NASA has defined a set of Space and Earth science questions and a new website to address them. What “big questions” would you like to know more about?

Planets Questions, such as “How did the sun’s family of planets and minor bodies originate?”

Astrophysics Questions, such as “What are the origin, evolution and fate of the Universe?” 

Earth Questions, such as “How does the earth system respond to natural and human-induced changes?” and

Heliophysics Questions, such as “How does solar variability affect human society, technological systems and the habitability of planets?”

The site offers details on the many NASA missions that have gathered data relevant to each of the “big questions.”  It’s a nice looking site, with some pages directed specifically to students and teachers.

When you watch this, you might think: “Well, sure. I could put together a highlight video like this by trying to make a bunch of difficult shots and then editing out the ones that didn’t go in.”

Nope. You’re wrong . . .

Just a quick jot about one little thing that regularly bugs me on the net. Many people don’t know their homonyms. I don’t mean those who can’t think of them. I mean those who know them all by spelling, but not by meaning. And pick the one that looks fancier whether or not it is right.

Today specifically I’m bugged by misuse of sight, site, and cite.

• Sight;  a view or target.
• Site; a location (as in where to sit something, website).
• Cite; to indicate or refer (related to the noun citation)

The your/you’re and its/it’s/it’s swaps also annoy. These are both cases of confusing a contraction with a possessive. Commonly misused.

• You’re sure your eyes are working.
•  It’s good that its eyes are working.

What’re your homonymical obsessions?

Summer of 2004. I have considered myself an atheist at least since the summer of 2004. For the sake of feeling smart and consistent, I believe I’ve considered myself an atheist for much longer. But I only have documented evidence of such a stance dating back to the summer of 2004.

Did I have some great logical awakening that roused me to critical thinking and clear-headedness? No. I know I did not. I know I didn’t become a perfect bastion of scientific thinking because, in the summer of 2004, I believed in handwriting analysis.

A knowledge-thirsty little 10th grader, I still believed then that if someone with a PhD wrote a book, that book had to contain gospel truth. I didn’t know the difference between bad science and good science. I didn’t even realize such a rift existed. So handwriting analysis, with all of its certain language and its sheer lack of cited empirical evidence, seemed as valid as medicine or geology.

Only half a year or so later, as I struggled to tell a friend that the dominating middle region in her script belied a permanently childish outlook, did I begin to realize exactly how idiotic this whole graphology thing sounded.

Ouch. It still stings to admit. Should I also admit that I used to take multivitamins? That I preferred bottled water over tap? Evidence supports none of these beliefs.

I hope I’ve made my point clearly: atheism did not protect me from having moronic faith in things not supported by evidence. The empiricism I had used to destroy God did not extend automatically to all other silly things settled in my head. I had to force out all of the cobwebs. (more…)

Sometimes, my body has a strong opinion with which I disagree.

Here’s a good recent example:  My body doesn’t like getting stuck with hypodermic syringes.  When I refuse to allow my body to leave the doctor’s office and when I allow my body to get jabbed with a hypodermic needle, it retaliates by fainting.  It’s one of those things that I completely forget about until I’m sitting in a doctor’s office overly aware that I’m about to be stuck again.  At such moments, my body reacts in a way that embarrasses and annoys me. 

Here’s a bit of context. For the past few months, I’ve had some nagging back and arm pain.  On a lark, I signed up for some acupuncture administered by a chiropractor.   Getting stuck with those little acupuncture needles didn’t give me big problems—not that I enjoyed the sensation of those tiny needles being pushed into my back.  After three treatments, I gave up on the acupuncture because it didn’t offer any long-term effect (although each treatment relieved my symptoms a bit, for a few hours).

My next step was to see my family physician, who arranged for x-rays.  He told me that I had “arthritis” and suggested some physical therapy.  [Before going any further, anyone reading this should probably email me a HIPPA form].

