Right Wing Entitlement Culture: Pt. IV - Fuck The Earth

The Modern American Right love to endlessly complain about efforts to prevent environmental destruction.

This is an aspect of Right Wing Entitlement Culture that shows that conservatives/libertarians ( and yes, they are both part of the Right despite what many in the later would proclaim ) have more than just a modest desire to control science and completely misrepresent it.

The Right and science have a relationship that is expressed in a very specific way: Humans have no direct impact on the earth.

This, more than anything, is a blatant and indefensible lie that The Modern American Right should be able to understand based on their alleged principles of responsibility and accountability. However, they are more than want to reference the alleged "Dominion Mandate" in biblical scripture without comprehending it's deeper meaning:

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

And while the Modern American Right love to quote scripture without the least bit of analysis or inspection, it should be noted that religious publications like Christianity Today have written of Climate Change and it's connection to modern Christianity that came to this conclusion regarding the "Dominion Mandate":

....Christians were called to be a “new centre of strength” for creation and for others seeking to live in a more environmentally sustainable way.

He ( Rev David Moss, Vicar of St Michael’s ) said Scripture had to be understood in the context that it was written and that the Hebrew word ‘rada’ had often been “mistranslated” in Genesis 1as ‘dominion’ over creation.

“This word actually described what was believed to be the nerve centre of being of the plant, which ruled over the rest of the organism,” he said.

“‘Rada’ literally refers to the node or nucleus just above the root from which a plants life and being stems.

“In this context a better interpretation would be ‘Let [humanity] be the centre of strength’ for all creation.

“This translation demonstrates that humanity’s God given rule over creation does not come without responsibility.”

Blind ideological hatred can lead to consequences that one might not expect. And with that in mind, the Modern American Right have taken to frame Climate Change as nothing but pure ideological posturing by the Left, regardless of the evidence that is presented to them.

Their narrative is expressed as such:

- We have dominion over the earth as expressed in biblical scripture

- Corporations are not responsible for impacts on the environment ( See the recent Deep Water Horizon spill of last year )

- Teaching the impacts of humans on the earth is propaganda directed at children

- Protecting the environment ultimately kills jobs

and finally.......

- Science is Leftist theology

The later is clearly expressed in relation to Climate Change, while it is still present in various forms of verified scientific data.

So why does the Modern American Right have such a vendetta against science and against the Earth they occupy? The answer is quite simple - because it's a cause that the Left champions.

Had the Left championed an anti-abortion amendment to the Constitution, the Right would be against it. Had the Left desired to "clear-cut" all the National Parks in the South, the Right would be against it. When the Left does anything, the Right will reflexively act. But it is this aspect of the Left that the Modern American Right can use to their advantage - early missteps.

Science, in and of itself, is nuance - something the Right refuses to acknowledge - and while one scientist may discover something, another may find an aspect that bolsters or refutes the initial claim. The problem that the Right faces is that they not only want to inject ideology into science, but religion as well. These two factors have no place in the scientific community.

Science is not based on "feeling", but fact. And as the Modern American Right rely almost exclusively on the stimulation of feelings - generally towards the negative - they will continually fail in the realm of scientific debate. However, their "framing" approach has given them somewhat of an advantage, as the bulk of media in America tend to kowtow to such nonsensical blather in favor of a truly honest approach to their claims.

So the question stands - if the Modern American Right think we have no direct impact on the Earth, does this mean we can dump all our used motor oil onto Rush Limbaugh's front yard?

Palin's Nasal Love Affair

I caught this over at Bob Cesca's blog earlier today and wanted to add a little context to it, just so we can see what Palin is missing.

I love that smell of the emissions.

That was Palin during her "I'm riding 'Bitch' on this super-keen motor-cicle in D.C. doncha-know" thing.

So, what's is it about "emissions" that Caribou Barbie loves?

