What Our Love Affair with Nutritional Supplements Tells Us About Our Regard for Science.

Unlike the science underpinning evolution and climate change, the science surrounding nutrition is fractured, contentious and far from settled. Yet people, who ignore the real and overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution and climate change, will swallow without reservation the bogus science behind the claims for nutritional supplements.

Is this the most poorly named product ever?

Even in the halls of serious nutritional science there is discord. Is salt bad or benign? Is saturated fat actually good for you? High carb – low carb, which is better? Whole grains or no grains? Paleo? You get the idea.

However, while the scientists are duking it out – this decidedly non-scientific pundit has one opinion. There is no magic-bullet food. There is no single fruit or vegetable that will magically give you health and the figure of a super model or Mr. Universe. (And if it did exist, why does it always come from some exotic place. Exotic is a human value – nature doesn’t have an opinion.) Regardless, people continue to belly up to the nutritional supplement bar.

This easy acceptance of bogus science does not extend to real science. Curiously, while  anti-climate change activists accuse climatologists of cooking the scientific books to make a buck, they give the manufacturers of nutritional supplements a pass, even as those companies are raking in billions from the credulous.

(Note: If climatologists were in it for the money, they would deny climate change. The fossil fuel industry would shower them with millions of “research” dollars.)

Vested energy interests would have us believe that we cannot afford to stop doing this.

So why the resistance to real science and the rush to accept junk science? It has to do with our human frailties – like self-regard, laziness, and selfishness. Real science asks us to take action and takes us to uncomfortable place. We don’t like that.

Climate change demands that we do things differently. But vested energy interests think doing things differently would hurt their bottom line. They don’t take that lying down. They, and their congressional poodles, direly warn that doing what is needed would collapse the economy. Deniers warn that the cure is far worse than the disease. It is an easier path to dismiss the science – so many chose it. Everybody is happy.

Evolution insults some human vanity, especially some American human vanity. Some view themselves as exceptional people living in an exceptional country. It insults their ego to be considered just another animal, who – even worse – got where he is by chance. “No way my grandpa was a gorilla” rail the evolution deniers. Succinctly getting evolution wrong in the act of denying it.

Lipozene – your money just melts away.

(Note: I wonder why it is such a blow to be considered just another animal – we have achieved a lot after all. And why care who or what your antecedents were? Why is it so bad have a chimpanzee be your cousin? After all, there are many of us with a relative or two, who make apes look well-behaved and smart by the comparison.)

On the other hand, look what nutritional “science” promises us. Youth, beauty and (implied) sex – all without getting off the couch. It doesn’t matter that we “know” it’s crap. We pop those pills because we cannot resist the easy promise. Cooking good food and going to the gym is too hard.

So there you have it. If it’s easy it must be true. If it takes effort it’s either bogus or too hard to take seriously. If it promises to make us a better person it’s valid. It it seems to diminish us it must be rot.

Intellectual Rigor Mortis – Because Faith Is Easier than Thinking.

Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is probably the reason why so few engage in it. – Henry Ford.

There are people, who go through life confident that God’s moral system is identical to their own; confident that the Founding Fathers and they are of one mind; and confidant that “real” science describes the world as they believe it to be, rather than as the scientists with an “agenda” describe it.

Intellectual rigor mortis starts with an opinion and then passively absorbs only “information’ that jibes with that opinion. The internet has made it even easier to find like minded spirits to reinforce the worth of your opinion – no matter how crackpot it is.

What planet are these guys from?

Take the Flat Earth Society. This group – despite a niggling suspicion that it is a Monty Python joke – is earnest in promulgating a biblically inspired view that the Earth is flat.

It doesn’t stop there. Far greater number have been seduced by a superstitious upbringing and enthusiastic pastors into believing the biblical story of creation. Other cultures have different creation myths. The have in common only thing the lack of a factual basis for their beliefs.

Science, on the other hand, transcends culture and superstition and delivers a peer-reviewed, factually-based explanation of the development of life. It is the one great truth in a maelstrom of faith.

