Guns, yes. Clubs, no.

Guns, Yes. Clubs, No.

Via FARK, a story about how Texas animal control officers can't use a stick against an angry dog:

Harris County's animal control division wants the Legislature to allow its officers to use telescoping batons to fend off attacking dogs amid a sharp increase in the number of aggressive stray pit bulls in unincorporated areas.

Animal control officers say the batons, called "bite sticks," can prevent serious injuries by intimidating aggressive, charging animals and blocking their attempts to bite. But they currently are prohibited in Texas under a state law that bars most people who are not certified peace officers from carrying clubs.

Texas state law allows the carrying of firearms, of course: just not clubs.

Georgia law is no better. I have a firearms license, which means that I can carry -- openly or concealed -- pretty much anything short of an automatic weapon. .44 Magnum revolver? No problem. A pair of Glocks and a dozen extra clips? Perfectly legal.

A knife? Well...

You can carry a knife, with certain exceptions, if it is carried openly, OR if it is not "designed for the purpose of offense or defense"; but that latter has been defined by the court in really strange ways that I still haven't fully sorted out. A cop I know tells me "it's OK if it has a clip on the outside, and it folds," but there's nothing in the law to suggest that, and I see no reason a DA couldn't decide to prosecute you on the plain meaning of the language. On the other hand, I know several knifemakers, and could get a letter from them stating that they'd made me a custom knife "not at all for the purpose of offense or defense, but purely for the enjoyment of being able to open boxes and cut onions with a handmade work of art"; but presumably that plain-language defense wouldn't stand up.

And a club? Well...

As we begin to talk about the ramifications of Heller, it will matter how "arms" are defined. The second round of lawsuits is now under way, challenging Chicago's handgun ban to try and get the 2A incorporated to the states; and also challenging DC on its attempt to ban semiautomatic handguns by fiat, though they are the most common form of firearm chosen for self defense.

There is no obvious reason, however, that more primitive forms of arms should be banned. The Founders took the field with everything from muskets and Kentucky Long Rifles to knives, swords, and clubs of the type in common use among the Indian tribes of what was then the frontier.

Go, Iraq

Go, Iraq!

I've never been a big fan of the Olympic Games. I did my best to avoid them in Atlanta in 1996, at a time when I was living there. On the other hand, I was in China during the 2000 Olympics, and I can tell you that the Chinese take it very seriously: it was absolutely eerie how the streets became empty. Millions of people disappeared, in order to watch the games huddled around whatever television they could find. And when China would win a medal, everyone would cheer.

My wife and I, walking through the darkened and empty streets of a normally-bustling city, would suddenly hear a high cry as a few million voices raised together: everywhere, but out of sight.

So it is with tremendous pleasure that I read that at least two of Iraq's Olympic hopefuls will be competing this year. It is a disgrace that the Olympic Committee couldn't get off its... ah, couldn't find a way to resolve the matter in time for the other hopefuls to compete. It will mean a lot, though, to the people of Iraq to get to see their champions in competition with those of the other nations of the world.

I'll be rooting for Ms. Dana Abdul-Razzaq. In the Olympic spirit: Good luck. Bon chance. ¡Buena suerte! I'd put it in Arabic, but I don't have enough of the language to know the form.

Science at work

Science @ Work:

A new study, which got attention from slick Time Magazine, purports to show that moderate exercise won't help you with your long-term weight goals. How scientific was this study?

The study, led by John Jakicic at the Physical Activity and Weight Management Research Center at the University of Pittsburgh, followed nearly 200 overweight or obese women ages 21 to 45 through a two-year weight-loss program. The women were given free treadmills to use at home, regular group meetings and telephone pep talks to help keep them on track...

The problem was that not enough of the women stuck with their assigned exercise categories for the researchers to gather enough meaningful data. Within a few months, most of the participants had resorted to exercising as much as they chose to. That left researchers with a slightly different data set than they had planned for...

I love that phrasing: "A slightly different data set than they had planned for."

Actually, I think what the scientific study has definitively proven is that laziness is very hard to overcome. Even with free treadmills, regular group meetings, and telephone pep talks.