If you're into the serious scientific analysis of it, I suggest you read this. But for a more concise description of Palin's favorite new perfume, there's this little nugget for her to chop up and snort:

A short list of the likely pathogens in car exhaust:

Carbon Monoxide
Nitrogen dioxide
Sulphur dioxide
Suspended particles, PM-10 particles less than 10 microns in size.
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Polycyclic hydrocarbons

So let's look at what the PAH's ( Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons ) do:

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has determined that PAHs may be carcinogens. Several of the PAHs, including benzanthracene, benzopyrene, benzofluoranthene, benzofluoranthene, chrysene, dibenzanthracene, indenopyrene have caused tumors in laboratory animals when they ate them, when they were applied to their skin and when they breathed them in the air for long periods of time. Reports in humans show that individuals exposed by breathing or skin contact for long periods of time to mixtures of other compounds and PAHs can also develop cancer. Mice fed high levels of benzopyrene during pregnancy had difficulty reproducing and so did their offspring. The offspring from pregnant mice fed benzopyrene also showed other harmful effects, such as birth defects and decreased body weight. Similar effects could occur in humans, but we have no information to show that these effects do occur.

Studies in animals have also shown that PAHs can cause harmful effects on skin, body fluids, and the body's system for fighting disease after both short- and long-term exposure. These effects have not been reported in humans. PAHs are changed into chemicals that can attach to substances within the body. The presence of PAHs attached to these substances can then be measured in body tissues or blood after exposure to PAHs. However, this test is still being developed and it is not known yet how well it works. PAHs or their breakdown products can also be measured in urine. Although these tests can tell that you have been exposed to PAHs, it is not yet possible to use these tests to predict the severity of any health effects that might occur or to determine the extent of your exposure to the PAHs. These tests are not routinely available at a doctor's office because they require special equipment for sampling and detecting these chemicals.

Yeah, Sarah, sit behind Todd's big ass truck on Sunday afternoon and take a big whiff of that which you love so much.

This, among many other examples, shows how science and the mind of the Modern American Right, will never co-exist.

When Protecting Women's Health Is Rationing

Some conservatives are simply beside themselves at the thought of the FDA possibly revoking Avastin for use by women with advanced breast cancer.

This is a typical standpoint for the purely reactionary group, and one that doesn't consider the implications of using a drug that has not yet been proven to be effective to the degree where it will benefit patients.

The Washington Post does a nice job at framing this from a political perspective and folding the actual health risks into nothing more than an ancillary character within it's write-up of the potential FDA decision:

Federal regulators are considering taking the highly unusual step of rescinding approval of a drug that patients with advanced breast cancer turn to as a last-ditch hope.

The debate over Avastin, prescribed to about 17,500 women with breast cancer a year, has become entangled in the politically explosive struggle over medical spending and effectiveness that flared during the battle over health-care reform: How should the government balance protecting patients and controlling costs without restricting access to cutting-edge, and often costly, treatments?

The Food and Drug Administration is reviewing the recommendation of influential scientific advisers to revoke authorization of the drug to treat metastatic breast cancer. Contrary to initial research, new studies indicate that the benefits of the drug, which costs $8,000 a month, do not outweigh its risks, the advisory panel concluded....

And that is all conservatives need to have "proof" that Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are out to kill all the women in America who are unfortunate enough to be cursed with breast cancer.

However, once one takes a look at the realities of the decision to reconsider Avastin as a drug of choice for women that suffer with breast cancer, you begin to get a sense of how out of touch conservatives are with science, healthcare, and how both could possibly harm the American public.

NPR has some details to consider....

As breast cancer specialist Eric Winer at Boston's Dana-Farber Cancer Institute tells the Post, "For better or worse, Avastin has become in many ways the poster child of high-priced anti-cancer drugs."

Even if FDA goes along with the experts' advice to yank approval Avastin for breast cancer, doctors would still be able to prescribe Avastin for that use. But, and it's a big but, insurers would be less likely to approve payment if the FDA decides the evidence doesn't back up Avastin.

The Avastin case also represents a test of how FDA deals with setbacks for drugs after they've been given speedy approvals based on preliminary data. A Government Accountability Office report last year faulted the agency for not be diligent enough in following up on those actions.

FDA has the power to withdraw approval of a drug if a company hasn't performed promised studies, or they don't pan out. But as of last September, the GAO noted, the FDA "has never exercised its authority, even when such study requirements have gone unfulfilled for nearly 13 years."

The FDA is expected to make a decision on Avastin by the middle of September.