I was hoping for more of a pinpoint diagnosis, though, so I visited a doctor who specialized in Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation.  He arranged for an MRI, resulting in some fascinating pictures that suggested that I had noticeable deformities in several cervical vertebrae and in the discs that separate those vertebrae. It is not an unusual condition for someone in his 50s, but for me it has been quite painful because it’s pushing on a nerve root.  It’s distressing to see such clear pictures of my body’s insides deteriorating.

The physical medicine doctor suggested that I might eventually want to consider some surgical options. Therefore, I visited a surgeon who confidently assured me that the pain I am suffering is due to the spinal deformities evident on the x-rays and the MRI.  It was delightful and refreshing to hear this surgeon discourage surgery, at least for the time being. 

[As many of you might have experienced, many doctors are over-eager to provide you with what they offer.  For example, the chiropractor I visited, a pleasant fellow, appeared content to keep administering acupuncture, with no diagnostic images to inspire a more accurate diagnosis.  Because it is appearing that my problem is a pinched nerve caused by deteriorating bones, additional acupuncture would have been an essentially worthless investment.] 

This brings me to the topic of needles.  The surgeon suggested that I consider special injections by a pain management doctor (as well as continued physical therapy).  All I had to do was get a few “injections” of a cortisone-like slow-acting drug that would be placed near the nerve root that is currently being irritated by the deteriorating cervical disks. I set up an appointment with the pain management doctor.

The pain management doctor was an affable fellow who described the technique he would be using in great detail.    It turned out to be more than simply injecting me with steroids. The procedure was called a Cervical Epidural Steroid Injection. The procedure involved a preliminary injunction to numb part of my back, which allowed a blunt-ended catheter to be pushed several inches through the inside of my body toward the affected nerve root.  The procedure is done under a fluoroscope, which allows the doctor see where the catheter is going. Nonetheless, the insertion needs to be done while the patient is awake so that the doctors can learn if they get too close to a nerve root (I would feel unpleasant sensations in my arms if that were to occur). 

[Above is a fluoroscope image of my cervical epidural steroid injection.]

As my friendly pain management doctor described this procedure (in much more detail than I’m describing for you) I was sitting in a chair across from him, taking some notes.  I found it all interesting, in fact too interesting.  My visual field started to get cloudy as he spoke to me and I started to feel clammy.  I started falling forward out of my chair.  He jumped up to get my legs raised and he called for the nurse to bring in the monitoring equipment.  I was told that my blood pressure dropped from 110/60 down to something like 50/30 (I was at 80/40 for 15 minutes).  I recovered slowly over the next 30 minutes, quite embarrassed.  You see, the doctor was not administering any treatment at the time.  We were not yet even in the x-ray room where the treatment was going to occur.  He was merely talking with me.

Before we had even started talking, had warned him that I was sometimes not good about getting jabbed with needles, and this was proof that I wasn’t exaggerating.  As this fainting episode proved, I’m not even good at discussing syringes. (more…)

I read quite a few textbook quotes from this report and I must agree:  they are shockingly inaccurate.  This book repeatedly pushes the conservative line, even when the facts don’t support it–just like the Bush Administration.   The existence of this high school textbook is yet more evidence that we are living in a post-fact era. 

Here’s the press release from CFI:

The Center for Inquiry (CFI), an international think tank promoting science and secularism, released a 25-page report today detailing what it calls “egregious errors” sufficient enough to warrant “immediate correction,” in a widely used civics textbook found in many secondary schools around the country, including advanced placement courses. CFI believes that the textbook American Government: Institutions and Policies, 10th edition, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006) contains inaccurate and misleading statements, in particular in its analysis of global warming and certain constitutional law issues. In response, CFI’s legal experts have analyzed the textbook and prepared a critique that sets forth recommended changes. 

Derek Araujo, a lawyer and executive director for CFI’s New York office, spearheaded the textbook review project. Araujo stated that he was “surprised and dismayed that a textbook used in advanced placement courses would contain clearly erroneous statements about significant issues, such as global warming and school prayer.”

