candidate, even if they dislike him or her. Yes, there will be some Libertarians who are going to vote 3rd party, but they are a very small minority. The rest vote party line.

2) Paradoxically, the US politicians pander for those voters who have proven that they will support them, rather than those voters they feel they might get to support them. When the moderates left the Republican party during the Bush years (and under the Palin candidacy), it didn't make the Republicans stop up and try to win them back. No, instead they went full in for the Christian right.

This would mean that if all the left-leaning Democratic voters would abandon the party, the Democratic party would not try to win them back, but instead they would rather try to keep the right-leaning Democrats, and perhaps even win more from among the Republican ranks.

In other words, it would be a counter-productive move for those who left the party because they didn't feel their voices were heard. They might not have been heard, but they definitely won't be in the future.

So, should the Democratic Party just be able to take the progressive voters' votes for granted? Well, if the alternative is the Republican Party, then yes. Hell, yes. Progressives might say that there really is not difference between the two parties, but if they really believe that, they need to have their heads examined.

Yes, the current administration is not as progressive on many issues as many of us would like, but they are noting like the Bush administration. We are complaining about how slow Obama is in rolling back the mess from the Bush administration - that's completely different from creating the mess in the first place.

Some Democratic candidates are so far right that it is hard to see the differences between them and some Republicans, but if you look at the voting record, almost all Democrats have a much better track record on progressive issues than their Republican counterparts. What's more, in those races where those democrats run, the race is not between a right-wing Democrat and a moderate Republican, but rather between a right-wing Democrat and a so-far-right-it's-not-funny Republican.

In the end, it might sound like I am arguing for progressives just rolling over and surrendering their votes to the Democratic part en bloc. I don't. I think progressives should participate in the primaries, and get progressive candidates selected for the election. This is the strategy the Tea Baggers have chosen, and it has made the Republican Party give them much more attention that they are really due, if one takes a look at the numbers. Also, 3rd party alternatives are also great on the local level.

It seems to be the attitude in the US that parties are build top-down - first you run for president, then you try to gain access to congress, but in the rest of the democratic world, parties are built from the bottom-up. Locals get together and form a party which get elected to local political organs (or even national organs), and then they demonstrate their policies, gaining a reputation for the next election, which they might cash in on, gaining more votes etc. It's not a short-term strategy, but it works. Even in countries where there has traditionally been a political system very similar to the US (e.g. the Green Party in Australia and the Liberal Democrats in the UK).

Ineptitude with numbers

Quite frequently, one comes across comments which clearly demonstrates that a person hasn't got a grasp of the numbers involved, and today I came across one such comment.

It was in the comments to a NY Times Op-ed on taxes, and it stated the following

If the United States had a Value Added Tax of 22-25 percent on consumption, we could eliminate the personal and corporate incomes taxes altogether. We would not need to send tax forms on April 15 because all the money would have been collected as we purchased goods and services. And if we were frugal in our consumption, then all the money we did not spend would be ours. Plus, we could design such as system, as dozens of other nations have, so that the VAT on essentials such as food and medicine and housing would be low and thus socially equitable. Not only would we have low administrative costs for such a system, it would be very difficult for cheats to avoid payments, as they so easily do now. Finally, it would generate more than enough money to balance our federal budget. Too bad, that so many special interests have so many loopholes and fight so hard to keep this antiquated, corrupt, inefficient and inequitable approach to taxes -- and our elected representatives capitulate to them.

Source

I found this comment quite amusing for several reasons, and pretty damn annoying for a much more simple reason.

First of all, the annoying part - taxation through consumption is an unfair way of taxation, since it hits the poor disproportionally hard. Rich people use less of their money on consumption than poor people, and for people who live below the poverty line (13.2% in 2008) and shift from income taxes, where they don't pay anything, to a consumption based tax, would mean a decrease in their coverage of their basic needs.

And now for why I find it amusing.

I live in a country which not only has a much higher income tax than the US (it's not possible for an American to reach the tax rate I pay for my last earned money), but it also has a sales tax of 25%. Many goods, such as cars, electricity, and water, have additional taxes on them (e.g. cars have approximately 200% taxes on top of their price).

