Really Hate Tea

Race and the TEA Party:

The headline reads "Academics dub tea partyers devout, racist." That's pretty aggressive; what's the evidence?

“Tea Party activists have denied accusations that their movement is racist, and there is nothing intrinsically racist about opposing ‘big government’ or clean-energy legislation or health care reform. But it is clear that the movement is more appealing to people who are unsympathetic to blacks and who prefer a harder line on illegal immigration than it is to other Americans,” Gary C. Jacobson, a professor at the University of California at San Diego, wrote in his paper, “The President, the Tea Party, and Voting Behavior in 2010.”...

Like Mr. Jacobson, Mr. Abramowitz also said they were more likely to harbor racial resentment, which he judged based on their answers to questions such as whether blacks could succeed as well as whites if they “would only try harder,” and whether they agreed with the statement that Irish, Italians and Jews overcame prejudice and “blacks should do the same without any special favors.”

Racism is, apparently, believing that blacks are just like everybody else?

There was a graduate student present, with a "working paper," who got closer.

Other academics saw other mechanisms at work. Emily McClintock Ekins, a graduate student at the University of California at Los Angeles, said tea partyers have more faith in the fairness of capitalism, which she said could explain their attitudes on race.

“This makes it less surprising that nearly all Tea Partiers believe that hard work, rather than luck, drives success. This might also explain their lower levels of racial empathy, as they are less aware for how opportunity may be different for particular groups of people,” she wrote in a working draft paper.

Perhaps the problem is that you aren't asking the right questions.

A fair number of supporters of the TEA Party are veterans, whose experience in the Army or the Navy supports the idea that hard work and dedication to duty are most of the answer. Not all of the answer, to be sure: the military has strong controls against overt displays of racism. While no system can rule over what may be hidden in the heart, these controls establish a ground in which black servicemembers do very well.

Most of corporate America has a similar system in place, if only to protect themselves from lawsuits. Without asserting either that racism is not a problem, or that controls of this type aren't necessary to level the playing field, it is nevertheless the case that success has been possible in this environment.

I say "has been" rather than "is" possible because the structural changes around this recession are only the leading edge of a decades-long reduction in American wealth that will accompany the aging of our society. I don't know that upward mobility remains possible for large swathes of society, though exceptional individuals will do well.

The general decline in prosperity will also cut into both tax-funded professions, like the military, which will limit the degree of opportunity available in organizations with those kinds of strict anti-racist controls discussed above. That may have a negative effect on blacks particularly. It will also tend to be disruptive of small businesses, which is the means for independent wealth generation that doesn't depend on other people 'giving you a chance.' That's going to be hard on all of us.

The one group that is likely to remain profitable are the large corporations, who will use their power to cut special deals for themselves. These environments are likely to have the strong anti-racist controls, but they are also likely to be exploitative on other terms. Those familiar with the history of the South will recognize a number of the business practices of the Monsanto corporation, especially in India; much the same loan practices were used by Northern banks after the Civil War to turn free farmers who had owned their own land into sharecroppers or tenet farmers.

Does that constitute an abiding faith in the fairness of capitalism? Not really; it constitutes an abiding faith in small business and the military, I suppose, combined with a populist attitude about what Ms. Palin was calling "crony capitalism" just the other day.

If Ms. Palin is speaking about it, it's on the minds of a lot of the TEA Party. That should be expected: the movement was spurred in large part by outrage over the bank bailouts, wherein ordinary Americans who made bad investments lost their homes, while banks who had profited wildly on those same investments were paid off at taxpayer expense. The TEA Party movement is as populist as it is capitalist. The failure of political scientists to understand the distinction suggests to me that they don't even know what questions to ask; they are too distant from the movement to know how to begin understanding it.

En Passant

En Passant:

Sometimes, like the chess move where a pawn moves in an unusual and oblique way, it is the smallest things that move the game. Amongst Ms. Dowd's many complaints about the administration, notice what she says about his ray of hope.

Obama’s re-election chances depend on painting the Republicans as disrespectful.

That is a fascinating claim. She doesn't argue for it, which suggests that she thinks it will be self-evident.

What does it mean to say that your re-election will depend on portraying your opponents as disrespectful? It suggests that he won't be running on his record, for one thing; but that's small by comparison to the substance of what she is claiming here. What she is claiming is that he might win re-election, if he can demonstrate that Republicans haven't been adequately respectful of him.

If that were true, it isn't because his campaign will look like this:




Actually, that would be a pretty entertaining campaign.

Still, it is likely that what she means is something other than that. What she means is that the President's hopes depend on a fervent demand that he be treated with kid gloves. The deference isn't earned -- she clearly doesn't respect him -- but it will be commanded, on the strength of... what?