The rest of the study's data, breathlessly reported in a major news magazine, are called into serious question by the utter breakdown of their methodology. I'd love to know who was responsible for funding a program for two years when "within a few months" it was clear the methodology had failed, and the results from the study would therefore be entirely unusable for the intended purpose.

Confess

Literary Sins:

I think my favorite of these confessions is the professor who got top marks for his paper on Wuthering Heights. (H/t Arts & Letters Daily.)

This points to a serious problem with far more than literature theory, though: the academic world has become extremely derivative. Nothing will produce greater disdain than writing a paper on a work of literature or history, or a scientific topic, which does not show that you have read the important secondary works on the subject. In a way, this makes sense: if you aren't aware of the important work already done on a topic, how do you intend to build on what we already know?

Yet it quickly becomes the case that there is so much secondary literature to read that there isn't really time to read the primary sources. Instead, you become a specialist on a small handful of topics -- or less, even -- mastering all the secondary literature on that little demense. In doing that, though, your own mind is quite limited in its capacity to investigate the original work. How will you tell me about Bronte if you haven't read her contemporaries? You may know everything about her, but if you didn't read the works that influenced her... or know about the politics troubling her lifespan...

We are pushing against the limits of human capacity. There is a short span in which a man lives, learns, writes, and dies. The need to build on what has come before us must, of necessity, cut into our capacity to see the original picture. As we were discussing Sidney Lanier, look again at his capacities: Middle English and French, Welsh, Anglo-Saxon. A man who today wished to be an expert in Anglo-Saxon poetics, as he was, would scarcely have time for any of the others. He would be swamped in secondary sources.

What is the answer? A second ring of generalists of the old sort, to check the specialists against the bigger picture?

Muzzle Discipline

Muzzle Discipline Is So Important:

Via The Donovan, the funniest thing I have seen in ages. This guy looks exactly like an Army Reserve Captain I used to know.

Military Deception

Military Deception:

As a continuation of yesterday's post on the ethics of manipulation, an interesting example from the Hundred Years' War.* Sir John of Norwich is commanding a garrison in a city that comes under siege by a large French army. Discovering that the citizens are inclined to the French, that he has few provisions, and that there is little hope of aid from the main army, he decides to escape with his trusted companions.

He summons the Duke of Normandy, commanding the French army, and obtains a one-day truce to honor the Feast of Candlemas, "in honor of Our Lady." Then he packs up his stuff, and boldly rides out on that day directly through the French Army. Obliged by his word and his honor, the Duke allows them to withdraw in peace.

The poet Sidney Lanier,** in his redaction, adds a footnote: "This act of Sir John Norwich was mean and small beyond all decent words; for he took the basest advantage of the Duke of Normandy's honorable confidence in his fidelity to the sacred obligations of a truce."

In truth, I doubt the Duke minded much, since the result was that the city surrended to him peacefully. He obtained whole and without bloodshed what might have come to him in a far poorer condition, and with some loss.

Military deception has advantages and also disadvantages: a man who keeps his word and his truce in war does profit by it, especially in counterinsurgency efforts to win the population. Part of the reason the people of the city were inclined to be ruled by the Duke of Normandy was his honorable and decent character.

By the same token, American efforts in Iraq have profited strongly by the understanding that we would keep our word. Of all the actors in Iraq, of all the factions, we have been the most reliable: our terms are clear, and if you adhere to them, we will defend you and further your interests. While Iraq's factions still want self-rule, not American protection, they find it easier to trust and work with us as brokers than they do even with each other. Deception, while useful in certain cases, will dissolve that key advantage if overused.

On the other hand, trusting the enemy's word leaves you open to manipulation. It worked to the Duke's advantage in this case, but obviously it does not always. Likewise, there are times when deception is the only chance for a weaker party to attempt a danger: Sir John of Norwich saved his command unharmed for future battles this way; and centuries later, Allied forces were able to attempt Normandy due to careful efforts to distract its defenders.