It is religion that allows young earth creationists to ignore every branch of the physical sciences to rally behind an absurdity

As bad as the Bible is for scientific truth, it is as bad a capricious moral guide. The list of things banned in the Bible is long and strange. If you choose to cherry-pick it to come down against gay marriage, then you are guilty of hypocrisy – a definite biblical no-no.

King Solomon and a few of the 700 wives he was “traditionally” married to.
(BTW he also had 700 concubines, with whom he committed “traditional’ adultery.)

Let’s look at the claim touted by marriage bigots that one man/one woman is a traditional marriage.  First it’s inaccurate. The Old Testament is awash in polygamy, which even makes it into the New Testament in the instructions on religious leadership. And what of the vaunted two person/two  sex affair? Biblically and historically, marriages were arranged and the woman had no property rights. The US Constitution takes a dim view of that asset arrangement.

Which brings us to that favorite document of the “original intentists” or “constitutional originalists” – the US Constitution. And as the Bible has been read to support a bigoted world view, so has the Constitution been “spun” to lend credibility to outrageous claims.

Take the contentious 2nd amendment. Centuries of jurisprudence have limited its scope – much in the way the 1st is limited by libel, slander, incitement and common sense nuisance laws. But today’s gun absolutist – creating things from whole cloth – has decided that the founders intended the 2nd amendment to guarantee the individual’s unfettered right to bear arms so that he may resist his government. Crap.

The Constitution arranges for a militia to be available for the defense of the nation – under the control of the peoples’ government. The 2nd amendment allows for the right to bear arms in order for “a well regulated Militia … necessary to the security of a free State” Notice “well regulated” and “state”.

The preamble to the Constitution states that is intent is – among other things – to insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense. The 2nd amendment ensure that intent can be honored.

It is simpler to think simplistically. Relying on ancient texts allows the fearful to avoid new things. Relying on God allows the intellectually otiose to ignore science.

School Vouchers are a Subterfuge to Benefit the Rich and Subsidize Religion.

The Tea Party and establishment Republicans agree on some things – school vouchers for one. Both Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz are fans of this transfer of money. Especially as they have opportunistically linked it to civil rights. A two for one deal.

It warms the cockles of the conservative heart to ship public money to private interests. And with school vouchers there is actually a plausible – if superficial – argument that they would improve education.

To explain, let’s first understand school vouchers themselves. A school district spends a certain amount of the public’s money, per student, at the local public schools. Parents, who want their kids educated on the public dime generally have no choice as to where their kids attend school.

The proponents of vouchers argue that parents should have a choice. To that end parents would be given a voucher representing the money the district spends on their children. Parents could use it to buy education at the public school – or at any other school of their choice. This choice, proponents argue, would inspire competition between schools, with the best prospering and the others failing. The “magic of the marketplace” rewarding the successful, if you will.

Seems like a good deal – right? In theory yes. But the world is a real place where what happens is not what we wish for or hope for, but what human nature brings about.

And as such, the biggest beneficiaries of this transfer of public money wouldn’t be the average family. The winners would be the rich and the religious.

How so? Consider the parents with kids already in private school. As it stands, they receive no direct benefit from the school district. However, institute vouchers, and those parents will receive, on average, a windfall of $10,568 per child – tax free.

The school voucher proponent will elide this point and divert attention to the benefits accruing to the poorer parent. It’s a red herring. The poor will still not receive an equal education. The rich will still afford the better schools. The poor may have the illusion that choice gives them new opportunities. But there is no evidence that alternatives – like charter schools – are any better.

School voucher proponents tell stories of quality non-public schools – because there are some. But there are also exceptional public schools. The best of any group tell us nothing about the average of that group. (The average wealth of ten people – one of whom is Bill Gates – will be far higher than that of ten regular folks. But having Bill Gates in the group doesn’t tell us much about the rest of the group)

How will the religious benefit? Quite simply by their ability to pervert the education marketplace. School competition should be based on measurables like SAT scores or college admission rates. But religion causes people to make education choices that have nothing to do with education. Parents will send their kids to schools whose faith is simpatico with their own.

