Bloodletting, Snake Oil, and Tax Cuts

A word about the long abandoned but even longer widely used medical treatment of Bloodletting.

According to the PBS documentary Red Gold

Phlebotomy, or bloodletting, is the longest-running tradition in medicine. It originated in the ancient civilizations of Egypt and Greece, persisted through the Medieval, Renaissance, and Enlightenment periods, flourished in Arabic and Indian medicine, and lasted through the second Industrial Revolution. The practice continued for 2,500 years until it was replaced by the techniques of modern medicine. Doctors bled patients for every ailment imaginable. They bled for pneumonia and fevers, back pain and rheumatism, headaches and melancholia; even to treat bone fractures and other wounds. Yet there never was any evidence that phlebotomy did any good.

You get the idea, a medical practice that no one had any reason to believe worked was frequently employed anyway. In fact, as everyone now knows, bleeding a sick person harms them.

It seems clear now that Republican elected officials, party leaders, and pundits are modern day Bloodletters. Even worse, given the financial meltdown of 2008, they are rather like some professional Bloodletter plying his trade after the discovery of vaccines and antibiotics!

Republican elected officials and pundits continue to argue that the economy can be fixed and jobs created only if we cut taxes further and deregulate markets and banks more. If we do so, they claim, the wealth will trickle down making us all well-off, employed, and living the good life.

This is nothing new. The "prosperity gospel" has been the official doctrine of the right wing since the mid 1970s. What I find perplexing about this dogma, however, is that such policies have been enacted - with barely a pause or a counter policy - for 35 years. Tax cuts have never created jobs (even in the Reagan era jobs were only created by Tax raises) and never boosted the economy.

The wealth has not trickled down. In fact, as all data shows only the super rich (the 1%) have benefited from these policies. The rest of us have lost our homes and our retirements, seen our health care costs soar, our policies cover less, our personal debt explode, and our incomes stagnate or even decrease. Don't believe me? Just look at the following chart:

If you still have doubts, read the information on income inequality gathered here and here. The data is absolutely clear and perfectly comprehensible: The rich gain, everyone else loses. The most dramatic deregulation and tax cuts in our history (the Bush Tax cuts, and the repeal - under Clinton - of Glass-Steagall) far from fixing, preventing, or even alleviating this trend have caused the greatest economic and job crisis since the great depression.

And, no surprise here, the last time the super wealthy had taxes this low was the roaring 20s. Take a look at one more chart and see it for yourself:

Low tax rates combined with minimal regulation right before the great depression. The exact same combination leading up to 2oo8. Mere correlation? Both in the 20s and the decades leading up to 2008? Not likely.

Ok. I can hear some right leaning readers refusing to believe me. So one last bit of evidence. Watch the Following episode of Fault Lines (Aljazerra News) on the top 1%:

And some people think - or at least claim to think - that more of these same policies will fix things!!!???

Either these folks are modern day Bloodletters or modern day snake-oil salesmen. Take your pick.

Climate Skeptics Peddle Fallacies as Science

Recently the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) came out with an article "No Need to Panic About Global Warming," claiming that "distinguished scientists" have concluded that Global Warming isn't really happening after all.

Filled with fallacy heaped upon fallacy, this op-ed piece has the intellectual horse-power of "My Little Pony". Take, for instance, the claim that:

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth.

Since no climate scientist has ever claimed that CO2 is a pollutant or that the mere presence of CO2 causes Global Warming, this argument is what is called, in logic, a straw man.

The actual science of Global warming is pretty basic, but vastly different then this sad parody.

Just watch the following video, it makes pretty clear how Global Warming actually works:

Even worse, these "scientists" rest their main argument for denying that human-produced Climate Change is real on their (false) claim that the planet has not warmed over the last ten years at the rate that Global warming advocates had predicted.

This argument commits no obvious fallacy. Unfortunately for these skeptics, it contains more rubbish then your local dump. To begin with, that Climate Change is real, caused by human activity, and poses a serious threat does not require some specific set of exact temperature predictions for each decade. And it does not appear that many climate scientists make such exact predictions. But even more damning for the deniers is the following: In a rebuttle to the original op-ed, a group of top rate climate experts reply to this absurdity as follows:

Climate experts know that the long-term warming trend has not abated in the past decade. In fact, it was the warmest decade on record. Observations show unequivocally that our planet is getting hotter. And computer models have recently shown that during periods when there is a smaller increase of surface temperatures, warming is occurring elsewhere in the climate system, typically in the deep ocean. Such periods are a relatively common climate phenomenon, are consistent with our physical understanding of how the climate system works, and certainly do not invalidate our understanding of human-induced warming or the models used to simulate that warming.

