Café Philos: an internet café

According to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy:

Despite a one-third decline since the early 1990s, the United States still has the highest rates of teen pregnancy and birth among comparable countries. In 2004, the U.S. teen birth rate was 41.1 births per 1,000 teens aged 15-19. By way of comparison, the U.S. teen birth rate is one and a half times higher than the teen birth rate in the United Kingdom (26.8 per 1,000) which has the highest teen birth rate in Europe, more than twice as high as the teen birth rate in Canada (14.5 per 1,000), seven times higher than the teen birth rate in Japan (5.6 per 1,000), Denmark (5.7 per 1,000) and Sweden (5.9 per 1,000).

Why does America lead the industrialized world in teen pregnancies? Let me suggest the reason might have something to do with the willful stupidity of American policy makers.

The nonpartisan National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy (NCPTUP) released on Wednesday a comprehensive review of research into teen sexual behavior. The review utterly damns America's cherished "abstinence only" sex education programs. Abstinence only sex education programs are programs that teach kids only one way to deal with their sexual feelings -- and that's by abstaining from sex.

The NCPTUP review failed to find even a single abstinence only program anywhere in the country that works -- despite that they looked at a total of 115 studies. They couldn't find one program that delays the initiation of sex. They couldn't find one program that hastens the return to abstinence. And they couldn't find one program that reduces the number of sexual partners. In any sane country, policy makers would study the NCPTUP report and abandon all support for abstinence only sex education.

This not a sane country.

Instead of abandoning abstinence only sex education, the Federal Government is about to increase the funding for it. Just a few days ago, the Democrat controlled Congress agreed to Bush's demand for an additional $28 million to fund abstinence only sex ed. That brings the annual funding for the Federal CBAE program to $141 million -- more than enough to wreck a few teens' lives. Can anything be more willfully stupid than that?

The CBAE program even requires those it funds to lie to kids about their sexuality. "For example, any program that receives CBAE funds has to teach [kids] that 'sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects.'" Yet, if a kid is so young or fragile they are going to experience "harmful psychological and physical effects" from sex, marriage isn't going to make much difference.

In stark contrast to abstinence only sexuality education, the NCPTUP report found that, "Two-thirds of the 48 comprehensive programs that supported both abstinence and the use of condoms and contraceptives for sexually active teens had positive behavior effect." Comprehensive sex ed programs do not fail to teach abstinence. Instead, they teach abstinence as the preferred behavior and the use of condoms and contraceptives as the second, fall back behavior. The "positive behavior effect" of comprehensive programs included delaying the initiation of sex, reducing the frequency of sex, reducing the number of sexual partners and increasing condom or contraceptive use.

Opponents of comprehensive sex ed have often promoted myths about it. One thing that makes this NCPTUP report especially interesting is that it confronts the lies told about comprehensive sex ed by its opponents:

The study, conducted by Douglas Kirby, a senior research scientist at ETR Associates, also sought to debunk what the report called "myths propagated by abstinence-only advocates" including: that comprehensive sex education promotes promiscuity, hastens the initiative of sex or increases its frequency, and sends a confusing message to adolescents.

None of these was found to be accurate, Kirby wrote.

Instead, he wrote, such programs improved teens' knowledge about the risks and consequences of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases and gave them greater "confidence in their ability to say 'no' to unwanted sex."

So, there you have it. Not only does abstinence only sex ed utterly fail, but comprehensive sex ed succeeds more times than not. Yet, abstinence only sex ed is Federally funded while comprehensive sex ed receives not a penny in Federal funds. Small wonder the US leads the industrial nations in teen pregnancies.


References:

Emerging Answers 2007: Report of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy

Report: Abstinence Programs Don't Work

One More Time: Abstinence Only Programs Don't Work, Comprehensive Programs Do

Just Say No To Increases In Abstinence Funds

According to some historians, during the thousand year long Middle Ages in Europe there was on average one peasant revolt per year. All of them failed.

There are several reasons for the failure of the peasantry to successfully revolt against the elites of the Middle Ages, but I'll mention only one reason to illustrate the difficulty the peasants faced. Before the advent of the hand-held firearm, it required years of training to produce someone highly competent in the best weapons of the Middle Ages. Most peasants didn't train in those weapons, and as a consequence, were usually over-matched when they revolted. Sickles against lances, hammers against swords.