.....and while the specter of insurance company denial of paying for the drug is most certainly a talking-point generator for conservatives, the science behind the use of Avastin is being completely ignored by conservatives who are more eager to validate the "death panel" and "rationing" meme, even though the promise of Avastin use was completely destroyed with follow-up studies of the drug:

....followup studies, known as the AVADO and RIBBON-1 trials were indeed performed, and the results published. The AVADO trial was a phase III randomized double-blind clinical trial (N=736 subjects) comparing docetaxel with docetaxel plus Avastin in women with stage IV HER2-negative breast cancer. Its results were less than impressive. While it did demonstrate a decrease in PFS due to the addition of Avastin, PFS did not improve anywhere near the five months it did in the E2100 trial; rather it improved from 8.2 months to 9.0 months, a mere 0.8 month or 24 days. As in E2100, there was no detectable effect on OS. There was, however, a troubling trend towards a shorter OS in women who received Avastin. Even though the difference was not statistically significant, women who did not receive Avastin survived a median of 31.9 months; those who received the lower dose survived a median of 30.8 months; and those who received the higher dose level of Avastin survived a median of 30.2 months. In contrast to E2100, in the AVADO study Avastin did not increase the toxicity of treatment measurably.

The initial results of the RIBBON-1 trial were reported at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) meeting last year and were similarly disappointing. In the trial, Avastin was tested in a randomized, double-blind study enrolling 1,237 patients. Oncologists could choose from capecitabine, taxane, or anthracycline-based chemotherapy, and patients would be randomized to that plus or minus Avastin. The results were that Avastin improved PFS by 2.9 months when added to capecitabine, and 1.2 months when added to anthracycline-based chemotherapy. Again, there was no improvement in OS in women receiving Avastin. In fact, it was these studies that led the FDA advisory panel to vote 12-1 to revoke FDA approval for Avastin for use in breast cancer...

While there is still no real "sure" for cancer, conservatives are treating this story of Avastin, the FDA, and the realities of science as if the Obama administration are actively trying to prevent a cancer cure from being available to women in America.

More information is available here.

So what is the conservative standpoint here?

First of all, it is apparent that the modern conservative movement is more concerned with doing away with the FDA - an agency that is responsible for ensuring that medicines are safe for men, women, and children; even conservative ones - than approaching the use of questionable medications from a scientifically reliable standpoint.

Are we to believe that conservatives of the 21st century are willing to imbibe untested and unfounded chemical cocktails in the hopes that they could possibly cure a given ailment? I'd like to see John Boehner, Steve King, or Jim DeMint take an injection of an unproven medication for whatever they are suffering from to show that they stand by their "anti-government" stance. But more than that, how about the average conservative voter? Let's take a random sampling of registered Republican voters that identify with the modern conservative movement, post those results, and then see how many would be willing to take an untested drug for something as simple as allergies and find out how many show up to the free clinic where this unknown medication will be dispensed.

I'm guessing that the turnout would be pretty low - more like none-existent.

Free Market Environmentalism

And much in the same way that conservatives think that, if left up to it's own devices, anything can fix itself. We see how well that went with the economy, didn't we.





It's basic science that oil and water don't mix, so I'm wondering what angle Limbaugh is playing with this one.

This is a standard point of view for conservatives - approach everything from a single-minded standpoint and damn the consequences, since there's always a "free market" approach to everything. So much for accountability from the people that continually preach it.

Happy Earth Day

Be prepared to hear lots of clap-trap from conservatives today ( and from Fox"News" ) about climate change in that typical anti-science tone that they so love to use.

What are you doing to help the environment?

Take some time today to recycle, car-pool, use less water, or plant a tree. Every little bit helps no matter what those prattle-heads say.

The Power Of The Liberal Mind

This study is sure to cause some on the Right to get a little testy.

Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Study) support all three of Kanazawa's theories.

Students (grades 7 through 12) who identified themselves as "very liberal" show an average IQ of 106 during adolescence, while those who identified themselves as being "very conservative" had an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.

Those who identified themselves as "not at all religious" had an average IQ of 103 at adolescence; those that reported being "very religious" had average IQs of 97.