Of course, the New York Times has failed to understand the President's mind more or less consistently; just because this seems like a viable plan to them doesn't mean that he's so foolish himself. Respect must be earned, with Presidents as with any one else. Just getting elected to the office gets you some -- you can use the Rose Garden and Air Force One, and you can demand that Congress show up for your campaign commercials, as Ms. Dowd herself points out.

If the languid Obama had not done his usual irritating fourth-quarter play, if he had presented a jobs plan a year ago and fought for it, he wouldn’t have needed to elevate the setting. How will he up the ante next time? A speech from the space station?

Republicans who are worried about being political props have a point. The president is using the power of the incumbency and a sacred occasion for a political speech.

The only thing she's wrong about is the idea that a joint session of Congress is a sacred occasion. It's a special occasion, but quite purely secular.

Hypotheticals

Hypotheticals:

If you should ever be sitting on your front porch in the dusk, smoking a long-stemmed pipe that a friend sent you because he knew you liked cigars and Tolkien -- and you should hear rustling and squeaking behind the decorative window shutters on your house -- it is probably bats getting ready to come out to hunt.

Furthermore, if there should happen to be any nearby children, you should call them over and tell them to watch the shutters. Then, you should puff up a big bunch of smoke from your pipe, and blow it behind the shutter. A few seconds letter, the children are likely to be very impressed.

NASCAR

NASCAR v. POTUS:

One thing we've probably learned over the last few years is that NASCAR fans are more likely than not to dislike the President. This was most obvious during Car & Driver's April Fools Day joke, which succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.

A Car and Driver April Fool's hoax on the Web, reporting President Obama had ordered Chevrolet and Dodge out of NASCAR after the 2009 season, turned into a sizzling Internet topic Wednesday.

"Just when we thought we could take a breather from Barack Obama's wacky policies, he reached across the Atlantic today to drop another one on us," wrote Sandra Rose at Rightfielders.com. "Naturally, NASCAR fans are outraged."

Naturally. It wasn't true, of course. The President hadn't said anything about NASCAR; when he finally got around to saying something, four months later, it was on the importance of the sport to America's automobile industry.

Why would NASCAR fans have believed the hoax? Probably because it fit so well with the takeover of the automobile industry; the electric/hybrid car push; the 'slim down' anti-obesity crusade; the 'slim down' anti-carbon-footprint crusade; etc, etc., etc. Too, then-Senator Obama turned down a NASCAR club that wanted his campaign to sponsor their car. In other words, the joke was highly plausible: NASCAR fans probably feel that the joke better represents the truth of the President's feelings for them than the fact that he is a wise enough campaigner to do some minimal pandering in their direction.

When we learned today that half the NASCAR drivers invited to meet the President declined the offer, then, few can have been very surprised.

There seems to be a debate about the etiquette of turning down a Presidential invitation, however. Jeff Gluck says it's not very patriotic to claim to be too busy to meet with the President. The Western Experience agrees, proving that this is not just a partisan position.

The American Thinker isn't buying it:

As for Gluck's "patriotism" shot - is he really equating patriotism with being an extra in a campaign commercial for a candidate they don't support?

My own sense is that the President isn't the Queen, and Americans aren't his subjects: any President is meant to be no more than primus inter pares. You may decline an invitation with him on the same terms as with any other equal.

Those terms are that you can decline with no more than a note declaring that you regret you cannot accept the invitation: no explanation is required. No one in NASCAR seems to have done otherwise. I would say, then, that they have acted politely. A free citizen is not required to appear at the President's pleasure. It is not rude for him to state that he has other business that, regretfully, must detain him.

Dumb Law

Another Dumb Law:

I hope none of you in California ever use babysitters.

Dubbed the babysitting bill, AB 889 would require families to provide nannies and sitters (anyone over 18 who cares for your child except one of your other children) with lunch and rest breaks, minimum wage, worker's compensation, paid vacation, and overtime pay. Families who fail to provide these things could be sued.

So pretty much forget ever going on a date night again, and as for us working moms -- we're totally screwed.... The rest breaks in particular are just ridiculous because that means someone else would have to come in and cover for their breaks every two hours. If you're a parent, you know how hard it is to find one good sitter, much less two; good luck finding one who's willing to work for 15 minutes at a time.

Good luck finding a teenager who's willing to work for 15 minutes in total, in my experience; but perhaps you've had better luck.

Secular

Speaking of Errors:

Iran unhappy with Made-in-China Korans.

Iran's Organization of the Holy Quran is scolding Iranian publishers who've outsourced production of the holy book to Chinese printers.
Apparently, their copies of the Quran are riddled with typos, according to the Tehran Times.

"These tableaus are made quite cheaply in China but are sold for much more than they are really worth to make that much more profit," said an official with the organization who monitors and evaluates Qurans available in Iran.

The official even urged importers to halt future Quran shipments from China, the Times reported.