Out of the 800 billion kroner paid through taxes of all sorts, 491 billion kroner came from income taxes and 40 billion kroner came from corporate income taxes, while only 168 billion came from the 25% sales tax (called moms in Denmark). All number are from Danmarks Statistik.

As these numbers make clear, a 25% sales tax would be nowhere near compensating for removing income taxes and corporate taxes. Not in Denmark, and not in the US, even when one take into consideration that Danes pay more in taxes than Americans.

According to this website the income taxes collected in the US in 2008 was $2.3 trillion. The corporate taxes were $354 billion. Altogether, $2.7 trillion or so.

The US Bureau of Labor Statistics conducts a Consumer Expenditure Survey (.pdf) which we can use to find the US consumption. The 2008 survey found that there are ~121 million consumer units in the US, each of which, on average uses $50,486 per year. Multiplying these two numbers gives us a total consumption of ~$6.1 trillion. If we assumed that people had paid 25% sales tax of this consumption, this would result in ~$1.5 trillion - a shortfall in the region of $1.2 trillion compared to the current tax income from income taxes and corporate taxes alone.

Even if all the money saved from not paying taxes would be added to the consumption (an unlikely case, as muchof it would be invested), the idea would still call short - the sales taxes this would generate would only amount to $675 billion, bringing the total up to ~$2.2 trillion, still half a trillion short.

And then we haven't even addressed the deficit, which this new taxation should somehow also solve.

Health Care Reform: The Morning After

Note: This is a first for this blog. A guest post by someone else. Generally speaking, this is not something I plan on happening a lot, but when Barbara asked me if I was interested, I found the post interesting enough, but also relevant to the subjects I normally touch on on this blog.

---

Many politicians and pundits warned us that the health care reform (HCR) legislation that just became law will destroy America. Government bureaucrats will take over health care decisions, we were told. The old and infirm would be hauled away by death panels. Everything about the way we receive our medical care will change, and change drastically, they said.

Medicare recipients have been frightened by stories that their benefits will be cut. Middle-age people are worried they will lose their jobs when the law’s dreaded regulations, or taxes, or maybe regulations with taxes, would destroy their employers’ businesses.

The truth is, very little will change for most people. If you were insured by employee benefits before HCR, you will be insured by exactly the same policy in exactly the same way after HCR. You will have access to the same doctors on the same terms. “Government bureaucrats” will no more be involved in your health care than they were before.

And the same is true of Medicare, which of course is a government program, although many of the people who opposed the HCR bill don’t seem to know that.

Here are the “cataclysmic” changes to health care that are now in effect, or which will go into effect within the next six months for people who are already in group insurance plans:

• The law says you can’t lose your insurance coverage because you get sick. Before, in many states, if you were stricken with a severe illness such as mesothelioma cancer that would be expensive to treat, your insurer could use just about any excuse to cancel your coverage. That is over.


• HCR has ended lifetime limits on coverage. As long as you are receiving medical care, your insurer pays the bills.


• Your children can be covered on your existing policy until they are 26 years old.


• In six months, insurers cannot refuse to insure people under the age of 19 because of “pre-existing conditions.” This provision will go into effect for everyone in 2014.

And if you are on Medicare, you will be asked to struggle with the following:

• You get a free annual checkup.


• The co-pays and deductibles on many preventive care services are eliminated.


• If you are in the Medicare D “doughnut hole,” you will get a $250 rebate check in a few weeks. The hole itself will be closed gradually and will be gone by 2020.

But what about all those terrible regulations and taxes that are about to drive businesses out of business? Um, there really isn’t much to report. Oh, wait, here’s one — a 10 percent tax on indoor tanning services that use ultraviolet lamps will go into effect July 1. That’s about it.

However, beginning this year a tax credit will be available for some small businesses to help provide insurance coverage for employees.

Soon the politicians and pundits will start trying to frighten you about the provisions that will go into effect after this year. I assure you they are about as scary as the provisions that go into effect this year, but I will discuss them in a follow-up post.