You can almost hear conservatives shouting, "but what do kids that age know about being a liberal or being a conservative?" And to that, I would almost have to agree, but this would depend on what their views of conservativism and liberalism were. The reactionary right have embraced young "conservative" voices like Jonathan Kohn, so attacking the study in that fashion would fall completely flat.

Aside from that, conservatives have nothing but utter disdain for scientific findings, most especially if they aren't painted as the saviors of the world or vastly superior in all faccets of existance by such studies.

Women Of The Decade

It's been said that behind every great man there is a woman. More often than is given credit for, behind every great action there is a woman as well. And it is for that reason that I have come up with the list of some of the greatest women of the decade. Granted, this is strictly in the realm of music, movies, and pop-culture, so no offense is meant to any women within alternate categories.

1 - Cate Blanchett



From a cold-hearted mother willing to sell her daughter in The Shipping News, to The Queen of the elves in LOTR, to THE Queen Elizabeth, and even Bob Dylan, Cate Blanchett is my pic for actress of the decade.

2 - Kari Byron



No one makes science or myth-busting more entertaining and fun than Kari. She's a nerd icon and can handle her own against any challenge that the boys often aren't up to.

3 - Sarah Silverman



Her absurdist/controversial/existential humor makes stands out as a pioneering force in comedy. What more can be said.

4 - American Ferrera



No longer the Rubenesque girl that she portrayed in her debut film "Real Women Have Curves", she is the "every-girl" icon in Ugly Betty that has shown us that image isn't always everything when it comes to women in the modern age.

5 - Alison Krauss



One of the most overlooked women in modern musical history, Alison Krauss made a name of herself amongst the bluegrass enthusiasts in America as fronting the group Union Station but virtually flew under the radar outside of the Nashville-set. That being said, simply being recognized as a household name doesn't make you a great artist. Her true power shined in 2007 when she joined with Robert Plant to record one of the greatest albums of the decade - Raising Sand

6 - Christiane Amanpour



A titan of a female journalist amongst a gaggle of hacks. Often far more honest and hard-hitting than most, which often ends with her being labeled as controversial. A true voice within the journalism community that shows that women are equally as powerful.

The Psychological Climate Of Denial

I've often wondered how our perceptions shape our world.

In many ways, this is how I see the separation between conservatives and liberals, atheists and devout believers, even Cubs fans and Red Sox fans. We see what we want to see and, in more sharp contrasts than we may realize, this dictates how we perceive our surrounds.

In a recent interview with Kari Marie Norgaard, more Americans are finding themselves aligning with climate-change deniers as the scientific facts of climate-change are reinforced.

Even as the science of global warming gets stronger, fewer Americans believe it’s real. In some ways, it’s nearly as jarring a disconnect as enduring disbelief in evolution or carbon dating. And according to Kari Marie Norgaard, a Whitman College sociologist who’s studied public attitudes towards climate science, we’re in denial.

“Our response to disturbing information is very complex. We negotiate it. We don’t just take it in and respond in a rational way,” said Norgaard.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change declared in 2007 that greenhouse gases had reached levels not seen in 650,000 years, and were rising rapidly as a result of people burning fossil fuel. Because these gases trap the sun’s heat, they would — depending on human energy habits — heat Earth by an average of between 1.5 and 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit by century’s end. Even a midrange rise would likely disrupt the planet’s climate, producing droughts and floods, acidified oceans, altered ecosystems and coastal cities drowned by rising seas.

It's a very interesting, and ultimately predictable, form of the human condition. It separates us along not just political lines, but social lines as well. We too often surround ourselves with those that we agree with explicitly, unable or unwilling to be challenged or to challenge others in order to shape a point of view that is more rounded and more grounded in the actual reality of the world around us.

But let's take this a little further. Could these beliefs actually effect the functionality of our brains to the point where we literally see what we think? Studies show that show that the more favorable we see a person politically, the lighter their skin tone appears. Conversely, the more you distrust or dislike a person based on political ideology, the darker their skin tone appears. If we take this study into account with the psychology of climate-change denial, are people really seeing things that really aren't there?

Science has never been something that the conservative movement, but there is no escaping a psychological effect on us. The only variable is how easily susceptible to misdirection we are.