Christian schools that teach intelligent design are the most egregious example. But what of schools which teach that global warming is a socialist plot, or that slavery’s sins have been overblown, or that the Holocaust never happened? Is it reasonable, or even fair, to send the people’s money to “schools” which ignore science and history?

Proponents of vouchers are contemptuous of “government” control of schools. To them, the local school board may be preferable to federal “oversight”. But better yet, is a citizen’s right to make individual choices.

There is a deep suspicion in the conservative/libertarian mind of all things directed by the “authorities” – and why not. But the question must be asked – are all parents equipped to make the best education choices for their children?

The compromise that America has made (along with all industrialized nations) is that parents have the right to send their kids to private and/or religious schools, making whatever financial deals (scholarship, tuition assistance, etc) they are able. But if parents want to have their kids’ education subsidized by their neighbors then they have to send them to their local public school. And their ability to direct their children’s education is through the local, elected school board.

The Religious Behaving Badly. Here Are Some of Their Stories

A woman is sentenced to death for apostasy.

Salem witch trials and biblically justified slavery – we aren’t so far removed.

A Christian woman married to a Christian man and eight months pregnant, has been sentencedto death for apostasy – ie. for rejecting her Islamic faith. She has also been sentenced to 100 lashes for adultery as Sharia Law forbids the marriage of Muslims to Christians.

What makes it worse (if possible) is that Meriam Yahia Ibrahim Ishag was raised a Christian, by her Christian mother, and is only considered a Muslim as her absent father was one.

US Christians should rightly condemn this religious travesty. But before they get on their righteous high horse, they should consider that America isn’t so far removed from this type of religious insanity.

The traces of which exist in the unChristian treatment of gays.

Can you be gay and Christian?

Many fundamentalist churches say no-ish. They fudge the issue by welcoming those with gay “urges” who do not act on them. But practicing homosexual are kicked out of the Christian boat. Which makes no sense.

Jesus preached against the hypocrites, the sanctimonious, and the greedy. He disallowed divorce in all circumstances except a woman’s adultery. But he said nothing against gays.

So before they kick the gays out, these fundamentalist bigots should deal with the real Christian no-nos.

More Christ coming to you at the Town Hall.

The face of banal Christianity – Robin Bartlett Frazier, commissioner of Carroll County, Md.- loves to start meetings off with a prayer.

Some Christians, convinced that the country was founded as Christian country, are happy with the Supreme Court’s decision that prayers before public meetings could be specifically Christian. But they should consider that, just because you can do something , doesn’t mean you should do it.

School children forced to pledge allegiance evert day, rapidly lose any connect with the oath’s significance. How much more meaningful it would be if it was recited with pomp and ceremony ,once a semester. Familiarity breeds contempt. Christian activists risk reducing Christianity to banality.

The young turn their back on The Southern Baptist Church.

The second largest Christian denomination in the US (after Catholics) are the Southern Baptists. But they are not getting any bigger. Mainly because they can’t attract the young, The Church has identified 5 reasons – none of which touch on the actual cause.

Their real problem is that their message of exclusion and bigotry doesn’t resonate with the youth. The young have more empathy for the poor and suffering than their elders show.

Rutger’s rejection of Condoleeza Rice is unconscionable.

It is graduation season and colleges commencements are replete with guest speakers. The vast majority will speak without drawing comment – but the occasional high-profile and controversial speaker will roil the student body.

Condoleeza Rice is the best known of this year’s casualties. Her scheduled speech at Rutgers University was cancelled after protests painted her a “war criminal”. It is unconscionable. Rutgers should have welcomed an American, who was born with three strikes against her – poor, female and black – yet reached the pinnacle. (Note: Last years speaker was Virginia Long. Who? Exactly!)

As a practical matter, whatever you think of Rice’s actions as National Security Adviser and Secretary of State, she hasn’t been convicted, let alone indicted, of a crime. Liberals, who condemn Rice without trial, give legitimacy to the conservatives, who would do the same to Obama.