— Barbara O’Brien
Barbara O'Brien is a popular blogging advocate and left wing blogger who writes the blog Mahablog. O'Brien is a strong advocate of blogging as a means of giving the public power in the media, as well as opposing the Iraq war. She has a Bachelor of Journalism from the University of Missouri

Is perfect the enemy of the barely good enough?

So, it seems that the US finally got its health care reform - and as Obama said, “This isn’t radical reform, but it is major reform.” The problem is of course, that many felt (myself included) that the US needed a radical reform, not a major reform.

The health care system in the US is broke - it's the most expensive health care system in the world, yet the US patients seem to be getting sub-par health care for all that money - perhaps because of the amount of money spent on administration of insurances. On top of that, a large portion of the US population is uncovered, and the no 1 cause of bankruptcies in the US is still related to health care costs.

Taking all these things into consideration, it's hard to be too happy about the health care reform, which barely addresses these issues. Yes, there are some very good things in the reform (e.g. not allowing the insurance companies to refuse coverage to people with pre-existing conditions from childhood, and not allow them to drop coverage of people who become sick), but there are also some really horrible things in it (the dependency on insurance companies, the anti-abortion provision).

Even having stated all my reservations, I am glad that it finally looks like some kind of health care bill will pass. Yes, it's barely good enough for it to be considered any kind of improvement on the current situation, but that's because we wanted so much more. Any bill which extends health care coverages for tens of millions is definitely a step in the right direction.

And with the danger of going all real-politic on you, it's important to take the current political situation into consideration. Currently the Republicans are the party of No, refusing any kind of bi-partisanship. This means that the Democrats have to find the votes within their own ranks, which means convincing some of the DINOs to vote for the bill. This will unfortunately compromise the progressiveness of the bill, allowing things like the anti-abortion provision to be included. Hopefully these deficiencies can be corrected at a later stage.

So, to answer this post's title - yes, waiting for the perfect would have been a bad move. This was what caused the health care reform to fail during Nixon. A health care reform which would have been much more progressive than the current reform in the works.

Utah takes a stance for anti-science

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but yet I still am. Utah's House of Representatives has taken a stance for anti-science, and has voted in a 56-17 vote to deny the current state of climate science.

The resolution can be read here.

This joint resolution of the Legislature urges the United States Environmental Protection Agency to cease its carbon dioxide reduction policies, programs, and regulations until climate data and global warming science are substantiated.

Highlighted Provisions:
This resolution:
. urges the United States Environmental Protection Agency to immediately halt its carbon dioxide reduction policies and programs and withdraw its "Endangerment Finding" and related regulations until a full and independent investigation of H. [ the ] .H climate data H. [ conspiracy ] .H and global warming science can be substantiated.

The struck out words were part of the draft, but removed from the final version.

In other words, the Utah House of Representatives ignores the fact that climate scientists have already substantiated the fact that anthropogenic global warming is happening, and wants the EPA to stop listening to the scientists until *someone* says that the scientists are right.

Just who is going to investigate this? The people working in the related fields are overwhelming in agreement, so it's obviously not any of them.

Will the US finally get universal health care?

I have never hidden my stance on universal health care. I am completely in favor it. What's more, I consider it an atrocity that any western country can have millions of citizens who haven't got basic health care coverage.

It looks like the US has finally realized this as well. Obama made it one of his key issues during the election (as did the other Democratic candidates), and has been working hard to get it through since he stepped into office. What's more, every poll shows that the majority of the US population backs his efforts.

Now, it looks more likely that this effort will become successful.

The US congress has voted 220-215 for expanding health care coverage in the US.

This was a largely partisan vote, with 219 Democrats, and only 1 Republican, voting for the expansions, and 39 Democrats and 176 Republicans voting against the expansion. You can see how the members voted here. Note the names of the people who voted against, especially the Democrats. These are the people who want millions of US citizens to continue not having health care coverage. Remember this during the next election - these people don't have the best interest of the voters in mind.

The battle is not over yet - the bill has to pass the senate - but it is a lot closer now than a few days ago.

There is much not to like about the bill which passed in the Congress. I don't like the reliance on insurance companies, and I hate the anti-abortion amendment, which the anti-choice members of the Congress got introduced. Yet, even with these flaws, there is much to like, e.g. the abolition of preexisting conditions. It's a good first step, and hopefully the Democrats won't stumble now.