But why did the peasants so frequently revolt in the first place? The most usual reason seems to have been famine. During most of the middle ages, transportation was so poor that it was almost unheard of to ship food in bulk for any distance. So, if the crops failed in one locality, that locality could experience famine even though there might be a surplus of food a mere 30 miles away. When famine struck a locality, the elites had custom, law and force all on their side -- they got what food there was, despite that the peasants produced the food. That left the peasants starving and prone to revolt.

Broadly speaking, at least three things came together to end the thousand year landscape of the Middle Ages. The first was the rise of capitalism, which can be traced back to very early beginnings around 900 A.D. The second was the British Agricultural Revolution -- a remarkable increase in agricultural productivity -- that can be traced back to around 1500 A.D. And the third was the Industrial Revolution, which began around 1700 A.D.

Those three factors, working together, created Europe's most successful peasant revolt. For, while all the revolts of the Middle Ages failed, capitalism, the British Agricultural Revolution, and the Industrial Revolution eventually brought not only wealth and long lifespans to the peasantry, but arguably contributed to their political liberation.

It seems odd to me that nowadays so many of us have come to resent those three developments. We see the many serious problems they have created and we sometimes imagine it would be a good thing if we were rid of capitalism, industrialization, and even large scale agriculture. Yet, to get rid of those things would surely plunge us back into an age when most people lived a short life of scarcity and want. So, I think the real problem is not to get rid of the very things that have lifted societies out of poverty, but to "update" them. We do not need, for instance, to abolish capitalism so much as we need a newer, more useful version of it with the most pressing bugs worked out.

A final consideration here is my gripe against ideologies. Not just any ideology, but all ideologies suffer from the fact they are either impossible or cumbersome to change. The world moves on, but the world's ideologies merely turn into retarded and retarding dogmas. I have never met an ideology that didn't turn to stone all it touched. If a software company were ever to adopt an ideology of software, you can bet they would go out of business -- because they would never update their product in any meaningful or useful way. Version 2.0 would have the same bugs as version 1.0 -- and only the marketing department would say it was better than 1.0. If we are ever so unwise as to leave the future of capitalism, the agricultural and industrial revolutions entirely to ideologists, we will surely get the disasters we deserve for our folly.

After all, it wasn't Christianity, the ideology of the day, that brought about Europe's most successful peasant revolt. Nor should we expect the ideologies of our day to bring about a successful social and economic future for humanity.

I wonder if Americans will ever get tired of trailer park politics? Will they someday decide that demonizing your opposition, seeing the world in black and white, slandering your opponents, and allowing your ideology to do your thinking for you are no way to run a household, let alone a nation? Or will the disease of trailer park politics continue indefinitely?

Politics has always been a dirty business, yet there are times when it's a dirtier business than usual. We seem to be living through one of those times.

What do you think? Do you see any signs that the trend towards trailer park politics is abating? Or are things just likely to get worse?

Via Evolutionary Middleman

In his new memoir, Wesley Clark relates being told by a high up in the Pentagon that neocons in the US had plans to invade seven Middle Eastern countries in five years. Joe Conason has the story here.

Yesterday, former President Jimmy Carter went on record stating the United States tortures prisoners in violation of international law.

But first some background: The New York Times disclosed on October 4th the existence of secret Justice Department memorandums supporting the use of "harsh interrogation techniques", including "head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures."

In response to The Times article, President Bush defended the techniques last Friday and said, "This government does not torture people."

Yesterday, Carter went on CNN and all but called the President a liar.

The CNN interview was conducted by Wolf Blitzer, no friend of Carter's:

BLITZER: President Bush said as recently as this week the United States does not torture detainees.

CARTER: That's not an accurate statement. If you use the international norms of torture as has always been honored, certainly in the last 60 years, since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was promulgated. But you can make your own definition of human rights and say, we don't violate them. And we can — you can make your own definition of torture and say we don't violate it.

BLITZER: But by your definition, you believe the United States, under this administration, has used torture.