In this Truthout interview (by Geoffry Millard), Phil Donahue exhorts: “Don’t sanitize the war.”  Who are the perpetrators of this effort to sanitize the war?  Politicians and the media, for starters.  That effort to sanitize the bloody U.S. occupation of Iraq is the main message of the newly-released movie that Donahue co-directed: “Body of War.”

The film’s subject is paralyzed Iraq war veteran Tomas Young, who was shot through the spine in Iraq on April 4, 2004. Young’s transformation from war veteran to antiwar hero (as the movie poster boasts) is mixed well with the speech of Senator Byrd (D-West Virginia) against the resolution giving President Bush the power to invade Iraq.

In this interview, Donahue stresses that Senator Byrd was one of only 23 senators who voted no (133 members of the House voted no).  

The purpose of the film:  “We would like to put wind to the back of the anti-war movement.” 

My friend Russ sent me this link to an article in our local paper entitled, “Cowardly hypocrisy of Darwin fish displays”. The title does a good job of strongly framing a weak argument. After I read it, I decided to post my response here:

The article begins by framing anything interpretable as anti-Christian as equivalent to Muslim extremism; Jihadism. It illustrates the modern use of the ancient bi-stroke alpha as a covert Christian identity symbol in a repressive Islamic region.

Because of this still extant use in remote locations, the article advocates eschewing these tongue-in-cheek parody icons in the name of political correctness. It equates mockery with intolerance. The article never explains what makes it “cowardly” to openly display a Darwin fish. In the face of such hostility from the majority faith, “brave” seems a more apt term.

I do grant that Christians are a persecuted minority in a few places. In those places, Evolution is generally accepted as a Christian plot to weaken faith in Allah. In those places, a Darwin fish car would be bombed more quickly than a Jesus fish car.

Darwin fish aren’t generally mocking Christianity as a whole, but rather the Flat Earthers, Young Earthers, and Geocentric Universe sects. Most Christians actually believe in the (thoroughly proven) naturalistic explanations of nature, while firmly believing it to be God’s work. But there is a high correlation between the anti-scientific congregants and car fish.

We live in a country in which Christianity is by-far the dominant religion, one in which polls show that faith in virgin birth is more important to general health than the roots of modern medicine. With rationalists comprising a slim minority, and those openly admitting to it in public a small part of those, I don’t see how these icons can do any harm. A slim minority of Christians may well take offense. But they have the power, and therefore have nothing to fear.

I also give fish cars more room, as I do with cars driven by old men in felt hats. Call it profiling, if you must. But I trust drivers who believe there is everything to live for here, rather than those who openly proclaim that the point of life is to reach an idyllic eternity.

Glenn Greenwald has just written a new book, Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Myths of Republican Politics.  He has released a long excerpt on Huffpo.  Here is a sampling.  Great American Hypocrites

examines the deceitful, personality-based election tactics the Right uses to build absurd cults of personality around their leaders while demonizing liberal and Democratic candidates. Accompanying that, as always, is the vital role the establishment press plays in disseminating those vapid though powerful themes. This excerpt is from the chapter concerning John McCain’s candidacy and how those themes will be deployed by the right-wing/media monster to transform him into a principled, honor-bound American icon . . .

If one examines America’s presidential elections beginning in 1980 to the present, what one finds is a consistent and unchanging pattern. The Republican Party dresses up its leaders in all sorts of virtuous personality costumes. The establishment press, driven by the vapid dynamics of high school personality complexes, digests and then promotes that iconography. National elections are dominated by personality imagery and smears and are almost completely bereft of consideration of substantive issues. Worst of all, the personality images that dictate our election outcomes are not just petty, but entirely false, grounded in pure myth.

In “The Death of Conscience (Part One),” (Free Inquiry, April/May 2008 –not available online) Shadia B. Drury makes it clear that not all religion is bad.  She recognizes the religious backdrop to the successful efforts to repeal slavery, to promote civil rights and to create the Red Cross. “As these examples show, religion cannot simply be dismissed as pure evil or the ally of all the evils in the world.  Life is not that simple.”