Book Review: The Eliminationists

The Eliminationists - How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right by David Neiwert

The author of this book, David Neiwert, is a well-respected blogger, who blogs at Orcinus. In my opinion, he is one of the best writers in the blogsphere. His blogposts are well written and well researched, building on top of his great knowledge of the topics he blog about. On top of that, he is one of the few genuine experts in the blogsphere - he is your go-to man, if you want to know something about the far-right movement(s) in the US; a subject he has written books about in the past.

His newest book also relates to the far-right movement(s), and this time he focuses on how pundits, especially talk radio hosts, transmits extremist ideas into the mainstream conservative movement, by either transmitting these ideas as facts, or by allowing right-winged extremist access to their microphones, presenting them as mainstream voices and/or experts on the subject being discussed.

If you've read Neiwert's blog, Orcinus, you'll recognize the theme, and in many ways, the book can be considered a collection of his blogposts on the subject, distilled down to the core ideas and concepts, and fleshed out a bit.

To be honest, I was a bit disappointed by the book, since it was neither as scholarly nor as journalistic as I had expected, based upon his earlier books. This time Neiwert's own opinions come to the fore much more, though still backed up with research and references. Even so, I would still consider this an important book, showing both how extremist ideas can spread and become mainstream, and how there are some real worrisome tendencies towards fascism among these extremists and their broadcasters.

This should not be misunderstood to mean that Neiwert thinks that the conservative movement is fascists, but he thinks the tendencies towards fascism are there, and he explains why he reaches this conclusion.

If you live in the US, or are interested in US politics, I recommend this book. It's not pleasant reading, but it's important, and even if you end up disagreeing with Neiwert's conclusions, you will have some things to think about.

Jack Kemp, supply-side economics champion, dies

Former Republican congressman and Housing Secretary in the George H. Bush administration Jack Kemp has died, 73 years old.

A major player in the Republican party, and a pillar of it's broad tent strategy, his greatest, and most damaging, legacy was the fact that he convinced Ronald Reagan to base his economic policies on the Chicago School of economics, and the now-disproved supply-side economics (Reagan's brand of this became known as Reaganomics, and resulted in huge national debt).

Blame for the economics morass caused by Reaganomics, and the later George W. Bush variant, cannot of course be laid entirely, or even mostly, at the feet of Jack Kemp. I cannot, however, help wondering what would have happened if someone with more economical sense had been able to convince Ronald Reagan and the neo-Conservatives about a more sound economical philosophy.

Obama vs Krugman

I'm not sure how much it is apparent to people who read my blog, but I used to study business management and economics before getting into programming and systems development. I suspect that's partly why I tend to end up working on financial projects. My background my explain why I am still fairly interested in economics, and follow it somewhat closely, and why I'm a big fan of Paul Krugman.

Newsweek has a good profile of Paul Krugman and his relation to the Obama administration.

Obama’s Nobel Headache

Paul Krugman has emerged as Obama's toughest liberal critic. He's deeply skeptical of the bank bailout and pessimistic about the economy. Why the establishment worries he may be right.

There is not doubt that Obama and Krugman is on the same side, and that Krugman wants Obama to succeed. Krugman doesn't, however, think that Obama is going to do so with his current politics, and he is not afraid to say so.

If I was Obama, or the people in his administration, I would listen very carefully to what Krugman says. Looking back through the Bush years, it's noteworthy how correct Krugman has been especially on issues related to economics. He has made mistakes, and been wrong of course (no one has a perfect track record), but on the big issues I can't think of any time he has been seriously wrong. In other words, his opinions are not things one should easily dismiss.

If you don't read Krugman's NY Times op-ed pieces, you should start doing so. And if you don't read his blog, you should do so as well.

This is a surprise

Once in a while I come across some news story that leaves me speechless in surprise, and this is one such case.

Why a GOP Benefactor Switched Parties

Just as news breaks that political fundraising is down for both parties, Republicans have lost one of their more generous contributors.