CARTER: I don't think it, I know it, certainly.

BLITZER: So is the president lying?

CARTER: The president is self-defining what we have done and authorized in the torture of prisoners, yes.

I suppose this means presidents no longer lie -- they merely "self-define". Yet, whatever one might think of his euphemisms, Carter pretty much stated what the world knows -- the US is torturing prisoners and the Administration is bullshitting. Carter, it seems, is one politician who is being honest with us -- and he's likely to get crucified for it.

After the CNN interview, Carter went on BBC World News America. This time his target was Dick Cheney:

He's a militant who avoided any service of his own in the military and he has been most forceful in the last 10 years or more in fulfilling some of his more ancient commitments that the United States has a right to inject its power through military means in other parts of the world.

You know he's been a disaster for our country. I think he's been overly persuasive on President George Bush and quite often he's prevailed.

At the rate he's going, I'm definitely going to miss Carter when he passes on. The man was a failed president, but I think he has since redeemed himself through his moral activism as an ex-president. Basically, he's turned himself into a statesman. And whether one agrees with him or not, one most likely does not get the impression that Jimmy Carter is hiding what he genuinely thinks or feels.

A couple more quotes from Carter -- this time on the GOP candidates for president:

They all seem to be outdoing each other in who wants to go to war first with Iran, who wants to keep Guantanamo open longer and expand its capacity -- things of that kind.

They're competing with each other to appeal to the ultra-right-wing, war-mongering element in our country, which I think is the minority of our total population.

Yesterday, Jimmy Carter spoke more truth to the world in two interviews than the Bush Administration speaks in twenty.


References:

Carter Says US Tortures Prisoners

Jimmy Carter Unplugged: Former President Takes Aim at Bush and Cheney

Jimmy Carter Calls Cheney a "Disaster" for US

Jimmy Carter: US Tortures Prisoners

Today, 138 leading Muslim scholars from around the world will present an unprecedented open letter to the Pope and many other Christian leaders.

The letter calls for peace between Christians and Muslims, and notes that:

Together they [Christians and Muslims] make up more than 55 per cent of the population, making the relationship between these two religious communities the most important factor in contributing to meaningful peace around the world. If Muslims and Christians are not at peace, the world cannot be at peace.

The scholars state:

As Muslims, we say to Christians that we are not against them and that Islam is not against them - so long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their religion, oppress them and drive them out of their homes.

The scholars then continue:

With the terrible weaponry of the modern world; with Muslims and Christians intertwined everywhere as never before, no side can unilaterally win a conflict between more than half of the world's inhabitants. Thus our common future is at stake. The very survival of the world itself is perhaps at stake.

Well, they've got that right -- a religious war between Muslims and Christians would turn the whole world into a Northern Ireland.

Yet, what makes this letter remarkable is, not just the call for peace between Christians and Muslims, but -- and this may be of more lasting importance -- the Muslim scholars assert that Christianity and Islam share a profound common ground: "The Unity of God, the necessity of love for [God], and the necessity of love of the neighbour is thus the common ground between Islam and Christianity." According to the BBC radio this morning, the 29 page letter even asserts that Christians and Muslims worship the same god, and that all the prophets, including Jesus and Mohamed, were revealed the same truths. The 138 scholars are from every school in Islam.

The way I figure it, this is a necessary and long overdue -- but rather small step -- towards peace.

For it to be of any lasting significance, it must lead to much greater things than a few conferences. The notion that Islam and Christianity are not inherently at odds with each other must become commonplace wisdom everywhere in the world. For something like that to happen will certainly take a lot of time and effort -- if it happens at all. Still, a journey of 10,000 miles begins with one step. This could be that step.

References:

Pope Told 'Survival of World' at Stake if Muslims and Christians do not Make Peace

Muslim Statement on Peace Among the Religions 'Historic', Says Academic

Here are the "issues" I've been hearing the Right Wing froth about on blogs and radio this past ten days or so:

1) The MoveOn ad that called General Petraeus, "General Betray Us".

2) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's desire to visit Ground Zero.

3) Hillary's sweep of the Sunday talk shows.