Breathe Deep The Gathering Gloom

Conservativies are in a collective rage since Obama administration EPA director Lisa Jackson has announced that greenhouse gases are a danger to the environment. But this is more than just about climate change.

This administration will not ignore science or the law any longer, nor will we avoid the responsibility we owe to our children and our grandchildren. Today, I’m proud to announce that EPA has finalized its endangerment finding on greenhouse gas pollution and is now authorized and obligated to make reasonable efforts to reduce greenhouse pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

However, this simply doesn't fit with modern conservative thought. Conservativism, at it's very root, is anti-science and most certianly anti-anything that Democrats discuss or even attempt to accomplish. This is why the alleged "Climategate" nonsense is such a huge story within their movement.

The very core principles of Climate Change are of elementary understanding - if you pollute, there are consequences. I call it elementary because even a child knows that pollution has far reaching consequences. For some reason, conservatives can't seem to grasp this because their ideological disorder - that they call principles - won't let them admit that the actions of man have consequences on the planet.

Considering the fact that conservatives often engage in very silly acts in order to show their distaste with legislation and actions of the Obama administration, I wouldn't put it past them to burn tires on the Mall in DC. After all, they know that that doesn't produce pollutants.

The Climate Of Conservative Thought: Pt II

Each day while sifting through all the tweets from the reactionary prattlings of the conservatives I follow on Twitter ( who really hate it when facts are presented to them ) it amazes me that so many are latched onto the faux-controversy that is "Climategate"!!! *queue scary music*

And while some of the biggest lies are some of the biggest talking-points out right now, I have to wonder just briefly what this whole storyline would look like should Al Gore not have any part to play in it. After all, that's essentially what this boils down to.

What really makes these people so eager to deny science - aside from the fact that Al Gore is a tangentical character? Do they think that pumping pollutants into the atmosphere isn't going to cause any problems at all? If that's the case, when do we get to start dumping the used oil from our cars on their front lawns? After all, pollutants don't damage the earth.

Something To Ponder This Morning

Here's a few things about the "Climategate" nonsense that conservative are all prattling about.

1 - The emails were hacked/stolen. There is no solid proof that these have not been altered.

2 - The format of the emails mention documentation/data that is not provided in the links that conservatives continually reference

3 - Thousands of scientists volunteer their time with CRU and exchanged emails with fellow scientists. The stolen emails represent a tiny fraction of communications between scientists. Conservatives are literally cherry-picking through the stolen communications and fabricating theories.

4 - Conservatives are literally changing the definitions of words in order for this theft to be validated and their specious claims be seen as solid research.

And there's lots more.

I'll be blogging on this later today.

Watch Your Mouth

Another installment from WIRED magazine's Jargon Watch

Virus Battery

n. A rechargeable power cell that uses bacteriophages as electrodes. The phages — viruses that infect only bacteria — are genetically engineered to self-assemble and conduct electricity. The nontoxic tech could be scaled for applications from cell phones to cars.

Kettling

v. Forcibly detaining demonstrators in cordoned-off areas to prevent protests from boiling over. The practice, used by police at the G-20 summit in London, sparked an outcry over civil liberties.

Third Hand Smoke

n. Toxic residue left on furniture, clothing, and hair by cigarette smoke. Anti-tobacco activists decry third-hand smoke as a public health menace, but some doctors say recent research is being distorted for political purposes.

Caloplaca obamae

n. A lichen found in California's Channel Islands, it's the first species named for Barack Obama. Bush and Cheney have also been commemorated taxonomically — in the scientific names for slime-mold beetles.

Further Proof That Evolution Exists

I always have to laugh at people that don't believe that there is any sort of evolutinoary process. No matter what sort of lifeform is being discussed, the ultra-religious will stick to their guns.

This next case study is rather intriguing, and I'm inclined to agree with it.

If more attractive parents have more daughters and if physical attractiveness
is heritable, it logically follows that women over many generations gradually become more physically attractive on average than men.

"In men, by contrast, good looks appear to count for little, with handsome men being no more successful than others in terms of numbers of children. This means there has been little pressure for men’s appearance to evolve.

More here from the Times Online.

The only problem with this hypothesis is that there has to be a set definition of what "beauty" is. And that, as they say, is in the eye of the beholder.