I can't imagine why an atheist country would produce slapdash copies of sacred texts. It's like they don't even care.

Jim

Oh, You Meant Mr. Crow:

I don't have it in me to even be annoyed by this sort of lazy paranoia. However, I'm amused by CNN's editor.

"Some of these folks in Congress would love to see us as second-class citizens. Some of them in Congress right now of this tea party movement would love to see you and me ... hanging on a tree," Carson said, according to the audio....

Tea party officials have previously renounced characterizations that their movement is racist.

"Renounced"? How did that get past them?

Brains, Bodies, and Symbiosis

Brains, Bodies, and Symbiosis

Until quite recently, I've always been Hygeia's darling, particularly when it comes to digestive health. The usual problems of that kind were things I merely heard about in other people's lives. Unfortunately, it seems I have now developed an auto-immune disorder associated with digestive difficulties, which luckily is well-controlled with not-outrageously-priced medication. The whole experience has piqued my interest in what all those gazillions of gut flora are up to in there.

The most recent article to catch my eye was on my newly discovered favorite site, Not Exactly Rocket Science. People are publishing interesting articles about the role of gut flora not only in digestion but in the immune response and even mood. One study found that

mice, after regularly eating Lactobacillus, were more likely to spend time in the exposed parts of a maze (a common test for anxiety symptoms) than those who ate bacteria-free meals. They were also less likely to drift motionlessly when plopped into water (a common test for depressive symptoms).

I'm eating a lot of yogurt myself now, and am wondering whether I would behave differently if plopped down into the middle of a maze, or a deep body of water. Speaking of which, does it seem like a good idea to send National Guardsmen into deep water if they can't swim? I thought at first it was a matter of heavy clothing and boots, but this fellow's companion swam after him like a champ once he started going down. That looked dicey.



Back to gut flora and mood: evidently it's the vagus nerve, connecting the gut to the brain, that transmits the influence. Sever the vagus nerve in mice, and their guts no longer affect their behavior.

Some speculate that we eventually will learn how to treat mood disorders with probiotics. All I know is that they seem to work well on my gut. Some combination of the medication I'm now on, and the probiotics, certainly have eliminated the chronic fatigue that dogged me all last spring: gone like flipping a light switch. Of course, it may just be that the intestinal inflammation is controlled and I'm absorbing nutrients better. Still, even my somewhat skeptical gastroenterologist believes there's some good clinical evidence implicating gut flora imbalances in flare-ups of this condition. I guess I'll take my chances with the probiotics for the time being, especially since it's pretty clear they can't hurt me.

So my small passengers and I seem to do each other considerable good, and we do well to keep each other in a happy mood.

The Constitutional Right to Denial

The Constitutional Right to Denial

A federal district judge in Dallas has just struck down a Texas law requiring a physician to supply a pregnant woman with detailed information about the development of her fetus before aborting it, including a sonogram and a heartbeat recording. The court's reasoning is obscured in a maze of multi-pronged standards concerning strict scrutiny and compelling interests, but it boils down to a conviction that pregnant women should not be forced to confront irrelevant information that might distress them.

Before enacting the recent sonogram bill, Texas law had employed an ordinary informed-consent procedure based on written materials, of a sort that had been expressly approved by the Supreme Court in the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. The new sonogram law, however, provoked two legal challenges, both of which were upheld at least in part. First, the court struck down certain parts of the statute on grounds of vagueness. Second, it struck down certain parts on the ground of an inversion of traditional First Amendment rights: the citizen's right to freedom from unwanted messages, as upheld by the Supreme Court's 2000 decision in Hill v. Colorado, which involved limitations on the rights of abortion protesters to accost potential patients in or near a clinic.

On the vagueness front, the court began by noting tartly that, from the number of words the plaintiffs found objectionable, it was hard to imagine they shared a language with the bill's drafters. Nevertheless, the court agreed that a number of provisions were unconstitutionally vague, such as a reference to "the doctor who is to perform the abortion," the requirement to explain the sonogram and heartbeat in a manner intelligible to a layperson, certain details about how permitted waivers would operate to excuse the doctor and the pregnant woman from confronting the uncomfortable facts about her fetus, and followup obligations to supply the woman with additional information about such matters as the availability of suits to establish paternity and obtain child support. If these provisions are unconstitutionally vague, it's hard to imagine how any statute passes muster. (The court suggests that the Constitution prohibits "gotcha tactics" in a statute, which would be great news if any such approach ever were to be consistently applied.) But this is a garden-variety results-oriented specimen of judicial activism employed to strike down a law the judge makes it plain he objects to on ideological grounds :

The Court has grave doubts about the wisdom of the Act . . . . The Act’s onerous requirements will surely dissuade or prevent many competent doctors from performing abortions, making it significantly more difficult for pregnant women to obtain abortions. Forcing pregnant women to receive medical treatment from less-skilled providers certainly seems to be at odds with “protecting the physical and psychological health and well-beingof pregnant women,” one of the Act’s stated purposes. . . . In short, if the Texas Legislature wishes to prioritize an ideological agenda over the health and safety of women . . . .