4) Dan Rather's law suit against CBS.

Yup. That's what the Right has most focused on, near as I can see. Which seems to raise the question: Has the Right gone bonkers? What kind of issues are those?

Does anyone know why the Right considers those issues so important?

"A political ideology is a very handy thing to have. It's a real time-saver, because it tells you what you think about things you know nothing about."

- Hendrik Hertzberg

The commander of U.S. military forces in the Middle East, Admiral William Fallon, was recently interviewed by Al-Jazeera television, which released a partial transcript of the interview Sunday.

According to Al-Jazeera's transcript, the Admiral made several statements about Iran, including the following:

This constant drum beat of conflict is what strikes me, which is not helpful and not useful.

I expect that there will be no war and that is what we ought to be working for.

We should find ways through which we can bring countries to work together for the benefit of all.

It is not a good idea to be in a state of war. We ought to try and to do our utmost to create different conditions.

His remarks put him at odds with Vice President Cheney's camp, which is reportedly pushing hard for bombing Iran.

On the very same day that Al-Jazeera released its partial transcript of Admiral Fallon's remarks, Newsweek Magazine published a report that Vice President Cheney is considering an underhanded and devious method to plunge the US into war with Iran:

Newsweek Magazine reported Sunday that Vice President Richard Cheney may have considered a plan for Israeli missile strikes against an Iranian nuclear site in an effort to draw a military response from Iran, which could in turn spark a U.S. offensive against targets in the Islamic Republic.

Citing two unnamed sources the magazine called knowledgeable, the magazine quoted David Wurmser, until last month Cheney's Middle East advisor, as having told a small group of people that "Cheney had been mulling the idea of pushing for limited Israeli missile strikes against the Iranian nuclear site at Natanz - and perhaps other sites - in order to provoke Tehran into lashing out."

According to the report, "The Iranian reaction would then give Washington a pretext to launch strikes against military and nuclear targets in Iran."

Steve Clemons, the Washington blogger who first broke the story of Cheney's deviousness, has argued for some time that, "[A war with Iran] would most likely be triggered by one or both of the two people who would see their political fortunes rise through a new conflict -- Cheney and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad."

Meanwhile, the UK Sunday Times revealed that a secret US Air Force team, called "Project Checkmate", has been set up to perfect the plans to attack Iran:

The United States Air Force has set up a highly confidential strategic planning group tasked with “fighting the next war” as tensions rise with Iran.

Project Checkmate, a successor to the group that planned the 1991 Gulf War’s air campaign, was quietly reestablished at the Pentagon in June.

It reports directly to General Michael Moseley, the US Air Force chief, and consists of 20-30 top air force officers and defence and cyberspace experts with ready access to the White House, the CIA and other intelligence agencies.

What makes Project Checkmate especially interesting is that it bypasses Admiral Fallon's command:

Detailed contingency planning for a possible attack on Iran has been carried out for more than two years by Centcom (US central command), according to defence sources.

Yet, by by-passing his command (which is Centcom), Project Checkmate can hope to do an end run around the military opposition to war with Iran. Not surprisingly, according to some sources, Dick Cheney is the man in the Administration most responsible for setting up Project Checkmate.


UPDATE: Perhaps a little background on Admiral Fallon. There is an unconfirmed report that around the time of his confirmation as Centcom chief, Admiral Fallon privately expressed his intentions regarding war with Iran:

A source who met privately with Fallon around the time of his confirmation hearing and who insists on anonymity quoted Fallon as saying that an attack on Iran "will not happen on my watch".

Asked how he could be sure, the source says, Fallon replied, "You know what choices I have. I'm a professional." Fallon said that he was not alone, according to the source, adding, "There are several of us trying to put the crazies back in the box."

I don't know how likely the story is to be true, but it is at least consistent with Admiral Fallon's recent remarks on Al-Jazeera television.


UPDATE II: Juan Cole is arguing in Salon that, "Demonizing the Iranian president and making his visit to New York seem controversial is all part of the neoconservative push for yet another war."


UPDATE III: Think Progress is reporting that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's influence in the Administration is on the wane while Vice President Cheney's influence is again on the rise.