Where is it, then, that religion goes bad?  “The human inability to accept a flawed and imperfect world and the longing for a world of perfection and Justice (either here on Earth or in the beyond) are at the heart of the problem.”  She argues that it is the dream of “escaping” to some perfect world that invites religious madness.  And she doesn’t mince her words on this: “Religiously inspired crime is unsurpassed in malignity and moral blindness.”

I disagree with Drury when she attributes all the worst human rights abuses to religion.  It is my belief that wickedness comes in many flavors.  Many horrid acts are clearly based on religion.  Others, however, are based upon a pretend religiousness and some of them are not based upon any form of religion at all.  To me, religion is one way (among many) that people can be inspired to do good things and one way (among many) that people can be inspired to do bad things.

Even though I disagree with Drury on the above point, she does present some interesting reasons for how and why things go wrong when they go very wrong in the name of religion.  I think that she is right about these factors where great evils are, indeed, perpetrated in the name of religion:

Religion is akin to a mind altering or hallucinogenic drug-in small doses it may be harmless (or even beneficial) but in large doses lethal.  There are several reasons for this.  First, the otherworldly sensibility that religion makes it seem as if death, suffering and construction in this world are of no consequence. This is particularly true of Islam and Christianity.  Second, the belief in the gratuitous wickedness of humanity makes it seem as if no amount of horror inflicted on human beings is undeserved. This is particular true of Christianity.  Third, and most significantly, religion (and lethal doses) undermines the rational faculty and it leads, for all practical purposes, to the death of conscience.  Ghastly deeds can then be carried out in good conscience.  In the absence of any pangs of conscience, wickedness reaches new heights.

[Emphasis added to the above quote.]

Note:  in this same issue of Free Inquiry (April/May 2008), articles by entomologist E.O. Wilson (”Denial and Its Risks”) and Preacher P. Andrew Sandlin (”Global Ecology and Godly Stewardship”) are evidence that Believers and non-Believers can collaborate on accomplish important tasks (preserving biodiversity), albeit with distinct motivations.

In 2009, many of us will celebrate the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of his publication of On the Origin of Species.

In these modern times, where Darwin is vilified by millions of people who cherry-pick their apocryphal holy books, it is refreshing and humbling to review the many accomplishments that make Charles Darwin such an noteworthy thinker and scientist.

Professor of integrative biology Kevin Padian has taken the time to come up with ten of Darwin’s most notable accomplishments. Padian’s list was published in the February 7, 2008 edition of Nature (only available to subscribers online). As Padian notes, Darwin’s contributions “can scarcely be reduced to a simple list, but the following 10 topics and at the magnitude of the man’s legacy.”

• Darwin conceptualized the diversification of species as coming from a single stock and springing forth in a tree-like pattern of descent. Padian notes that this “unity of life” approach was independently confirmed by geneticists more than a century after Darwin published his Origin.
  
  Above is Darwin’s 1837 sketch of the treelike diversification of species from a single stock (republished in the Nature article).

• Darwin’s tree of life implied a genealogical relatedness among all life forms.
• Darwin recognized ubiquitous gaps in the great chain of being. “The living world is a patchwork of possible forms, with most transitional stages and features removed.” Padian explains that these gaps are why it is so easy to separate living things into discrete major groups and why it’s sometimes are difficult to link life forms.
• Darwin calculated geological time paste upon the wearer of rock formations in England. He concluded that “Deep Time” was necessary to explain the changes in life forms, and this passage of time was much more than the 6,000 years proposed by Bible scholars.
• Darwin was the first to recognize understandable biogeographical distributions of species. Living things were not distributed serendipitously
• Darwin recognized the importance of sexual selection, the process by which many species developed characteristics that would give them advantages in reproduction rather than immediate survival.
• Through his study of orchids, Darwin recognized the importance of co-evolution: “species of very different origins have evolved mutual ecological relations through time they have come to affect critical aspects of their morphologies. Other good examples are vertebrates and their parasites and lichens (composed of algae and fungi).
• Darwin’s idea of the “economy of nature” was the birth of the science of ecology.
• Darwin recognized that change was gradual, not necessarily in a slow and smooth way, but in a (from the Latin gradas, meaning “step”) step-like way. This method of conceptualizing change was further developed by Stephen Jay Gould through his concept of punctuated equilibrium.