The existence of war obviously changes the terms somewhat. We're looking at three different kinds of cases now: deceptive manipulation in intelligence work, deceptive manipulation in war, and deceptive manipulation between neighbors. It would be tempting to say that deception was licensed in a decreasing degree along these types of cases: nearly always in intelligence work, sometimes in war, and rarely in peaceful relations with neighbors. (And how about in a fourth case: politics?)

Insofar as men must carry out these deceptions, we should still try to establish an idea of exactly when "sometimes" is.

* If you follow the link and head down to the next chapter, starting on p. 122, you can read an interesting account of medieval counterbattery fire.

** It should be noted that Sidney Lanier practiced what he preached. He was a pilot on blockade runners, assisting English vessels in shipping Confederate cotton out through the Union blockade. On one occasion the ship was borded, and he refused to don an English uniform or deny his status as a Confederate. The Federals imprisoned him, and he contracted tuberculosis in prison, which tormented him the rest of his life. He has, therefore, earned the right to speak on the subject as a man who has sacrificed for his principles.

Manipulation as a virtue

Manipulation As A Virtue:

One of the writers I admire most is Judith Martin, better known as "Miss Manners." Sometimes, though, she reminds me of a conversation I once had with an intelligence professional, which began with a question about what connotations I thought the word "manipulation" had. Were they negative?

I was especially annoyed at my neighbor who was complaining to me about this two days ago -- and just yesterday her daughter went into my cooler and took out my container of grapes and brought them over to my lounge chair and began eating them.

Her mom said "Susie, no" and the little girl just laughed and said, "But I like them" and continued to eat. I was so annoyed that I didn't know what to do, so I turned to my husband and asked if he would like to go swim with me.

As I said, we are friends, and our kids play together, but this is getting old. It is not a matter of not being able to afford it, either, because most of our neighbors live a much higher lifestyle than we do. Please help me know what to say without making enemies out of my neighbors!

The neighborly thing to do would be to show concern for the children and organize the parents to do something about it.

"The children always seem to be hungry at the pool," you can tell them. "Should we take turns bringing them snacks?"

Miss Manners does not expect such an enterprise to be the result. Rather, some parents will say that they don't want their children eating between meals, and others will argue about what they consider to be proper snacks.

This will empower you to say, the next time some child tries to help himself, "No, dear, I'm sorry, but your parents don't want you to have that."

An elegant solution -- a diplomatic one, even. Manipulative, however, from conception.

So, an ethical question: Is manipulation a virtue? Under what circumstances? What are the necessary constraints to keep it from becoming vicious rather than virtuous?

Another

Disconnection:

A little while back, I wrote:

It's interesting, in terms of how disconnected this election is from reality. If you want campaign finance reform, McCain is your candidate: he's really done things for you, hard things. Yet Obama has been running as the campaign finance reform candidate -- though he has no actual commitment to the issue, has done nothing but talk about it in terms of advancing it, and undercut the project at the first sign of advantage.

Similarly, if you are concerned about "change" in Iraq, McCain is your candidate. He stood up to the Bush administration and forced them to undertake the Surge, which Rumsfeld and others did not wish to do. The current successes are in many ways his progeny. He can honestly claim to be the candidate of a very positive change: the chance to wind up the Iraq war on a positive note, with relative stability and upcoming provincial elections, and a status of forces agreement of some sort rather than a withdrawal and collapse of the state of Iraq.

Obama has done nothing but talk, and hasn't updated his concepts on Iraq since 2006.

Gateway Pundit has another example:

"Will we lift the child in Bangladesh from poverty, shelter the refugee in Chad, and banish the scourge of AIDS in our time?"

Barack Obama
Campaign Speech in Berlin, Germany
July 24, 2008

Barack Obama talks.
Barack Obama talks about lifting the child from Bangladesh from poverty.
John McCain already did it.

Twice, apparently. As for the scourge of AIDS in Africa, I'm not sure how much Sen. McCain has done, but Bush has done quite a bit.

As Eric likes to say, 'Facta, non verba.'