Finally, when one claims that "experts" are arguing a position. One should probably use genuine experts. According to Media Matters of the 16 "experts" who pinned the original denier op-ed piece:

no more than 4 have published peer-reviewed research related to climate change, according to the Scopus database. While they may be prominent in their own fields, their credibility on the science of global warming is not comparable to that of researchers who specialize in this area. For instance, Jan Breslow is a physician, Burt Rutan is a retired airplane designer, Harrison Schmitt is a retired astronaut and former Republican politician, and Edward David is a retired electrical engineer, among others whose expertise lies elsewhere.

Even more disturbing, the lead name on this list, and ringleader of the pack of "concerned scientists," is one Claude Allegre a well-known fraud and hack who has published no peer reviewed papers refuting androgenic climate change.

"No need to Panic," also bristles with the kind of rhetoric and paranoia typical of pseudo-science: Allegations of conspiracy, attributing an almost superhuman power on part of the "Climate Change promoters" to silence dissent, a victim complex, and so forth.

To return to the Rebuttle of the original op-ed referred to above:

You published "No Need to Panic About Global Warming" (op-ed, Jan. 27) on climate change by the climate-science equivalent of dentists practicing cardiology. While accomplished in their own fields, most of these authors have no expertise in climate science. The few authors who have such expertise are known to have extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert. This happens in nearly every field of science. For example, there is a retrovirus expert who does not accept that HIV causes AIDS. And it is instructive to recall that a few scientists continued to state that smoking did not cause cancer, long after that was settled science. ...Research shows that more than 97% of scientists actively publishing in the field agree that climate change is real and human caused. It would be an act of recklessness for any political leader to disregard the weight of evidence and ignore the enormous risks that climate change clearly poses.

In Short, "No Need to Panic" appeals to the false authority of faux-experts regarding Climate Change, makes use of factually incorrect statements and fallacious arguments to claim that what the overwhelming majority of true experts in the field assert to be fact, and even explains their consensus as the product of a "conspiracy;" it fails on every level.

If Jesus were a Health Insurance CEO

Just imagine if Jesus operated the same way the health Insurance industry does. The gospel story would read like this:

Once when they were passing through Capernaum, a blind man cried out to Jesus. And the blind man said to him, "Lord, help me!" And Jesus said unto him, "what would you have me do for you?" And the blind man said "Lord, help me to see again." And Jesus sat down and wrote with his finger on the ground and would not answer. But the crowd pressed Jesus for an answer. So Jesus got up and said unto the blind man; "I am sorry but I cannot heal you. I'm afraid that you have a pre-existing condition. Health care is not a human right and you have no right to expect the state to take care of you when you cannot afford to pay." And Jesus left the blind man for another village.

One need only read the gospels to realize that Jesus never did or would refuse to heal anyone. The health insurance industry, on the other hand, makes massive profits precisely in collecting premiums while denying care. Something is clearly wrong with this!

Olbermann on murder as the product of right wing hate

Olbermann exresses the same view that I put forward in my previous post:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I stress that Olbermann is far more emphatically pro-choice than I am - and he is also more negative regarding conservatives than I think is appropriate - but I share much of his sentiment on this.

Pro-Life? "Abortion Doctor" murdered.

I seldom post anything about abortion. The reason for this is that, though I support the legal option of abortion, I respect and have sympathies with those who think abortion should be illegal. I understand where they are coming from. I think the issue is incredibly complicated and difficult and can see why people can believe what they do.

So please do not take the following as an attack on all those who think abortion should be illegal. It is not. What I am about to say is not about all or even most of those who think abortion should be illegal and would call themselves "Pro-life." Taking the stand that abortion is never morally permissible is not a stand I take, but it is - in itself - a respectable and comprehensible position.

What I am concerned with is the use of "Pro-life," as some kind of cloak for a general world-view brimming with hatred and violence.

First, there is the murder of a doctor known for performing late term abortions. The following video provides the details (note carefully what the last man interviewed says):



Of course there are very few people who actually shoot such doctors (though this is hardly comforting knowledge for the bereaved). But, importantly, there are many more that feel such men deserve this. And that is the issue. A large segment of our population holds that those who perform abortions - and those who support the legal choice of abortion - are evil baby killers who should be "done away with." Most would not do it themselves, but they are not necessarily sorry to see it done.