Padian characterizes Darwin’s most notable accomplishment as moving the study of biology “from a paradigm of untestable wonder at special creation to inability to examine the workings of that natural world, however ultimately formed, in terms of natural mechanisms and historical patterns.”For his numerous of competences, Darwin was honored by being buried in Westminster Abbey.

Not very difficult, according to Jeffrey Sachs. 

Hard as it is for us to imagine, Africa’s households simply can’t afford even $10 for a net, or a dollar for medicines when a child falls sick. Nor can African governments carry these costs on meager budgets or take extra vital steps to train local health workers and ensure that every village has reliable access to effective medicines.

Here is where you and I come in. Considering the costs of the nets, medicines and other components of malaria control, a comprehensive program would cost about $4.50 per African at risk, or about $3 billion a year for the whole continent. This is an amount that is too large for Africa but truly tiny for the rich world.

Let me put the $3 billion in perspective: there are a billion of us in the high-income world–that amounts to $3 a person, or one Starbucks coffee a year. It’s around 12.5% of the estimated $24 billion in Wall Street’s Christmas bonuses.

Jeffrey D. Sachs is the Director of The Earth Institute, Quetelet Professor of Sustainable Development, and Professor of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University.

Raymond Learsy reports on one aspect of post-oil:

Renault Nissan, and California-based Project Better Place, are working together with the government of Israel to make the country oil independent by 2020. Denmark has already signed on to implement the sinews of this major electric car initiative.

In broad outline, Renault Nissan will build cars powered by lithium-ion batteries running purely on electricity and delivering performance on par with a 1.6 liter gas engine. These electric car models will become available as of 2011. A key component will be the preparation and development of a national infrastructure to access electric power. “Project Better Place” will arrange for the installation of 500,000 charging hook-ups throughout Israel. It is estimated electric power charging costs for the lifetime of this car will approximate the cost of fueling an equivalent gasoline powered vehicle for some two years at current gasoline prices.

Denmark plans to provide the power supply for electric cars with wind power. Israel is planning huge mirrors in the Negev Desert to capture the solar energy needed for its electric cars. With an extensive grid of plug-in locations there will be no need for lengthy charge periods so that charging up shouldn’t take much more time than tanking up currently.

I once created a fake college and I’m proud of it.

This might strike you as odd, because most people who create diploma mills are doing so to make a quick buck by passing out bogus degrees.  These fake diplomas, in turn, allow unqualified people to get promotions and or get jobs for which they are not qualified.  The people with these fake diplomas often obtain government jobs, but they are sometimes securing positions of serious responsibility in the private sector.  Providing fake diplomas is a huge national industry, as it has been for many decades.

When I created my fake college, I did not do it to make money.  I created my diploma mill while I was working as an Assistant Attorney General for the state of Missouri.  I worked in the Trade Offense Division, where I was an attorney charged with investigating and prosecuting criminal and civil fraud.

The year was 1988 and I had been investigating diploma mills (among other types of investigtions).  It was amazing to me that a person could obtain a degree from a college simply by submitting papers over the period of a few months and then obtain an advanced degree, often an MBA but sometimes a Ph.D. in something esoteric.

I had noticed that several of the bogus colleges I was investigating were “accredited.”  One particular accrediting organization popped out repeatedly during my investigations: “The International Accrediting Commission for Schools, Colleges and Theological Seminaries.” This one organization was responsible for accrediting many hundreds of small and medium-sized colleges across the United States, as well as colleges in other countries.  Many of these colleges had impressive names.  Many of these schools were small Bible colleges and other schools of religious affiliation.  There were many secular schools too. The IAC accredited-colleges granted advanced degrees in a wide variety of subjects.  The IAC was based in my own state of Missouri.