Smart

Smartocracy:

John Derbyshire has an article on America's issue with intelligence. On the one hand, it's an amazing change in the world, because for the first time intelligence is the primary factor in whether you rise or fall -- a fact with huge implications. On the other hand, it's at odds with the notion that 'men are created equal.' He thinks this is the real issue with Sen. Obama:

It seems to me that we are starting to be a little more open and truthful about these matters. Columnist Chris Satullo in the Philadelphia Inquirer back in May pointed out that the charges of "elitism" then being hurled at Barack Obama were really about smarts.

The charge of elitism isn't about people flaunting income; it's about people flaunting IQ. Americans, as a rule, don't resent people who have more money than them — particularly if the wealth is seen as earned. Envy, maybe, but not resent. You don't resent people whom you hope to emulate. And most Americans dream easily about having much more dough than they do. What Americans more readily resent is someone who is smarter than them, who knows it, who shows it, and who seems to think being smart makes you better than everyone else. A gap in income, you can always dream of closing. A gap in IQ, not so much. It's more personal, thus easier to resent.

I never thought Sen. Obama was all that smart. He doesn't come across as being particularly intelligent -- certainly not stupid, probably above-average, but I've met some real geniuses in my time, and he is not among them. He has a Harvard education and has been given positions of academic honor, but has produced no scholarship of note. His prose is forgettable; it sounds good at the time, but no idea is so clearly expressed and insightful that it stays with you. If he meant any of it, he might think deeper and come up with better lines: but in general, he strikes me as someone of reasonable but not shocking intelligence, who has a talent for speaking but nothing worth saying.

I've never found intelligence worthy of resentment: admiration, rather. If I resent anything about Sen. Obama, it's that he's risen so high on so little actual accomplishment -- I don't even resent that he's done it on so little work, since that's a sort of accomplishment in itself. It's just that nothing he's turned his hand to has prospered; no one who has befriended him, except his fair wife, has gained the honors that friendship rightly earns. Yet he rises on, ever, with those in his trail forever disappointed, wondering why he promised so much and then left them behind. This is the clear message of the Boston Globe's piece on the slums his housing efforts produced, and the New Yorker interviews with those who used to work with Obama in Chicago. It is the clear message also of his relationship with the preacher who sponsored him in Chicago politics, and his grandmother (and indeed, answering Hitchens, I can quote a line from his speech on race from memory: that line. It is the one he made memorable, by his deeds).

No, what bothers me is that no one seems ever to have stopped him and said, "Fine -- but before you advance again, tell us: What have you done?"

UPDATE: I have deleted a paragraph here, because on reflection it distracts from the discussion of the concept of Derbyshire's piece, which is the interesting part.

UPDATE: According to Steve Sailer, John McCain tested at IQ 133, which is not bad. (Assuming standard distribution, it would place him in the top few percentage points of humanity. It's also more than "two standard deviations" above the mean IQ of 100. If Derbyshire were right, that would mean Sen. McCain was too intelligent to communicate effectively with the majority of Americans -- if you add up the ones right at 100, and the ones below it, it would only be the most intelligent Americans who could understand him. Sen. Obama, being a famously great communicator, should sit lower on the curve according to that model: somewhere around 120 would be optimal, as it would allow you to be intelligent enough to communicate well with the most intelligent (up to around 150, which is close to everyone) as well as the bulk of people sitting from 90-110.

I doubt that the model is right, though -- I mention it only because it runs strongly counter to what appears to be the popular impression. Sen. Obama has been accorded an impression of being a serious thinker by the press; Sen. McCain is assumed to be somewhat slower. Yet Sen. McCain is in fact confirmed to be of reasonably high IQ .

Sen. Obama's does not appear to be public; I've seen estimates Googling around from 125-148, but they all appear to be SWAGs not based on any actual test results. The higher end results (130-148) estimate off the LSAT, but not Sen. Obama's actual LSAT, which isn't public -- just the median scores for Harvard law. The LSAT is not actually an IQ test, nor is it particularly difficult.