In what one might call a biblical move, Christian philanthropist Howard Ahmanson -- one of three major funders of the campaign for California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriages -- has abandoned the GOP for the Democratic Party.

Ahmanson is so far from the Democratic party on just about every issue that I am literately unable to express the surprise this piece of news gave me.

His move should not be taken as a sign that he has changed his positions. He has explained his reasoning for his switch, and it can be summed up as dissatisfaction with the single issue (anti-tax) agenda of the Californian Republican party.

The party move has great symbolic value, but in reality, I don't think it will have any effect. Ahmanson will still support right-wing causes, pouring money into think tanks etc.

This is unacceptable

It's no secret that I am a fairly vocal atheist, and that I not only supported Obama in the latest US election, but also opposed McCain especially because of his appointment of Palin as VP.

Still, I find this sort of things completely unacceptable.

Palin’s Church Is Badly Damaged by Fire

Gov. Sarah Palin's home church was badly damaged by arson, leading the governor to apologize if the fire was connected to ''undeserved negative attention'' from her failed campaign as the Republican vice presidential nominee.

No matter how much you oppose someone politically, there is no excuse for this sort of things. Especially not when doing so put other people at risk:

Damage to the Wasilla Bible Church was estimated at $1 million, authorities said Saturday. No one was injured in the fire, which was set Friday night while a handful of people, including two children, were inside, according to Central Mat-Su Fire Chief James Steele.

I hope they catch the people responsible for this.

Why vaccinations matter

It's barely a week since Barack Obama was elected in the historical 2008 Presidential election, and there has been some rumors going around about which people he would pick for his administration. One of the names that has been mentioned, was Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (RFK) as head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

RFK has a solid record on defending the environment, and some progressives where quite happy about this possibility. There was one group of people who were vehemently against this choice, however, the science bloggers (who are largely progressive). This might surprise people, but with a little background knowledge, it makes perfect sense.

Scientists, and science in general, have been among those most negatively affected by the Bush administrations, which were actively anti-science and anti-scientist. It would take too long to go into all of the ways this happened, but for more on this subject I recommend Chris Mooney's excellent book The Republican War on Science.

While not all scientists and science bloggers where overwhelmed by Obama, there was a clear sense that if Obama won, this would change. Politics would stop interfering in sound science, and scientists would not face political pressure to confirm with political stances. In other words, an Obama administration, would result in a, if not pro-science, then at least neutral attitude towards science from the politicians.

This is why the suggestion of RFK as head of the EPA dismayed many scientists and science bloggers. RFK as it happens, is not the sort of person that gives confidence of an pro-science atmosphere. As a matter of fact, RFK is considered not only ignorant of science, but actively against sound science by many of us.

Why do we feel this way? It all goes back to June 2005, where RFK wrote an article that appeared in both Rolling Stones and Salon.com. The article was titled "Deadly immunity" and was the shocking tale about how the scientific and medical community were covering up on how vaccinations causes autism. Or rather, how the component thimerosal, which degrades to ethylmercury, were the culprit of the rising number of autistic children.

This was indeed a shocking article, but not for the reasons RFK claimed. The shocking part of the article was the fact that anyone would publish it. Anyone spending more than five minutes on fact checking it, would have found numerous problems with it. The primary one being that there is absolutely no evidence of there being any kind of connection between vaccinations and autism. And it's not like there hadn't been any research into it at the time where RFK wrote the article. There had been large epistemological studies in several countries, including my own native country, Denmark, that couldn't find any causation between vaccinations and autism. While scientists and people in medicine, are cautionary in nature, there were an overwhelming consensus of rejecting any autism-vaccination link.

Another major problem with the article, is that RFK demonstrated rather impressively the difference between how scientists and lawyers debate. In science, it is regarded as a cardinal sin to leave out contrary evidence, to quote out of context (often referred to as "quote-mining"), and to pick just the data that suits your (called "cherry picking"). Among lawyers, this is not only acceptable, but actually good practice - they are trying to win a case after all. One of the things RFK did in the article, was to quote parts of the transcript from the Simpsonwood conference, where a possible autism-vaccination link was debated. The quotes RFK presented gave a clear indication of a conspiracy to hush up a autism-vaccination link, demonstrating to the readers that the scientists had something to hide. The problem was of course, that the quotes were taken out of context, as a skeptic blogger, Skeptico, demonstrated by finding the quotes in the transcript, and including the context (Robert F. Kennedy Junior’s completely dishonest thimerosal article). So, not only were the transcript of the conspiracy easily available on the internet, but a quick browse through it, would demonstrate that there were actually no conspiracy at all.