But the "vagueness" analysis is not the most troubling aspect of the decision. The most troubling aspect surely concerns the principle of freedom of speech. As the plaintiffs argued:

The Act violates the plaintiff physicians’ right of free speech by using them as puppets to convey government-mandated speech (visual, verbal, and auditory) to a patient who does not wish to receive that information and who does not believe it material to her decision. This mandated speech falls outside accepted medical practice for informed consent and requires physicians to violate basic tenets of medical ethics. This unprecedented intrusion on a physician’s relationship with a patient in a private medical setting violates the First Amendment.

The Dallas court agreed that the Texas statute violates the First Amendment rights by compelling the speech of doctors to pregnant women.

Defenders of the statute argued that the 1992 Supreme Court decision in Casey permits "compelled speech" in the context of informed consent to a medical procedure, where the statutory requirements are narrowly tailored to advance the government's compelling interest (a traditional strict-scrutiny constitutional analysis). The Supreme Court recognized

a substantial government interest justifying a requirement that a woman be apprised of the health risks of abortion and childbirth. It cannot be questioned that psychological well-being is a facet of health. Nor can it be doubted that most women considering an abortion would deem the impact on the fetus relevant, if not dispositive, to the decision. In attempting to ensure that a woman apprehend the full consequences of her decision, the State furthers the legitimate purpose of reducing the risk that a woman may elect an abortion, only to discover later, with devastating psychological consequences, that her decision wasnot fully informed. If the information the State requires to be made available to the woman is truthful and not misleading, the requirement may be permissible. . . . [W]e permit a State to further its legitimate goal of protecting the life of the unborn by enacting legislation aimed at ensuring a decision that is mature and informed, even when in so doing the State expresses a preference for childbirth over abortion. In short, requiring that the woman be informed of the availability of information relating to fetal development and the assistance available should she decide to carry the pregnancy to full term is a reasonable measure to ensure an informed choice, one which might cause the woman to choose childbirth over abortion. This requirement cannot be considered a substantial obstacle to obtaining an abortion, and, it follows, there is no undue burden.

In the new decision, however, the Dallas court escaped this rather strong language by observing that the statutory attack in Casey was based on Fourteenth Amendment "due process" rights (i.e., freedom from "undue burdens") rather than First Amendment "compelled speech" restrictions. The Dallas court also noted that "important," "legitimate," and "substantial" interests were not necessarily "compelling," and that under Roe v. Wade the state's interest in protecting a fetus did not arise until the fetus was viable. The court did acknowledge the state's compelling interest in ensuring the informed consent of patients undergoing medical procedures, and it approved the state's decision to make some information available to the pregnant woman. Where the court balked was at the requirement to include in the disclosure a number of uncomfortable details:

[T]he Act under consideration here requires physicians to provide, in addition to those legitimate disclosures, additional information such as descriptions of “the presence of cardiac activity,” and “the presence of external members and internal organs” in the fetus or embryo. The Court does not think the disclosures required by the Act are particularly relevant to any compelling government interest. . . . The net result of these provisions is: (1) a physician is required to say things and take expressive actions with which the physician may not ideologically agree, and which the physician may feel are medically unnecessary; (2) the pregnant woman must not only passively receive this potentially unwanted speech and expression, but must also actively participate. . . . In the absence of a sufficiently weighty government interest, and a sufficiently narrow statute advancing that interest, neither of which have been argued by Defendants, the Constitution does not permit such compulsion.

I confess an inability to understand how someone can "ideologically disagree" with a picture of arms and legs, or with a recording of a fetal heartbeat. To my way of thinking, this is the crux of the decision, and it rests entirely on this judge's personal conviction that the presence of fetal arms, legs, and heartbeat are not "particularly relevant" to a pregnant woman's informed consent to an abortion. It's an awful lot of words just to come to the conclusion that people have a right to live in denial. The Dallas judge has ruled that pregnant women must not be confronted with the very information that might help them conclude whether the medical procedure they are contemplating involves another human life, or instead is as ethically neutral as blowing one's nose.

Epic

Epic:

In the 15th century, when Europeans first began moving people and goods across the Atlantic, a... stowaway somehow made its way to the caves and monasteries of Bavaria.

The stowaway was a kind of yeast, which fused with the traditional European yeasts to allow you to ferment a new kind of beer. That beer, lager, is now among the most popular drinks in the world.

It's a good drink for an August afternoon, at least in the Northern hemisphere.

Discontented Science

Discontented Science:

Bryan Fischer's writing appeared once before on these pages, when he was arguing that grizzly bears should be eradicated if they threaten even one human life. I wasn't especially impressed with that argument.