References:

Military Chief: "No War" with Iran

No Iran War Says US Admiral

Report: Cheney may have mulled pushing Israel to hit Iran

Will Bush Bomb Iran?

Secret US Air Force Team to Perfect Plan to Attack Iran

Commander's Veto Sank Threatening Gulf Build Up

Turning Ahmadinejad into public enemy No. 1



Related Articles:

Will Bush Bomb Iran

US Administration Gives Fox News Its Marching Orders

Prediction: Administration Will Attack Iran

In a time of war, the very last thing you want young soldiers doing is looking at photos of naked women in the pages of Playboy and Penthouse. That, at least, seems to be the trenchant conclusion of the moral experts at the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF).

The upright band of bimbos at the ADF recently began lobbying the Department of Defense to ban Playboy and Penthouse from being sold on military bases.

According to Wikipedia, the ADF,

is a conservative Christian non-profit organization with the stated goal of "defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation." ADF defines "Truth" according to a socially conservative Christian perspective. In practice ADF is opposed to all forms of abortion, same-sex marriage, adoption by same-sex couples, allowing LGBT persons to serve in the military, and sex education in schools that includes comprehensive education on contraception. ADF also works to establish public prayer in schools and government events, and to protect religious displays in government settings, like crosses and other religious monuments built on public lands.

In short, the ADF thinks Jesus Christ arrived on the scene 2000 years ago in order to limit human freedom -- except the freedom to be a socially conservative Christian. So, it is little wonder the moral experts at the ADF are passionately demanding that soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines give up their right to buy magazines containing photos of naked women.

Some years ago, Congress passed a law, called "The Military Honor and Decency Act", to prohibit sexually explicit material from being sold in military exchanges and elsewhere on Defense Department property.

Fortunately, Congress left it up to the military to define "sexually explicit material." In May of 2006, the Defense Department board tasked with defining "sexually explicit material" determined that Playboy and Penthouse were not "sexually explicit", thus allowing the magazines to be sold on bases.

A year later, the ADF launched it's campaign to reverse the board's decision:

Patrick A. Trueman, attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, said the members of the review board need to use “a little common sense” in determining which materials cannot be sold on Defense Department property.

“The law is not complicated in its definition of ‘sexually explicit,’ ” Trueman said. “The porn magazines that are allowed such as ‘Nude Playmates,’ ‘Playboy,’ ‘Penthouse,’ etc. are sexually explicit.”

Trueman also noted that Congress has the ability to limit troops’ First Amendment rights: “Military men and woman are not permitted to wear anti-war symbols and may be required to shave and wear their hair at a certain length, for example.” He said the intent of the Military Honor and Decency Act is clear.

“Congress was concerned about sexual harassment in the military and making military duty more accommodating to servicewomen,” he said. “It was also attempting to protect military families, particularly children, who frequent the exchanges and should not be exposed to porn.”

So, the ADF is all in favor of further limiting the First Amendment rights of military people, even to the point of banning the mild nudity found in the pages of Playboy and Penthouse.

Furthermore, the moral geniuses don't mind stretching the truth when it suits their agenda: There is little or no scientific evidence to draw a causal link between pornography and sex crimes, despite numerous studies on the subject. There is even less evidence that children who view the covers of Playboy and Penthouse in base exchanges grow up to become sex fiends. But who cares about the truth? After all, truth is only what socially conservative Christians believe is truth.

Moreover, the last time I saw a Playboy or Penthouse, the nudity was pretty mild. Admittedly, that was some years ago, but I doubt much has changed with those magazines.

I myself find it baffling that anyone would begrudge a man his Playboy or Penthouse when that man is prepared to risk his life in defense of others and their freedoms. But then, I'm not one of the moral experts at the Alliance Defense Fund.


References:

Wikipedia

Stars and Stripes: Military defends ruling on sales of adult material on DOD property

Pentagon Okays Sale of Certain Porn Magazines at Military Exchanges

Two years ago, the Republican mayor of San Diego, Jerry Sanders, was elected on a platform that included opposition to gay marriage. Yet, on Wednesday, he suddenly dropped his opposition and signed a City Council resolution supporting a challenge to California's gay marriage ban. He had previously promised to veto it.