Conservatives That Deserve Awards

A nice compilation from Media Matters.



science, history, healthcare, basic tennets of law, and Economics have never been subjects that prominent conservative Republicans ( primarily within the media ) have been proficient in. You can usually tell who they are by how loudly and how often they speak about these subjects.

I'm starting to get to the point where I don't feel sorry for people that watch Fox"News" ( or any blatantly right-leaning program ) and/or listen to conservative talk-radio and consider them a primary, credible, news source. I used to feel bad that they were so willing to absorb all this misinformation and lies and then walk away from a discussion so confused and irrate when they couldn't stand up in a debate.

If this is what they want, I say let them have it.

The Wired Metric

Wired Magazine offers their own perspective on Barack Obama' first 100 days.

They break it down into the following catagories: Copyright, Cyber Security, Science, Net Neutrality, Transparency, and Privacy. And he doesn't get glowing remarks.

Obama scored high marks in some, but in others he may have to go to summer school.

It's a very interesting read from a perspective not covered by the 24hr cable channels or the bulk of blogs.

The Horror

I was thinking about Glenn Beck's doom-scenerio of scientist creating the "Master Race" now that Obama has lifted Bush's ban on stem-cell research when I came across this pic from Driftglass.

And why stop there?

Think about it, now every conservative Republican can have their own piece of Limbaugh-ass to kiss any time of day.

Science vs. Hocus Pocus

President Obama has signalled a major shift in how Washington will approach science.

In addition to ending a ban on stem cell research funding, President Barack Obama issued a potentially landmark memo Monday declaring a new era of "scientific integrity" across government.

In no uncertain terms, Obama signaled that the federal government would be guided by science, not the other way around. In offering a repudiation of the previous administration, he also promised a new era of transparency.

"Political officials should not suppress or alter scientific or technological findings and conclusions," Obama wrote in an official memorandum. "If scientific and technological information is developed and used by the federal government, it should ordinarily be made available to the public."

More from Wired.

After 8 years of the Bush adminstration essentially ignoring science - on multiple levels - it's more than just a refreshing change of pace, it should be applauded by everyone.

Considering the advancements in the medical field that seemed to not concern Bush at all, this will now be something that the lunatic-fringe Right will latch onto.

In fact, they already have. The Great Profit Of Doom, Glenn Beck:

So here you have Barack Obama going in and spending the money on embryonic stem cell research, and then some, fundamentally changing – remember, those great progressive doctors are the ones who brought us Eugenics. It was the progressive movement and it science. Let’s put science truly in her place. If evolution is right, why don’t we just help out evolution? That was the idea. And sane people agreed with it!

And it was from America. Progressive movement in America. Eugenics. In case you don’t know what Eugenics led us to: the Final Solution. A master race! A perfect person. …. The stuff that we are facing is absolutely frightening. So I guess I have to put my name on yes, I hope Barack Obama fails. But I just want his policies to fail; I want America to wake up.

Archeology And Comedy

There's always been something fascinating about Archeology. Recently, there has been a great discovery in Peru.

Scientists say the find, 22 kilometres from the Pacific coast city of Chiclayo, most likely dates to the Wari culture, which existed in what is now Peru between about AD 600 and AD 1100.

If initial assumptions prove correct, the discovery would connect the ancient Wari civilization to the Moche culture, which flourished from about AD 100 to AD 600.

More from TheGlobeAndMail

But the science of Archeology often time confounds me. So, when that happens, I consult the wise, executive transvestite - Eddie Izzard:

Segmentational Talk Radio

This could have been any within the conservative talk-radio realm. And now that it's out there, you are sure to hear more of it.



More here.

In terms of a classic example of a "contextual" uber-right-wing conservative taking only a portion of a scientific study to ham-fistedly make a point, this is pretty much it.

Mark Levin is doing what he, and all like him, do best. They are arming their audience with just enough information to win a debate rather than have a complete picture of what they are discussing.

There is, after all, a vast difference between winning a debate and being correct. This is how people like Levin have operated since conservative talk-radio began. All you have to do is cite a portion of something legitimate, speak as loudly as you can, and use as many adjectives and catch-phrases as possible.

This is nothing more than arming the ignorant with ignorance.