Now he has penned what he apparently takes to be a refutation of Darwin. Darwin wasn't interested in most of the problems he raises, however, so it might be better said to be a broad attack on the secular worldview, which often considers itself to be firmly rooted on scientific theory.

There's a rebuttal here, which contains some important points, but which hardly attains the tone one would expect from a defender of dispassionate science. This is not exactly the Leibniz-Clarke debate on substantivalism versus relationism as the proper foundation for physics. No one will be reading this debate for insight into the question in a hundred years, let alone three hundred.

There is one problem that they touch on that very well may be of interest in that timeframe, though: the problem of the creation of the universe. (And why shouldn't it remain of interest a few more centuries, given its track record? The first sentences of Aristotle's Metaphysics point us toward it.)

Stephen Hawking published an article last year that continues to bother me in the fashion of a thorn that has burrowed under the skin. After starting off appropriately with Viking mythology -- always a good start -- he wrote:

In Western culture the Old Testament contains the idea of providential design, but the traditional Christian viewpoint was also greatly influenced by Aristotle, who believed "in an intelligent natural world that functions according to some deliberate design."

That is not the answer of modern science. As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.

Our universe seems to be one of many, each with different laws.

To say that "the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing" is to say something that is not, strictly speaking, true. If these laws "allow" effect X (say, the appearance of the universe), then there is not nothing -- there are, at least, these laws. They have to be in effect already in order to produce the effect attributed to them. Where did they come from? How are they sustained in such a way that they produce many universes "with different laws"? Apparently they must not be laws of the type that might be "different" under another system, as they must predate the creation of each system on this model. What sustains them in the time described as "nothing"?

Phrase it another way, friendlier to Hawking, and just say that the universe is such a thing that it can arise from nothing. Even now, though, we still don't have nothing. We have something: specifically, we have the latent potential of a universe coming to be. That's very different from nothing.

The question physics is capable of answering here is, "What triggered that potential to execute itself in the particular way we can observe?" If the answer is "gravity" or "quantum mechanics," an account of 'what they were doing before creation' is going to be just as troubling for the physicist as it was for St. Augustine.

Even so, it doesn't answer the real question, which is: How did such a potential come to exist? You exist because you got your existence from something that already existed -- your mother and father, perhaps. What was the thing that already existed that gave existence to this potential for creation?

Mr. Hawking hasn't answered the question at all. I fear to say, given my respect for his intelligence and accomplishments, that he may not have understood just what the question really was.

Archaeology

King Arthur's Round Table Discovered by Archæologists:

It's good they're still looking for it, anyway.

Historian John Harrison, chair of the SLHS, who initiated the project, said: "Archaeologists using remote-sensing geophysics, have located remains of a circular ditch and other earth works beneath the King's Knot.

"The finds show that the present mound was created on an older site and throws new light on a tradition that King Arthur's Round Table was located in this vicinity."

Stories have been told about the curious geometrical mound for hundreds of years -- including that it was the Round Table where King Arthur gathered his knights.
Around 1375 the Scots poet John Barbour said that "the round table" was south of Stirling Castle, and in 1478 William of Worcester told how "King Arthur kept the Round Table at Stirling Castle".

Sir David Lindsay, the 16th century Scottish writer, added to the legend in 1529 when he said that Stirling Castle was home of the "Chapell-royall, park, and Tabyll Round".

It has also been suggested the site is partly Iron Age or medieval, or was used as a Roman fort.

Some of you may remember that just last year, the Round Table was discovered by historians in Chester. It's become as hard -- or as easy -- to find the Round Table as it is to find the Holy Grail.

Hurricanes

Hurricanes:

Although my experience with hurricanes is less than Tex's, I've done both the ride-out and the evacuation. I slept through Isabel, except for a couple of occasions when the house I was in leaned over far enough in the wind to wake me up. It didn't fall, though, so I went back to sleep.

(More interesting than the storm was the commute that day. I was in D.C. for work, at the Pentagon as I recall, and stayed until the Metro was being shut down. I caught the last train out of town, and then when I got to the end of the train line, I found that they were no longer running buses on schedule, but as-needed. So, instead of catching my usual bus and then walking home a few blocks from the closest bus stop, the bus service gave me my own bus and dropped me off at my front door. That's service!)

Hurricane Floyd, when they gave the evacuation notice, was the size of Texas and a "very strong" Category 4. It weakened substantially before it made landfall, though, and the damage to our home in Savannah was not severe.

I suspect that Grim's Hall readers are likely to be prepared for anything, as you seem like a resourceful and self-reliant lot. I'll just repeat the usual advice that you always hear. If you're going to evacuate, go early and take the back roads. If you're going to stay, be sure you have bleach (a few drops in a gallon of water will sterilize it for drinking), a good knife, and adequate preserved food, preferably canned as it won't be ruined if it gets soaked. I'm sure you've made all the other sensible precautions that are appropriate to yourselves, such as obtaining any prescription drugs you might need, etc.