As a matter of personal development, listening to only one side of a debate, is intellectually crippling. Liberals accuse Conservatives of living in “the bubble” of Fox News and right-wing talk radio. They do exactly the same by censoring their commencement speakers.

College is not what it once was – and that is a good thing. Until the 1960s the curriculum was exclusively Eurocentric and cultural studies were largely based on the writings and reasoning of dead white men. Social upheaval challenged the orthodoxy. And it was proper to recognize the different view points of women, minorities and non-Europeans.

But political correctness has run amok. It is one thing to acknowledge different voices, but  to diminish the Western tradition is to ignore the reality of American history. We are a country whose laws are based on European jurisprudence. Our thought, philosophy, and artistic traditions developed from the work of dead white men. To reject that is to reject reality.

It is as bad as evolution and global warming denial.

Really? 5.9.14 – Rand Paul’s appeal; Sex drive; Homophobia; Steve King sinks lower; When zealots hate the free market.

Rand Paul broadens his appeal.

Rand Paul is the one Republican who understands that, for the party to take the White House in 2016, its candidate needs to appeal to more than just old white guys. First he went to black academic bastion Howard University (he was patronizing, but he tried). Then he went to liberal academic bastion Berkley.

Now he has come out against voter ID laws, saying: ”It’s offending people”. If he can make it past the primaries he’s looking good.

Is it rational to expect impulse control in teenagers when so many adults fail?

Pastor Bob Coy turned out to be anything but.

Bob Coy, founding pastor of the Calvary Church, Ft. Lauderdale resigned after he admitted to “moral failure”. Despite living a life that promoted rectitude, he enjoyed multiple adulterous affairs and indulged his penchant for pornography.

It might be easy to sneer at yet another hypocrite humbled, but let us remember Jesus’ admonition – let him without sin cast the first stone.

Most importantly, Coy’s behavior teaches us a lesson about sex ed. To whit, abstinence-only sex ed may please the prim sensibilities of the the fundamental prig, but it is dangerous for the young. As Coy shows, the urge to have sex is irresistible; leaving teens untutored in its risks and consequences – that is a moral failure.

A horrible little man.

A Washington DC lobbyist has mounted a campaign to punish Michael Sam and any NFL team that drafts him. Sam’s “sin” is that he is gay and he would be the first openly gay NFLer.  Jack Burkman doesn’t like that. Here’s his plan:

Michael Sam – this is not the face of a sinner

“We shall exercise our First Amendment rights and shall not stop until the drafting NFL franchise cannot sell a single ticket, jersey or autographed football In short, we shall be relentless.”

I am sure that un-Christian fundamentalists will point to the Brendan Eich imbroglio as justification for this bigotry. Eich was ousted as CEO of of Mozilla after it came to light that he had given $1,000 to an anti-gay marriage group in California – and his employees took umbrage.

But that is apples and oranges. Eich took an active role in denying rights to others. Sam has done nothing to Burkman. In fact, no one has claimed that Sam has done anything except be gay. And there are many more people on the team (who have nothing to do with the draft) that would suffer if Burkman succeeds.

Another horrible little man.

Rep Steve King – in a race to the bottom he’s winning.

Rep. Steve King. (R-IA), already infamous for his odious comments on immigrants, has now demandedthat Ambassador Steven’s autopsy report be made public. What purpose that will serve, he doesn’t explain.

A free market or not a free market?

Fundamentalist Christians are upset that HGTV pulled the plug on a home renovation show. The show was to be hosted by two brothers, Jason and David Benham, with a “biblical” world view. The Benhams and their fellow travelers think that they shouldn’t be punished for their views. They aren’t being punished. HGTV is in the TV market competing with other TV companies and they are entitled to air whatever shows they believe will let them win.

A&E went through the same thing with Duck Dynasty, eventually deciding that the better business decision was to put the show back on the air. So be it.

The Tea Party Unintentionally Proves the Vacuity of Libertarianism.

The Tea Party is no fan of regulation. And now we know why. It is running a racket. In other words, it is doing what too many people seem to do, if they think they can get away with it.