These popular impressions about the candidates' intelligence are probably rooted more in our prejudices than in their actual intelligence. As a culture, we think of older people as being mentally slow -- a hostile prejudice undeserved in the case of those who remain mentally engaged and active; in fact, research indicates that intelligence changes with age, but does not necessarily decrease, and may even benefit in some areas.

By the same token, we tend to think of Ivy League graduates as being exceptionally intelligent. Yet this prejudice is generally set aside when someone runs counter to our own decision-making process: it would be hard to find anyone who thought George W. Bush and John Kerry were about equally intelligent, though both are members of Yale's Skull & Bones. The normal opinion is that one is a sharp character and the other is a buffoon; but which one is which depends on where your own prejudices lie.

President Batman?

As Grim likes to use movies to instruct and inform on morality, this item caught my eye.

Andrew Klavan, writing in the Wall Street Journal, has a curious interpretation of the new Batman movie "The Dark Knight".

There seems to me no question that the Batman film "The Dark Knight," currently breaking every box office record in history, is at some level a paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that has been shown by George W. Bush in this time of terror and war. Like W, Batman is vilified and despised for confronting terrorists in the only terms they understand. Like W, Batman sometimes has to push the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency, certain that he will re-establish those boundaries when the emergency is past.

And like W, Batman understands that there is no moral equivalence between a free society -- in which people sometimes make the wrong choices -- and a criminal sect bent on destruction. The former must be cherished even in its moments of folly; the latter must be hounded to the gates of Hell.

I have not seen the movie, so I can't really comment on Klavan's idea, but any who have, feel free to discuss.

One thing I do note about Batman, as opposed to the other superheroes movies are being made about recently--Superman, Spiderman, the Hulk, the X-men, even Hellboy--is that Batman is still, underneath the costume, just a guy. He has no actual super powers, just some neat toys that help him get things done. I wonder if that makes stories about him more accessible than the others on some level.

Yikes

Yikes:

From Ireland (via Kim du Toit):

ON THE one hand, I expected some uproar in Ireland over my piece about Ethiopia on July 10. But there really wasn't any. On the other, I didn't expect an attempt to jail me by a state-sponsored body. Yet Denise Charlton, of the Immigrant Council of Ireland, has urged An Garda Siochana to investigate me under a special law, by which I could be tried and imprisoned for two years without even the benefit of a jury.

"Garda" is "guard" in Gaelic, obviously a loan word. An Garda Siochana is "The Peace Guard," that is, the police.

His competitors at Metro magazine are trying to get him hanged.

METRO e-mailed me the following questions. "Do you agree with the charges levelled against you by the Immigrant Council of Ireland (namely that the article can be seen as inspiring racial hatred?) Why/why not?

"2. Do you agree that your article could be misunderstood in some quarters? If so then what is the main idea of it and what was it really trying to say?

"3. Do you agree that some of the statements you made could be offensive to people from Africa who live in Ireland? Did you think about them when writing the piece?

"4. It's definately (sic) not the first time that your writing offended somebody. Can you recall any other instances/ official complaints/death threats etc that you got from, say, the Irish republicans?

"That is all. It would be great if you could answer these questions or give your comment in any way you wish. I just want to add that there are a lot of Africans associated with Metro Eireann and they're all very offended."

No pressure!

So: do you agree that someone, anywhere might misunderstand what you wrote? If so, would you explain why you would write something that anyone might misunderstand for any reason? Can you recall any occasion you offended someone before now? We'd just like to add that we are deeply, personally offended.

Hey, that's a great standard for encouraging freedom of discourse. Have you ever offended anyone?

OK, But...

Actually, the McCain one is a really great poster. It frames his age and experience as "wisdom," which is a traditional way of thinking about age: we all hope that we become wiser as we age. It clarifies that his interest in the use of military force is directed at the goal of peace, which is the noble and proper use of force. It has an evocative use of color and shape, and the fighter formation imagery is a commonplace in American politics.

Then again, maybe the Obama one is a really great poster for Germany. I'm not enmeshed in German culture enough to know how it might resonate.

I said it sounded better in the original German:


I'm not the only one to notice either.