Good luck to all of you in the storm's path! If you survive, tell us any good stories that come out of the storm. We'll be glad to hear them, and from you.

The Greatest Storm

"The Greatest, the Longest in Duration, the widest in Extent, of all the Tempests and Storms that History gives any Account of since the Beginning of Time."

Now here's an account that would satisfy even the voracious appetite of the news channels, who dearly love a storm: Daniel DeFoe on a great storm that struck England in 1703:

The human toll was substantial: 123 dead in and around London and an estimated 8,000 drowned at sea, including about one-fifth of the sailors in the queen's navy. The physical wreckage was equally immense, with 800 houses flattened, 400 windmills demolished and the newly built Eddystone Lighthouse, off England's southern coast, washed away. Whole forests blew over. On a tour of Kent, Defoe started to count the fallen trees but quit at 17,000, having grown "tired with the Number."

H/t Maggie's Farm.

"It Can't Happen Here"

"It Can't Happen Here"

The news this weekend is saturated with public officials calming urging people to evacuate in the path of Hurricane Irene. I've lived on the Gulf Coast all my life and am familiar with the drill: do we go this time, or do we stay? When we lived in Houston, the obvious answer always was to stay; we were 50 miles inland at 50 feet of elevation, so the winds were extremely unlikely to be truly dangerous and there was no realistic chance of storm surge damage. It's no picnic to suffer through downed trees, weeks of power outages, and widespread roof leaks combined with shortages in both workers and construction materials, but it's often a sensible choice to stay behind and try to keep the damage under control in person. The deadly Hurricane Rita travesty in 2005 (100 killed) was an object lesson in how much worse an unnecessary evacuation can be than the actual effects of the storm.

Now we live within a couple of miles of the coast at only 17 feet of elevation. We take evacuation notices very seriously, even though we know that an evacuation almost certainly will turn out to be needless. The problem, of course, is that a hurricane causes bad but tolerable damage within a very broad path -- and potentially catastrophic damage within a narrow and unpredictable ribbon. By the time you know where ground zero is going to be, it's far too late to evacuate. Even so, we think very seriously about staying behind unless a storm is quite large and very likely to make a direct hit. The storm shutters go up, and then we hesitate until the last hour that we can be sure the roads won't be under water, in this very flat stretch of Gulf Coast where you have to go quite far inland before achieving any noticeable elevation. We make reservations several days in advance at an inland hotel that will accept numerous large and small animals. In six years here, we've bugged out once, aborted one bug-out at the last minute, and put up storm shutters a couple more times just in case.

Here's garden-variety hurricane damage that you'd like to stick around and fix up yourself while you guard your house and your neighborhood against looting:

Here's utter destruction that left a lot of people realizing in their last moments of life that they'd made a horrible mistake (that one house left standing used to be in the middle of a neighborhood before Ike hit the beach town of Gilchrist):

Interviews with people who barely survived the worst part of a hurricane show a set of consistent reasons why they didn't evacuate when there was still time:

(1) They couldn't bear to leave their animals behind but hadn't made adequate advance arrangements to take them along.

(2) They had weathered storms before, though the simple good luck of not being in the direct path of the worst damage, which drops off dramatically away from the eye-wall. They couldn't believe they'd be right in the shotgun barrel this time.

(3) They didn't fully take in the knowledge of how fast the water comes up in a storm surge and how quickly it makes the evacuation routes impassable. In the 1900 Galveston storm, the water was said to rise four feet in four minutes.

(4) They couldn't comprehend the night-and-day difference between pretty high winds that most buildings will survive handily, on the one hand, and a storm surge and debris wall that would come through their neighborhoods like a giant bulldozer.

None of these things are easy to take seriously if you live in an area where hurricanes are rare. People move around all the time and don't necessarily have family members or good friends with vivid memories of the last disaster from a generation back. I worry about the East Coast, where hurricanes hit just seldom enough to leave the population vulnerable in its attitudes. New York City is likely to be a real mess, flooded and bereft of power and transportation. Their public officials seem to be doing an excellent job of preparation, but that's an awful lot of people packed into a small area, very few of whom really understand in their bones what could be coming. But it's not a very big storm nor packing a huge storm surge, so with luck things won't be too awful.

The truth is, I love hurricanes as long as no one's getting killed. Maggie's Farm quotes Walker Percy on the subject today:

It was his impression that not just he but other people felt better in hurricanes . . . . The hurricane blew away the sad, noxious particles which befoul the sorrowful old Eastern sky and Midge no longer felt obliged to keep her face stiff. They were able to talk. It was best of all when the hurricane’s eye came with its so-called ominous stillness. It was not ominous. Everything was yellow and still and charged up with value.