Why the change of heart? It seems the most important reason is Lisa Sanders, the mayor's daughter, who it turns out is a lesbian:

The Republican mayor said he could no longer back the position he took during his election campaign two years ago, when he said he favored civil unions but not full marriage rights for homosexual couples.

He fought back tears as he said he wanted his adult daughter, Lisa, and other gay people he knows to have their relationships protected equally under state laws.

"In the end, I could not look any of them in the face and tell them that their relationships — their very lives — were any less meaningful than the marriage that I share with my wife Rana," Sanders said.

The move most likely carries some political risk for Mayor Sanders since, "in 2000, 62% of San Diego voters endorsed a statewide measure to restrict marriage to a union between a man and woman."

It seems quite understandable to me that through the love one has for one's daughter, one would gain insight and empathy for the plight of homosexuals. Yet, that is not always the case. Dick Cheney's daughter is gay, and Dick Cheney continues to oppose gay marriage. I think in Cheney we have a man willing to put political considerations above what his heart must tell him is the right thing to do. But do you think I'm being too hard on Cheney?


Reference:

San Diego Mayor to Back Same-Sex Marriage

Steven Clemons at Salon does not believe President Bush will bomb Iran despite that Vice President Cheney is lobbying for war.

According to Clemons, Bush is siding with his military advisers, who oppose bombing Iran, and against the neocons led by Cheney, who are in favor of it. Clemons apparently has some impressive channels into the Administration, for he seems to know what's going on. The trouble is, he leaves me unconvinced the US will avoid war:

Despite holding out a military option, ratcheting up tensions with Iran about meddling in Iraq and Afghanistan, and deploying carrier strike-force groups in the Persian Gulf, the president is not planning to bomb Iran. But there are several not-unrelated scenarios under which it might happen, if the neocon wing of the party, led by Vice President Cheney, succeeds in reasserting itself, or if there is some kind of "accidental," perhaps contrived, confrontation.

I'm inclined to believe one of those "several not-unrelated scenarios under which it might happen" is likely to happen. Among other scenarios, Clemons raises the possibility that Israel might strike Iran with cruise missiles, which he believes would lead to the US and Iran going to war. It's sad -- but realistic -- to think the actions of Israel could control whether the US bombs Iran. But in a way that's no worse than if Cheney and the neocons "reassert themselves", for neither Israel nor the neocons have the interests of the American people at heart.

At any rate, Clemons opens his article with this possibly illuminating anecdote:

During a recent high-powered Washington dinner party attended by 18 people, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft squared off across the table over whether President Bush will bomb Iran.

Brzezinski, former national security advisor to President Carter, said he believed Bush's team had laid a track leading to a single course of action: a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. Scowcroft, who was NSA to Presidents Ford and the first Bush, held out hope that the current President Bush would hold fire and not make an already disastrous situation for the U.S. in the Middle East even worse.

The 18 people at the party, including former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, then voted with a show of hands for either Brzezinski's or Scowcroft's position. Scowcroft got only two votes, including his own. Everyone else at the table shared Brzezinski's fear that a U.S. strike against Iran is around the corner.

Folks inside the Beltway are notorious for their ignorance of American public opinion, but they are certainly tuned into what each other thinks. And it seems that most people inside the Beltway think war is coming.

Let's hope they're wrong.


Reference:

Why Bush Won't Attack Iran

Related Articles:

US Administration Gives Fox News Its Marching Orders

Prediction: Administration Will Attack Iran

At the Emmy's last night, Sally Field won best actress in a drama series for her work as matriarch Nora Walker on "Brothers & Sisters." She remarked in her acceptance speech:

Surely this [award] belongs to all the mothers of the world. May they be seen, may their work be valued and raised. Especially to the mothers who stand with an open heart and wait. Wait for their children to come home from danger, from harm’s way, and from war. I am proud to be one of those women.

At that point, she began her next sentence, "If mothers ruled the world, there would be no...”. But Fox cut off her sound and pointed the camera away from her, censoring the rest of her sentence, which ended, "...god-damned wars in the first place."