I arranged for my investigator to call the IAC to see what it took to get accredited.  My investigator discussed the accreditation process with the president of the IAC, “Dr. George Reuter.”  Reuter explained that he would need make an on-site visit of a college before granting accreditation and that he charged a schedule of fees that ran upwards of $1000, plus his transportation costs to get to the college or university.  He also insisted on being reimbursed for meals while he was working.

While making this phone call, my investigator called himself “Dr. Richard Taylor,” (a pseudonym) and indicated that he was in the process of starting a brand-new college, The Eastern Missouri Business College, located in St. Louis.  Rick (his real first name) explained to Dr. Rueter that Eastern Missouri Business College would be offering master’s degrees and Ph.D.’s through the mail (remember. . . there was no Internet 18 years ago) in such diverse topics as Genetic Engineering, Social Work, Administration of Justice, Marine Biology and Aerospace Science. Dr. Rueter indicated that we should give him another call when the school was up and running.

As I mentioned, I worked for a state law enforcement office.  Therefore, money was tight.  We did manage to scrape up enough money to pay for our accreditation fees, however.  We called Dr. Rueter again a few weeks later and arranged for him to come St. Louis to make an official visit to the Eastern Missouri Business College.  Although Rueter did not sound very impressive over the phone (he sounded low-energy and not very sharp), we were a bit concerned that when he actually showed up he would want to really know about our college. 

If we told the full truth about what we were doing, we would instantly be exposed.  If we lied too well, however, perhaps no one would blame Rueter for accrediting us.  We went with my gut hunch that Rueter was totally in this for the money and had no interest in making sure that our school was legitimate.  Therefore, we did some pretty ridiculous things, things that any legitimate accrediting organization would instantly notice.  For instance, we filled our college catalog with the names of fictitious faculty members bearing the names of TV characters such as The Three Stooges and various characters from an old comedy shows such as “Green acres” (e.g., Arnold Ziffel taught at our college). (more…)

How many people are truly and genuinely openminded, displaying a natural all encompassing understanding for any behavioral trait or characteristics that deviates from the norm? Raise your hands, I’m curious who you are.

I hear people muse about the social injustice in our society, they are outraged that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, but they are still unable to show any kind of basic understanding that some people have less money to spend than they do. They have never bothered to get to know or befriend people from lower social classes.

I hear people criticize racists and homophobes. Dare to express any kind of discomfort and you will experience their holy anger at your narrowmindedness. “How can you…???” is their prefered way to start their I-am-holier-than-thou-attacks. I wonder how many of them really do have gays or people from other races as friends.

They place a lot of expectation and pressure on other people while rarely being able to fulfill their own in moral drenched demands.

I think this world would be a better place if people were allowed to admit that they are not perfect, that they have prejudices and are hesitant regarding things that might disturb their little peaceful world. Do I think prejudices are good, something to strive for? No, I think that to a certain degree some are quite human though, which is not the same as condoning oppression, violence or hatred. By not being allowed to admit unease and discomfort, people do not have the opportunity to openly discuss and maybe find a way to overcome them. The constant criticism of the good-doers must create defensiveness or is there anybody here who feels comfortable when he gets told that he is a latent racist/misogynist/homophobe/whatever-despicable-being-that-has-ever-walked-the-earth? Get lectured every day that you’re supposed to like something, that you are a bad person if you don’t, and in a short time you will hate it, whatever it may be.