Still, RFK's articles did their job, making the readers believe that there were something dangerous about giving their kids vaccinations, thus increasing the number of people who didn't give their kids any.

That's unforgivable.

It's without any type of hyperbole that I would claim that vaccinations are among the most important contributors to the increased standard of living in the last 100 years. It's practically impossible to overstate the impact the availability of cheap, easily obtainable vaccinations have had on our societies today.

20 years ago, when I had English in my primary school, I had a teacher who could not use one of her arms, due to the polio she had as a child. Polio used to cripple, and even kill, children every year until the vaccinations made by Stalk in 1952 and Sabin in 1962 made it possible to vaccinate against it. Now polio is extremely rare in the Western World.

Smallpox used to be a major thread all over the world. According to the WHO fact sheet on smallpox: "As late as the 18th century, smallpox killed every 10th child born in Sweden and France. During the same century, every 7th child born in Russia died from smallpox." Now Smallpox is considered eradicated, due to a worldwide vaccination campaign.

Less serious diseases like Rubella, Mumps and Measles, are covered by the MMR vaccinations given in childhood. Rubella can cause brain damage to the child, if caught by a pregnant woman. Rubella and Mumps can cause hospitalization, but are rarely fatal. Measles, on the other hand, causes deaths. According to the WHO fact sheet on Measles:

# Measles remains a leading cause of death among young children, despite the availability of a safe and effective vaccine for the past 40 years.
# In 2006, it was estimated that there were 242 000 measles deaths globally: this translates to about 663 deaths every day or 27 deaths every hour.

In other words, Measles are not just a minor issue, and people who allow their children to get effected with Measles, are risking their lives. Even if the child survives, there is a real risk of brain damage from complications due to Measles.

And then there is the problem of herd immunity.

Some people who are vaccinated, are not actually immunized. This means that if there is an outbreak of the disease, they are at risk catching it. Others are not able to get the vaccination for medical reasons (problems with their immune system could be one reason). Again they are at risk during an outbreak. These people are dependent on "herd immunity", where enough people are immunized to keep the diseases from spreading. Due to the increased number of children not getting vaccinated, these people are at increased risk of getting the diseases. So, it's not just the health of their children the parents are risking, it's also the health of other peoples' children.

As it stands right now, it doesn't look like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is going to be appointed as head of the EPA, but the dark legacy of his fear mongering lives on. He has never retracted any of his statements in the article, and he is actively supporting the "Green Our Vaccines" campaign lead by Jenny McCarthy - another campaign aimed at getting people scared of vaccines. The war against science lives on, in another legacy. Let's hope it never gets officially sanctioned by the Obama administration.

Morning in America

As most of people in the world, I've waited for the US election result with excitement, mixed with fear. As the title of this blog shows, I am unapologetic pro-science, and as my posts show, I am a progressive. As such, there could only be one desired result of the US election. Thankfully, that's the one we got.

Obama is a little too religious for my taste, but he has good instincts about not making political decisions based on his religion. He is also very intelligent, and appears to understand that politics and diplomacy involves working together with others. All in all, he is not just "the lesser of two evils", but rather a good candidate in his own right.

Congratulations America, you made the right choice.

Defend science teaching in Texas

Came across this piece of news which I thought should be shared.

Longtime incumbent faces challenge from former educator in Board of Education race

The candidates running for the District 2 seat of the Texas State Board of Education want students to have the best education possible. But their views on what students should be taught in school differ greatly.

I expect that anyone reading my blog will quickly figure out what this is all about. Someone wants to introduce Intelligent Design (or neo-Creationism as I usually prefer to refer to it) in science class.