Backstage, Sally Field told reporters: ''I honestly believe that if mothers ruled the world, we wouldn't be sending our children off to be slaughtered.... I probably shouldn't have said the 'God' in front of the 'damn.' I would've liked to have said more bleeped-out words, but that's life.''

Some people on the net are saying Fox censored Field to remove the "god-damned". But Fox is more than passively pro-war -- To say the network leads in beating the drums for the Iraq war is an understatement. It seems reasonable to assume they censored Field at least as much for her anti-war opinion as for her use of "god-damned".

Sadly, Fox has a legal right to censor whatever it wants to censor, so there won't be any lawsuits over this.


References:

Fox Censors Sally Field's Anti-War Speech at Emmy's

Wow! They Censored Sally Field!

Emmy's Backstage: Stars Get Sassy


Related Article:

Kathy Griffin's Emmy Remarks Will Be Censored

"In 31 states, it's still legal to fire someone because they're gay; in 39 states it is legal to fire someone for being transgender."

"Thousands of hardworking GLBT Americans have lost their livelihoods simply because of who they are."

"The Human Rights Campaign is leading the charge to end this bitter injustice by passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a federal bill that would make it illegal to fire, refuse to hire, or refuse to promote employees simply based on sexual orientation or gender identity."

"This historic legislation will be up for a vote in the U.S. House this month. But the radical right is flooding lawmakers with misinformation about ENDA."

If you wish to send your lawmaker a message, it's easy. Simply go here.


A tip 'o me hat to Jamie.

I have long regarded the death penalty as little more than state sponsored terrorism. It's purpose, at least in the United States, seems to be two-fold: To terrorize the American underclass, and to pander to people who want criminals punished as harshly as possible. If it actually serves any other purpose in America, I am unaware of it.

In absolute numbers, though, the capital of the death penalty is not the US, but China. As recently as 2006, the Chinese government conducted two thirds of the world's legal executions. In 2005, it executed an estimated 1,770 people, and sentenced 4,000 to death.

Yet, it has recently done two things to reduce the number of state sponsored murders: (1) In January it began requiring all death sentences to be approved by the Supreme People's Court; and (2), very recently the Supreme People's Court ordered all other courts to reserve the death penalty for "an extremely small number of serious offenders".

We'll have to see what those reforms mean in practical measures, but I think they are steps in the right direction. Governments are evil enough without giving them the right to take the lives of their people.


References:

China to Reduce Death Penalty Use

China Executions at "10 Year Low"

Facts and Statistics on the Death Penalty -- Amnesty International

The Administration today revealed to Fox News how it wishes to frame the debate over going to war with Iran. Instead of debating whether to go to war or not, the Administration wants to frame the debate as a question of whether to blockade Iran or bomb it into the stone age:

[A]ccording to a well-placed Bush administration source, "everyone in town" is now participating in a broad discussion about the costs and benefits of military action against Iran, with the likely timeframe for any such course of action being over the next eight to 10 months, after the presidential primaries have probably been decided, but well before the November 2008 elections.

The discussions are now focused on two basic options: less invasive scenarios under which the U.S. might blockade Iranian imports of gasoline or exports of oil, actions generally thought to exact too high a cost on the Iranian people but not enough on the regime in Tehran; and full-scale aerial bombardment.

My guess is Fox News can be relied on to go along with the Administration by increasingly presenting the issue of war with Iran as not a matter of "whether" but of "how". If history is any guide, the rest of the mega-media will fall in line sooner or later -- including such purported bastions of liberal thinking as The New York Times and the major networks.

It's a very clever move on the part of the Administration that obviously hopes to eliminate or marginalize the most sane option -- no war -- at the very start of the debate.


Reference:

US Officials Begin Crafting Iran Bombing Plan

Related Reference:

Only Impeachment Can Stop Him

Many thanks to Webs for discovering the above photo which is from here. If you have trouble reading the girl's sign, click on the picture to see it full size.

Some political bloggers are having fun with a study published Sunday in the journal Nature Neuroscience.