I’m going to take Mike as an example (not sure if you like that, but I remember your post quite vividly). He made a post about this animal sacrifying priest who lived next door. His attempts to communicate and resolve his problem with his neighbor were greeted with threats and insults. Was the priest the one who wondered if his behavior was appropriate and who tried to make amends? No, it was Mike who was brooding whether he had been truly fair and whether he had not been led by some hidden prejudices. He wanted to be a tolerant and fair person, but I also saw something else in it - the fear of being someone with latent racist tendencies. Why is that? I think the priest was an idiot, taking advantage of the fact that he was facing someone who placed a lot of importance on decent behavior. Being Asian and a member of a minority it is way easier for me to say something negative about this dude than for a white guy, because I ran less risk to be called a racist and nobody expects me to question me and my goodness constantly. Not that I have never been called a racist. (more…)

Here’s a simple commentary on claims by faith:

(Click to see the original in situ)

From the online comic series XKCD, a strip for those who know emacs from God, and also those who can’t tell them apart.

Dan Smolin writes some persuasive posts on the topic of investing.   I’m categorizing this post under “snake oil” because of a point that Smolin repeatedly makes:  that virtually every investment professional’s claim that he/she can help you beat the market is false.  Dan often does a Q&A.  Here’s a recent example:

Question: Can I beat the markets by buying low and selling high?

Answer: It would be great if you could. One study showed that someone with the ability to be in Treasury Bills during bad times in the market and in stocks during good times over a 52-year period would have seen her $1000 investment increase to a whopping $5.36 billion!  Do you know anyone who achieved these returns? Have you even read about any one who did?

Here is the bottom line: There is no evidence that anyone has the ability to predict highs and lows in the market. If they did, there would be a lot of billionaires out there who made their money market timing. They don’t exist.

Smolin doesn’t just look at the results.  He gives good analyses of why no one can consistently beat the market.  Yet there are huge numbers of intellectually sophisticated investors who want to believe, beyond all evidence, that there are special gurus out there who can work magic on their investments.  Smolin’s advice suggests that people avoid “stock-picking” (even by “professionals”) and that they buy broadbased index funds that have low maintanence fees. Don’t let any investment “expert” tell you otherwise.

One study looked at the performance of 71 mutual funds whose investment styles roughly paralleled the S & P 500 over a 10 year period. Only two of these funds beat the index.

In another study, Vanguard founder John Bogle found that only nine out of 355 equity funds beat their benchmark over a period of 30 years.

There are many similar studies.

Stock picking is a loser’s game for most investors.

There might not be a plausible way out of our country’s financial mess.  That’s the opinion of Kevin Phillips, a former republican strategist who works as an economics commentator.  What are the main problems? 

[P]hony Washington statistics and warped market measurements make it doubly hard to tell. The federal Consumer Price Index is already regarded by many Americans as a con job, and the press periodically quotes investors who state their belief that current U.S. inflation is really 6 to 9 percent a year, not the 2-4 percent the government alleges. I agree. On top of which, because the value of the dollar has dropped so far, the Dow Jones Industrial Average at the end of March was not really 12,200, a number barely up from its 11,700 peak in 2000. If you measure the Dow in Swiss francs or euros, two strong currencies, it has already lost some forty percent of its 2000 value. Too many Americans live in a dream-world of economic misinformation. . . . Today, the economic negligence of Washington and Wall Street, more than two decades in the making, has led to a multi-dimensional crisis in which this country faces an unprecedented convergence of problems: unprecedented debt, tumbling home prices, reckless money supply expansion, growing inflation, insufficient and expensive oil, and an eroding dollar. Sadly, there may no longer be a plausible way out.

In a tragic story from my own state of Wisconsin, an 11-year-old girl died last week because her parents trusted God to heal her. The parents apparently didn’t realize that their child had diabetes, so they never sought medical help. Instead, they prayed.

Though not reported in the StarTribune article, local radio reported that the parents did not blame God for letting their daughter die. Instead, they blamed themselves…not for failing to seek medical help, but for failing “to have enough faith” to heal their daughter with prayer. Sheesh.