And keeping that in mind, I'll say that it's not true that both the candidates wants the students to have the best education possible. One of the candidates wants the students to receive proper education, while the other one wants to peddle nonsense to the students, possible disqualifying them from studying science, if they were so inclined.

So, who are the people involved.

Longtime board member Mary Helen Berlanga, a lawyer from Corpus Christi, faces opposition from Peter H. Johnston, a former educator from Wharton County, about 60 miles southwest of Houston. Johnston now owns The Joseph Group, a research firm that studies legal and public policy issues.

Berlanga is for proper science teaching, while Johnston (perhaps unsurprising given his background) has this to say about science:

Johnston, 55, a former school teacher and interim principal of Living Water Christian School in Rosenberg, said he believes schools should teach the strengths and weaknesses of all theories.

"By law (schools) have to teach the strengths and weaknesses of (all) scientific theories," he said. "A movement to take out the weaknesses, I think, would be a tremendous mistake and detrimental to students to compromise facts. Intelligent design is a bona fide scientific theory."

Scientific theories doesn't have any weaknesses. Otherwise they wouldn't be scientific theories. There might be issues that's unclear, but the overall ideas and concepts have been tried and tested true, and is not only supported by evidence, but have no evidence against them. It's true that there are certain scientific theories which are known to be unable to explain certain aspects, which tells us that there are still some adjustment to be done, but evolution is not one of these. The theory of evolution has been challenged for 150 years, and while it has been expanded, the fundamental idea still remains the same.

Intelligent design on the other hand, has no strengths nor weaknesses, as it's not a scientific theory. Since it explains everything by claiming that a non-defined intelligent designer did it in some non-defined way, it explains nothing. As such, it has nothing to do in science class (nor in philosophy class as some people seem to think).

So, if you're an Texan living in District 2, I urge you to vote for Berlanga.

Voices becoming quiet

Within the last week or so, three real-world heroes have passed away. One of them was successful while the other two were still fighting their battles. Two of them died of natural causes, while the last one was killed by her opponents.

I think it's important to honor these people, by remembering their fights, and keep fighting when necessary.

The first of the three to die, was Lieutenant Colonel Malalai Kakar, the highest ranking woman in the Afghan police force. The existence of such a strong female was of course intolerable to the Taliban, who considered her a direct threat to their world view, and in the end, that ended up costing Malalai Kakar her life. On September 28th, some men caught her in an ambush, and killed her. This was not the first attempt on her life - in an earlier episode she managed to kill three attackers - but unfortunately it was the last. Again, the ugly side of religion rears its head.

BBC coverage

The second of the three, and the only successful one, was J.L. Chestnut Jr., a person I hadn't heard about, until I read his NY Times obit, but who certainly qualified to be considered a real-life hero.

J. L. Chestnut Jr., who after attending law school in Washington returned to his hometown, Selma, Ala., and set up shop in 1958 as the city’s first black lawyer, and who went on to fight for voting rights for blacks, laying the groundwork for the march led by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. from Selma to Montgomery in March 1965, died Tuesday in Birmingham, Ala. He was 77 and lived in Selma.

Sad that it took his death for me to hear about him.

NY Times obit

Finally, the third person to die, was someone I had heard about in the past, but who I know little about, except for his role as a voice for civil rights in Singapore.
I'm speaking of J. B. Jeyaretnam, who was the key opposition figure in Singapore - a country which appears fairly civilized, but which has decidedly totalitarian tendencies. Jeyaretnam's fight for civil rights cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered successful, but the symbolic value of it cannot be overestimated. The simple fact that someone is actually ready to speak out for it, is an important thing in itself.

NY Times obit

Google supports equal rights to marriage

Currently there is a campaign in California to ban homosexual marriage. This is sought done through a proposition, proposition 8, which the Californian voters will vote on. You can read more about proposition 8 at Wikipedia.

Unsurprisingly, I am against that measure. Unfortunately, my opinion doesn't carry much weight among Californian voters. But perhaps Google's opinion will?

Google has come out officially in opposition to proposition 8.

It would be easy for a company like Google to just keep quiet on issues like gay marriage, so I am impressed that Google come out for equality.