Congrats on your new house

Congratulations! You Bought A House!

Four Hundred Thousand of them, actually.

The effect of this kind of thing is to punish economic actors who are intelligent, careful, and thorough, while rewarding those who are reckless and hasty. As we know, when you subsidize something you get more of it; when you tax something, you get less of it.

That suggests that this "remedy" will not be good for the long-term economic health of the nation.

Liberal Thinking At Work

NYT Economics @ Work:

The New York Times suffers a massive drop in its circulation, advertising, revenue and profits. Solution? Raise the price of the newspaper.

The June performance followed an 11.9 per cent decline in May advertising revenues, and suggested that an already deep erosion in newspaper advertising could be accelerating. Ms Robinson said the company would respond by raising newsstand prices for the New York Times from $1.25 to $1.50 per copy beginning in August, marking the paper’s second increase in a year.

That announcement came as the company reported that second-quarter profits fell 82 per cent to $21m, or 15 cents per share, compared with the same period a year ago, when it benefited from a $94m gain from the sale of television stations.

'What? Revenue is down? Just raise taxes. Everyone will continue to behave just as before, so the only effect will be more $$$ for us!'

One wonders if Mr. Krugman was consulted.

CNN

CNN Hits Obama:

We've seen the love affair at length, but give CNN credit where credit is due.



This is a technical violation of the Logan Act; although the Logan Act has never in two hundred years been enforced, so it's probably a dead letter. The point tonight is that CNN deserves a huzzah for allowing a clear violation of diplomatic etiquette to be called out as such on the air.

One other matter of housekeeping: the other day I was mocking the "Obama One." I saw in a report today that McCain has also leased a plane for his campaign, which is apparently also decorated. So -- what we have here is a case of me being ignorant about what is apparently standard practice for campaigning politicians. I apologize for the unfair remarks.

Schadenfreudeburg.

Vice Presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards was caught visiting his mistress and secret love child at 2:40 this morning in a Los Angeles hotel by the NATIONAL ENQUIRER.

Yeah, ok, its the National Enquirer. But. Just wow.

Defending Obama

Defending Obama:

It's clear by now that I don't have any brief for the guy. However, just as I defended him a bit this weekend on the grounds of his wife, I'm going to defend him against this psychoanalytic attack. It's from back in March, but just came to my attention this morning.

The problem with the "diagnosis" starts with the fact that it's unethical to diagnose people you haven't actually examined -- especially politicians in an election year. However, ethical rules in the field of psychology are 'really more of a guideline.' In 2006, the Sanity Squad debated whether or not they were free to talk psychology about political figures they hadn't examined, and determined that of course they were. It's the public's fault if they mistake such talk for an 'actual' diagnosis.

The second problem with it is that every single Presidential candidate gets 'diagnosed' with NPD without examiniation. Sometimes it's laymen doing it, but sometimes it's "real mental health professionals." It happened to Bush, it happened to Kerry, and it happened to Gore. Oh, and people raised the charge about Sen. Clinton. And her husband -- that was what the Sanity Squad got criticized for doing in the first place.

Third, the whole methodology underlying psychology and psychoanalysis is non-falsifiable. It's not science. It's pseudoscience. [UPDATE: It is pointed out to me that I use the term "she" and "her" here incorrectly: this piece was posted at the Body Language Lady's site, but was in fact written by one of her male correspondents. She merely endorsed and distributed the view; she did not originate it.] In an email on the subject of the Obama piece, I wrote:

What is the evidence this expert fields?

1) "An amorphous expression that looks like a child, about three years old, needing approval. I’ve almost never seen this expression in someone who isn’t NPD (occasionally in Borderline Personality Disorder, a closely related type II personality disorder). To me, it’s an exceptionally good indicator. It’s often a fleeting micro-expression (hard to catch without practice)."

So: we are required to take her word for it. If we don't see it, it's because we aren't practiced enough. How do we know who is practiced enough? They can see it!

As always with psychology, there is no way to falsify the claim. You either agree, or you're wrong.