This is a serious problem. So-called "Pro-choice" people are seen here as evil and vile; not as people who have made a decision on a very difficult and complex moral issue.

And let there be no mistake. Reflect a moment on the facts of embryology, the tragedy of rape and incest, threats to the life of the mother, the kind of life a child will be born into, the squalor of poverty and the impossibility of feeding another mouth in much of the world ... you may take in these complexities and issues and still oppose abortion, but you cannot consider these facts and think the matter is easy or obvious or that there is no room for honest disagreement.

The second concern was the reaction of certain groups to President Obama's speaking at Notre Dame. He was called a "baby killer," and a "bloodthirsty man." Alan Keyes insisted that Christ would never vote for Obama. These groups had no problem with Bush speaking at Notre Dame. Bush killed thousands in illegal wars, had prisoners tortured, held policies that - unless rapidly altered - will destroy the environment, and put more people to death as Governor of Texas than any other State leader (also against Christian beliefs!). All that was just fine for these folks, but abortion is just "beyond the pale."

Here is the bottom line: These groups are not motivated by compassion for the unborn. Their lack of compassion for the thousands of Iraqi people (including babies and the unborn!) killed by our invasion shows this clearly enough. They hate and despise what they decry as the "liberal" world-view and way of life. They are reactionary conservatives who cling to the decadent past of sexism, racism, homophobia, nationalism, imperialism, and narrow-minded exclusivism of all types.

Just read some right wing blogs and web pages, you'll see just how much of the motivation here is hate and not compassion.

What this is all about is hatred. These groups hate progressive forces, hate change, detest emancipation ... and, lacking any sound arguments for their blind and narrow ideology, they pick out the most damning charge they can find .... "you liberal, feminists, gay-loving hippies .... you . ... you KILL BABIES!."

This is what it all comes down to.

Newt Gingrich is a liar ... or he does not know history!

Rachel Maddow takes Newt and his buddies to task for their criticism of Obama's handshake with Chavez. It is very interesting that these "right wing critics" have no problem with all the dictators we "shook hands with" in the past. Just look at the picture of Rumsfield with Saddam Hussein during the Reagan years!

Oh I get it! When Bush holds the Saudi King's hand and kisses him on the cheek that's o.k. But how dare Obama bow to him?! Reagan can deal with Moscow and Noriega, but Obama can't talk to Chavez. It's o.k. for Republicans to consort with dictators and enemies, just not democrats. O.k. I get it now.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The strangest thing about this is I've yet to hear one person explain why they think Chavez is so bad a guy. What evidence do they have? He opposes American imperialism in Latin America and hated George W. Bush. That hardly places him in the ranks of Stalin and Pol Pot! Although it aligns him nicely with most of the rest of the world!

In fact, there is much positive to say about Chavez. And on any view he is hardly a dictator.

Obama defends picking Pastor Warren ... and his defense seems right!!

Here Obama defends his pick of Pastor Warren:



I think what Obama says makes a lot of sense. He's not advocating Warren's views. He is trying to establish unity and dialog; he is trying to be "everyone's president."

I think my earlier post about this reflected a knee-jerk liberal bias on my part. I'm now back to my "guarded optimism" about Obama.

Nevertheless, I'm still wary of some of Obama's choices and picks. But time will tell how this all plays out.

The Merits of Conservatism.

I am an economic and social liberal. I am pro same-sex marriage, pro-choice, pro welfare state, support strong personal and political actions to combat global warming, and I am even a vegetarian since I don't want to support the cruelty and barbarity of factory farming.

Naturally then I oppose the conservatives when they champion the right-wing agenda. But since it is Christmas-time and I am constantly reminded in song and greeting card of peace, joy, and unity. I thought I would here state what I take to be right about the conservative ideology. I think Conservatives have the following correct:

* Strong families and good values are key to a healthy society
* In some cases private enterprise and free markets are positive factors in society
* Personal responsibility and accountability need to be insisted upon
* In some respects, less government is best.

Let me clarify, when they argue that family values preclude gay marriage and condemn teen mothers, I vehemently disagree. When they fight for less regulation on the market I dissent. When they think personal responsibility means the abolition of social service and demand that people "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" I protest. When they think less government means the privatization of social security and the crippling of funding to public programs and services I set myself dead against them.

However, there are some legitimate positions and values in the conservative world view. I think that we liberals could gain much by realizing that. By not condescending conservatives and trying to find the common ground with which we can begin a constructive dialog with them.

If we give up, if we cannot reach across the ideological divide to work with each other, I fear greatly for the future!