The Tea Party has been active in soliciting money to back eponymous candidates in GOP primaries. But while it is hot and heavy with the bullhorn, its cash doesn’t make it to its candidates.

To date, Tea Party groups have collected $37.5 million. Only $7 million (19%) was directed to candidates. $18 million (c.50%) went to fundraising and direct mail – frequently to companies with relationships with Tea Party bigwigs. And the rest went in salaries to the self-same bigwigs and other expenses.

In this company of opportunists The Tea Party Patriots, the Tea Party Express, and the Madison Project stand out. They  haven’t managed to direct even 5% of their booty to electioneering.

The Tea Party sells libertarianism, but it is its own best example of why libertarianism is a pipe dream. In particular the belief that capitalism can survive unregulated.

Consider the financial industry, energy companies, big pharma, or industrial food. All are regulated. All complain that regulation stifles their business. All make a lot of money. And all lie and cheat even with that regulation. Can you imagine what they would get up to, given a free hand.

Libertarians argue that the market will punish bad actors. That is a fact-free, historically-contradicted assertion. At best it is a matter of faith, which is a polite way of saying there is zero proof for it.

It takes chutzpah to stand as the champion of unregulated business, when your own house is an exemplar of its impossibility.

Really? – 5/3/14. Historical fiction; Comic fiction; Gun monomania; A new civil war averted; The abortion President.

“Dispute not with her: she is lunatic.” ― William Shakespeare, Richard III

Revisionism

David “history is what I say it is” Barton.

David Barton is a Christian historian – who simplified his life by abjuring research and turning instead to making stuff up – has declared that a woman’s right to vote is unbiblical. He bases this odd claim on the notion that a married couple is one person and therefore the woman’s vote is redundant – a sort of voter fraud, I suppose.

Two thoughts. (1) Why not then deny the vote to men on the same grounds? (2) What of single woman and widows?

Of course, I make the mistake of trying to reason with the irrational.

Some comics should stick to comedy.

Rob Schneider is a member of an exclusive group – ex-SNLers with rightist political views. He is no fan of Obama. Certainly Schneider is entitled to his own opinions, but he isn’t entitled to his own facts.

Consider this gem of imagination, “There’s not one segment of business under the Obama administration that hasn’t been hurt.” I can’t think of one that has been hurt. Corporate profits are up and the stock market is setting records. Even employment is inching up.

Nevertheless Schneider believes, “We are sliding very fast towards fascism”. Simple paranoia.

Gun crazy.

Scott Bach – “Nobody died at Sandy Hook, it was only a play”.

Scott Bach is the head an NRA affiliate in New Jersey. His take on the parents of Sandy Hook’s massacred children shines a light on the dark monomania of the gun crazy.

The vast majority of gun owners have deep sympathy for the families devastated by school shootings. But not this stone hearted zealot. He rips them as “props” in the campaign for sane gun laws.

The Civil War redux.

Somehow – no one will admit to it – a resolution to secede made its way to the floor to be considered at the Wisconsin GOP’s annual convention. If Republicans appear indefatigable in pursuing the Benghazi brouhaha – they are marathoners without equal in chasing the dream of secession.

The country may have thought the matter resolved in 1865, but it hasn’t been to those starry-eyed dreamers of the ultra-right.

However, there is a streak of common sense among the Badger staters – and they rejected the idea.

The Tabula Rasa President.

James Dobson – “Obama promotes mandatory abortions”

President Obama has become a Tabula Rasa for the whacky folk. They project on to him their deepest fears and paranoias. Primus inter pares, is the gun lobby with its dire warnings of a presidential gun grab. But nipping at their heals are the anti-abortionists.

James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family – yet another group promoting family values by spewing hate – referred to Obama as the “abortion President” during a National Prayer Day event – going so far as to say, “This is something that he really was going to promote and support, and he has done that.”

Just as the gun crazies before, Dobson provided no evidence for his assertion. Apparently, for something to “true” about Obama, it is enough to merely say it. Actually, they’re consistent. Pretty much nothing they say is supported by evidence.