2) "The eyes of NPDs usually have an unusual look. My face-reading friend describes them as “dead eyes”. I perceive NPD eyes as “no boundary between inside and outside”. Some people perceive them as magnetic."

So: their eyes look "unusual." But not unusual in any particular way. Some people see them one way ("dead"). Others see them in exactly the opposite way ("magnetic").

3) "The startle response of pupils (e.g. to disturbing scenes) is often diminished relative to normal people (both less of a change in pupil diameter, and a longer lag before pupil size changes). I think people with NPD also spend less time playing through internal imagery (visible in eye tracking and facial expressions)."

At last, a falsifiable claim. So, has she measured Obama's pupil dilation, to measure it against "normal people"? Well, no, not as such.

Also -- even if she had, it's not telling. The delay is "often" diminished, not always. Nor is it claimed that this is the only potential reason for such diminishment. Most importantly, though, because it is only "often" diminished, a "normal" reading wouldn't clear him of her diagnosis. He might be one of the NPDs whose response is not diminished.

So: in theory this is the strongest claim so far, because it could be tested. It hasn't actually been tested. And even if it were, it wouldn't actually prove or disprove the claim. Once again, psychology doesn't deal in science -- if X then Y. It deals in pseudoscience: its claims cannot be falisified.

I won't go through the whole thing, but hopefully with these examples you can see how the game works. It's all [redacted barnyard expression inappropriate for public discourse]. I don't doubt that she sincerely believes it, as she sincerely believes she is an "expert" in reading people. The problem is that the "expertise" can't really be put to the test: even when individual claims can be falsified, the diagnosis is untouched.

There is nothing wrong with someone going to a psychologist on his own, to seek help for a problem or disturbance in his life. I don't personally believe any of its claims, but just as religion or the martial arts can improve your life, so can psychology in its proper limits: so can a belief in feng shui. Just wanting to feel or do better, and adopting a disciplined method of working towards it, can have positive effects on you. As we discussed with regard to Aristotle and Free Will, the first thing is to adopt a vision of beauty and pursue it.

Even if all of psychology's claims and models are untrue in the final analysis, it can still help a willing participant to overcome problems that he identifies in himself. It's not necessary -- a devotion to rock climbing can work as well or better. But it's not wrong, confined to its proper role as an art, participation in which is wholly voluntary. Any disciplined method will do, so long as it pursues a vision of beauty that you personally truly believe.

These attempts to use psychology as a weapon against political enemies are not within the proper limits of psychology. Its unscientific, unfalsifiable nature means that no one so accused has any means of clearing himself. This is the same reason it should not be allowed in courts: it is an unfair method of argument because its claims cannot be disproven.

No one should be subject to having their fitness for public office questioned because of such an attack. Whether we like them or despise them, they deserve better than this.

Yeah

Yeah, This Is What We're Talking About:

But what's it based on? 'He's a gift from the world to us.' He is? What's he done?

Public Service Warning

A Service to the Readers:

We don't usually do public service announcements here, but this one on jalapenos targets the readership in several ways:

For now, the government is strengthening its earlier precaution against hot peppers to a full-blown warning that no one should eat fresh jalapenos — or products such as fresh salsa made from them — until it can better pinpoint where tainted ones may have sold.

Tomatoes currently on the market, in contrast, now are considered safe to eat.

The Texas plant, Agricola Zaragoza, has suspended sales of fresh jalapenos and recalled those shipped since June 30 — shipments it said were made to Georgia and Texas.

I know we have a lot of Georgia and Texas readers, and a lot of folks who like to eat jalapenos. I love fresh jalapenos: one of my favorite things to do with any food is to chop up a fresh jalapeno and put it on top, seeds and all. Burgers, salads, chili, whatever: jalapenos are great. We grow them in the garden, but they come in later in the season for us, so we may very well have contaminated, store-bought jalapenos in the house.

If you may too, here is the USDA's page on how to avoid salmonella-caused food poisoning. Keep them cold, clean them carefully, and cook them through. The USDA has specific guidelines.

In the meantime, the cayennes in the garden are starting to come in, so we'll just make do for a while.