Hank

I Don't Think Hank Did It This Way:

Have a good weekend.

UPDATE: For Mr. Blair, who likes Cowboys and Aliens, a recording from the same era as the old Waylon Jennings song.



It's authentic. At least, Joe Meek did both cowboys...



...and aliens.

Microbial Warfare

Microbial Warfare

I recommend this "Not Rocket Science" article about a possible new approach to the control of mosquito-borne dengue fever. It's brief, but paints a vivid picture of some clever, flexible, and ethical thinking about how to design a more specific weapon than a broadcast pesticide. Some Australian scientists figured out a way to infect dengue-carrying mosquitos with a bacterium that attacks the dengue virus without much harming the mosquito. Before they settled on the final technique, they learned some clever tricks from the bacterium itself:

Wolbachia is transmitted in the eggs of infected females, so it has evolved many strategies for reaching new hosts by screwing over dead-end males. Sometimes it kills them. Sometimes it turns them into females. It also uses a subtler trick called “cytoplasmic incompatibility“, where uninfected females cannot mate successfully with infected males. This means that infected females, who can mate with whomever they like, enjoy a big advantage over uninfected females, who are more restricted. They lay more eggs, which carry more Wolbachia.

The scientists dreamed up a new approach of their own, too, in the form of

a strain that halves the lifetimes of infected females. Only older mosquitoes can transmit dengue fever because it takes several weeks for the virus to reproduce in the insects’ guts. If you knock off the older ones early, you could slash their chances of spreading disease.

That last gambit was not the one they settled on. Ultimately they got a line of mosquitoes going that would carry a Wolbachia strain that somehow killed off the dengue virus right in the mosquito gut. The bacterium can't be transmitted from adult to adult mosquito, though, only through offspring. So the scientists needed to release infected mosquitoes into a native population and let them breed.

Now this part is really interesting, I think. The scientists really wanted to test the new mosquitoes in Viet Nam, where dengue fever is endemic. Instead, they persuaded their neighbors in Queensland to be the first guinea pigs, even though the results would be harder to judge there because dengue fever outbreaks are only intermittent. They reasoned that they could not expect the Vietnamese to trust them to run the experiments there if they had not been willing to try them in their own backyard. As it turned out, the experiments in Queensland were quite successful in showing that an entire mosquito population can be quickly converted to Wolbachia carriers without ill effects. Now the team is headed to Viet Nam to see if they can show real progress in fighting dengue outbreaks.

Tough Questions

Tough Questions, Indeed:

Bill Keller of the NYT constructed a series of pointed questions for Republicans seeking the nomination, on the subject of their religious faith. Verum Serum constructed a similar set of questions for President Obama.

These questions are all partisan levers, of course; but it proves to be the case that there are some very good questions here. A philosopher loves a good question, almost as much as he loves locating a serious contradiction lying at the foundation of some system of understanding like science or mathematics. I think it might be worth posing some of these questions to the readership, with the intent that we should lay out the answers we wish to discuss -- don't feel obligated to answer them all -- and then enjoy a courteous debate about why we feel our view is a good one.

I've selected the questions I think are strongest and most important, and omitted ones that are merely partisan attacks or that lack the same broad philosophical or theological interest. I'm also omitting questions that are actually settled by provisions of the Constitution, such as religious test and Dominionism questions, with the exception of questions about atheists for reasons I shall explain below.

From Mr. Keller:

3. (a) Do you agree with those religious leaders who say that America is a “Christian nation” or “Judeo-Christian nation?” (b) What does that mean in practice?
4. If you encounter a conflict between your faith and the Constitution and laws of the United States, how would you resolve it? Has that happened, in your experience?
5. (a) Would you have any hesitation about appointing a Muslim to the federal bench? (b) What about an atheist? [See Romney question below for more on this subject. -Grim]
8. (a) What is your attitude toward the theory of evolution? (b) Do you believe it should be taught in public schools?

[To Rep. Bachmann. Sorting out how to read and interpret the Bible is a subject of intense philosophical interest, among some of the truly great philosophers. -Grim] You have said that watching the film series “How Should We Then Live?” by the evangelist Francis Schaeffer was a life-altering event for you. That series stresses the “inerrancy” ­— the literal truth — of the Bible. Do you believe the Bible consists of literal truths, or that it is to be taken more metaphorically?

[To Mr. Romney. Mr. Keller raises a point that -- he may not be aware -- was first raised by John Locke, whose writings on the separation of church and state and religious toleration were extremely important to the Founders. Locke, however, opposed toleration for atheists:

Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all; besides also, those that by their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of a toleration.