The study finds evidence the brains of liberals and conservatives function differently. It appears liberals have brains that adapt to sudden changes a bit more readily than do the brains of conservatives. Naturally, liberal bloggers are spinning the study one way while conservatives are spinning it the other. Each side wants to show how the study "proves" folks on their side of the fence are superior thinkers. But neither the liberal nor the conservative bloggers that I read are discussing one of the most interesting implications of the study -- that humans may have evolved innate perspectives or prejudices.

The study was conducted by political scientist David Amodio and his colleagues at New York University. They recruited 43 subjects for the experiment and began by asking each subject to rank his or herself on a scale for political views. One end of the scale was "extremely liberal" while the other end was "extremely conservative".

After the recruits ranked themselves, they were directed to sit before a computer screen and press one of two buttons depending on whether they saw an "M" or a "W". Each time they saw a letter, they had only half a second in which to respond -- nothing like a little pressure to think fast.

Eighty percent of the time (400 out of 500 instances) they saw the same letter. This was to encourage them to expect that letter. "You keep seeing the same stimulus over and over, so when the opposite stimulus comes on it's always a surprise," said Amodio.

When the less common letter appeared on the screen, the people who identified themselves in the conservative half of the scale pressed the "usual" button 47% of the time instead of switching to the correct button. In comparison, the "liberals" achieved the slightly lower error rate of 37%.

Up until this point, nothing about the study was surprising: There have been dozens of studies showing a strong link between political persuasion and certain personality traits. "Conservatives tend to crave order and structure in their lives, and are more consistent in the way they make decisions. Liberals, by contrast, show a higher tolerance for ambiguity and complexity, and adapt more easily to unexpected circumstances (Source)." But Amodio's study is unique because he performed electroencephalogram (EEG) scans on the brains of his subjects while they were performing their task -- thus discovering significant differences in the way the brains of liberals and conservatives were operating.

Liberals had slightly over twice as much activity as conservatives in a region of the brain called the anterior cingulate cortex. Some scientists think that area of the brain acts as a mental brake by helping the mind recognize "no-go" situations where it must refrain from the usual course of action. They refer to that function of the anterior cingulate cortex as "conflict monitoring".

According to Amodio, "The neural mechanisms for conflict monitoring are formed early in childhood," and are probably rooted in part in our genetic heritage. "But even if genes may provide a blueprint for more liberal or conservative orientations, they are shaped substantially by one's environment over the course of development."

It seems to me Amodio's overall take on his experiment is in line with what most other scientists are saying these days: Genes may predispose us to certain thoughts and behaviors, but environment still plays a major role in how we think and act. But if genes predispose us to certain inclinations, then how and why did those genes evolve?

As luck would have it, Ed Yong has a post on the evolution of personality differences over at Not Exactly Rocket Science that sheds considerable light on the question of how and why personality differences (and by extension, political preferences) might have evolved in us. Basically, it turns out that certain personality traits most likely evolved as ways of answering the age-old question, "Should I have kids now or later?" At first blush, there might not seem to be much of a relationship between reproduction, personality differences, and political preferences, but do check out Ed's article for insight into how those things might be linked.

I think the important thing to realize here is that "liberal" and "conservative" tendencies evolved in us because both tendencies increase our biological fitness -- depending on the circumstances. If one or the other were inherently superior, then natural selection, working over millions of years, would have resulted in that one particular tendency being the only tendency humans have. Either we would all be "liberals" or we would all be "conservatives". But that didn't happen because both liberal and conservative personalities have advantages.


UPDATE: Cognitive Daily has an illuminating critique of the study here. I think it should be read in conjunction with Ed's article, however, because I don't think Cognitive Daily's critique of the "Left-wing/Right-wing" study amounts to an refutation of the notion there may be significant and inherent differences in the way liberal and conservative brains operate.


References:

Homo Politicus: Brain Function of Liberals, Conservatives Differ

Political Affiliation Could All be in the Brain (New Scientist)

Study Finds Left-Wing Brain, Right Wing Brain (L.A. Times)

There is a report three carrier strike groups will be in the Persian Gulf region by the end of September. In itself that doesn't mean much, but combined with the drumbeat to attack Iran, which is reportedly being orchestrated by the Vice President's office, it could be part of a build up to war. Too early to tell yet.