While the Constitution is currently read as offering unconditional support to atheists (as well as to Roman Catholics, whom Locke also didn't wish to tolerate on account of suspicion of disloyalty, an objection raised against JFK but not since), that the question was answered otherwise by such an important thinker to the Founders, one otherwise devoted to toleration, I think it remains a good question for examination and thought. -Grim] 1. In your 2007 speech on religion, you said that “freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.” Where does that leave unbelievers, in your view?

From Verum Serum:

Do you believe the God of the Christian Bible is the same as the God of the Koran? Does this view influence your foreign policy?

Do you believe in hell and if so who is damned? Do you believe in heaven and if so what are the qualifications for entry? Do either of these views influence your interaction with people and or foreign leaders?

Do you believe salvation is individual or collective? From what passages do you take this view?

Do you believe, as some liberals churchmen do (including some you’ve consulted with), that socialism is the system most compatible with the Gospels? Does this influence your public policy and if so how?

How do you integrate your faith with a scientific worldview including belief in evolution?

Does the Bible influence your views on gay marriage? [I'm more interested in "how does religion influence, etc.," than "Does your religion, etc?". -Grim]

Do you believe Jesus was God? Do you believe Mohammed was a prophet of God?

Do you believe in a future end of days aka Armageddon? Do these beliefs influence your view of Israel and/or foreign policy?

Is there anything you disagree with in the Bible? What and why?

There's a lot there to sink your teeth into. Let's hear what you think.

Kinky Friedman

Kinky Friedman's Endorsement:

Naturally, this is a subject of interest for the cowboys among you. It's a glowing endorsement.

He is not only a good sport, he is a good, kindhearted man, and he once sat in on drums with ZZ Top. A guy like that can’t be all bad. When I ran for governor of Texas as an independent in 2006, the Crips and the Bloods ganged up on me. When I lost, I drove off in a 1937 Snit, refusing to concede to Perry. Three days later Rick called to give me a gracious little pep talk, effectively talking me down from jumping off the bridge of my nose. Very few others were calling at that time, by the way. Such is the nature of winning and losing and politicians and life. You might call what Rick did an act of random kindness. Yet in my mind it made him more than a politician, more than a musician; it made him a mensch.

I probably would have voted for Kinky. It's good to know he's happy with the outcome, and has developed such respect for his former opponent.

Heh

The Horror, The Horror:

Walter Shapiro is really frightened by this Rick Perry business. He offers several reasons, the most laughable of which is his visceral aversion to firearms. I can't help but notice that we've come a long way.

Anti-Intellectualism. Liberals revere high SAT scores. That is why it is no accident that, over the past century, the Democrats have nominated for president five former college or law school professors (Woodrow Wilson, John W. Davis, George McGovern, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama) plus Hubert Humphrey, who was a graduate teaching fellow while working on a Ph.D.

Democrats snootily ridiculed George W. Bush’s scholarly performance, but compared to Perry, the 43rd president—who earned a B.A. from Yale and a Harvard M.B.A.—seems as well educated as John Stuart Mill. And Perry revels in this kind of comparison. Asked last week about how he differs from Bush, he tellingly replied, “He’s a Yale graduate. I’m a Texas A&M graduate.”

Holding a bachelor's degree from Texas A&M is a sign of anti-intellectualism?

The seventh-largest university in the United States, A&M's enrollment for Fall 2010 was over 49,000 students in ten academic colleges. Texas A&M's designation as a land, sea, and space grant institution reflects a broad range of research with ongoing projects funded by agencies such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and the Office of Naval Research. The school ranks in the top 20 American research institutes in terms of funding and has made notable contributions to such fields as animal cloning and petroleum engineering.

Shapiro himself appears to have a B.A. in history, which is a respectable degree; but it's not from Yale, it's from U. Michigan. That's not a bad school either!

Nevertheless, come off it. School pride, or state pride, are in no way signs of anti-intellectual sentiment.

UPDATE: Rep. Bachmann, by the way, has her B.A. from Winona State University, which is probably less well known because of its lack of a successful football team! Still, it sounds like a good school.

National rank: In 2011, WSU is ranked second among public universities in Minnesota in the 2011 edition of “Best Colleges” by U.S. News Media Group. Winona State has been ranked as one of America’s "100 Best College Buys" for quality and value, 15 years in a row. It has also been named among the "Best in the Midwest" by The Princeton Review for 8 years, and ranks as a "top-tier" institution among Midwestern universities, and the top 50 institutions in the Midwest Region Master's Category by the U.S. News & World Report.

She also holds a Doctor of Law degree from Oral Roberts University; and a Master of Laws degree from William and Mary.

Mitt Romney has a B.A. in English from Brigham Young, and M.B.A. and J.D. degrees from Harvard.

So, really, this "anti-intellectual" crowd is a fairly well-educated bunch. Their degrees (with the exception of Romney's English degree) tend toward the professional rather than the arts, a fact with both good and bad consequences.