Price Of Oil
Bob Englehart, The Hartford Courant

Our Saudi Friends
Keefe, The Denver Post

Tanking Economy
Nate Beeler, The Washington Examiner

Iraq Milestone 4000
Brian Fairrington, Cagle Cartoons

McCain and the Iraq War
Bob Englehart, The Hartford Courant

Check out this current website from Tylenol.   You’ll see that McNeil (maker of Tylenol) has heroically and voluntarily removed all of these medicines from the market:

Concentrated TYLENOL® Infants’ Drops Plus Cold
Concentrated TYLENOL® Infants’ Drops Plus Cold & Cough
PediaCare® Infant Dropper Decongestant
PediaCare® Infant Dropper Long-Acting Cough
PediaCare® Infant Drops Decongestant (containing pseudoephedrine)
PediaCare® Infant Dropper Decongestant & Cough
PediaCare® Infant Drops Decongestant & Cough (containing pseudoephedrine)

Why remove all these children’s medicines?  According to Tylenol, it’s because:

[W]e have become aware of rare instances of misuse leading to accidental overdose, especially in children under the age of two. Therefore, we are voluntarily withdrawing [these] concentrated cough and cold medicines from the market.

Really? Does the manufacturer of Tylenol really believe that it is removing these drugs only because consumers are misusing Tylenol products?  Or could it be something else, perhaps this relatively recent and damning press release by a reputable group of pediatricians:

Cold and cough medicines given to infants and toddlers work no better than dummy pills and can be dangerous, pediatricians seeking to curb their use told government health advisers Thursday.

The doctors told the Food and Drug Administration advisers that the over-the-counter medicines shouldn’t be given to children younger than 6 because they don’t help them and aren’t safe. Such a prohibition would go beyond last week’s drug industry move to eliminate sales of the nonprescription drugs targeted at children under 2.

The group petitioned the FDA seeking in part a government statement saying the medications shouldn’t be used in older children as well. The expert advisers began a two-day meeting to consider the issue. The FDA has yet to act, in part pending a recommendation expected late Friday from the joint panel of outside experts in pediatrics and nonprescription drugs, said the agency’s Dr. Joel Schiffenbauer.

The medicines have been marketed for use in children for decades, with drug companies spending $50 million a year on heart-tugging ads in parenting magazines and elsewhere. Still, it has long been acknowledged there is little or no data from studies in the very young to show the medicines are safe and work. Worse, some studies suggest the medicines are no better than dummy pills in treating cold and cough symptoms in young children, the petitioners said.

“When a treatment is ineffective, its risks — if not zero — always will exceed its benefits,” said Dr. Michael Shannon, a Children’s Hospital Boston pediatrician and Harvard Medical School professor who was another of the petitioners.

It’s quite amazing that the drug companies might be selling chemicals that don’t really do what the drug manufacturers say they do.  It’s most amazing because it happens so incredibly often.  

What do I mean?  Consider the recent news regarding the scam regarding Prozac and other modern antidepressants.   And remember Vioxx, the “miracle” drug that created 100,000 widows and widowers?   Not only are some of these drugs dangerous; another aspect of the scam is that many of these medical “miracles” don’t function any better than placebos for many patients.  

But back to Tylenol.  This isn’t the first time Tylenol has been caught scamming the public.  If you Google “acetaminophen” and “liver,” you’ll see hundreds of sites that talk about the danger of taking a too much Tylenol (which might surprise you, given the common belief that there is considerable tolerance built into the product and given the existence of Extra-Strength Tylenol).  Follow this link to see that the makers of Tylenol have fought hard, at least since 1977, to keep the public from knowing that overdoses of Tylenol can cause liver failure.  

How else would you explain that the FDA and the pharmaceutical makers delayed giving liver failure warnings for decades?  Since 2003, Tylenol has carried a liver toxicity warning, but it makes you wonder how many lives it cost when it delayed giving that warning.  It cost more lives when consumers use the cup that comes with Children’s Tylenol (see above photo) with the concentrated formulas of cough and cold concoctions (now discontinued) that should be administered with a dropper. You see, the discontinued formulas had higher concentrations of acetaminopen.  A parent mistakenly using the little plastic cup (that comes with children’s Tylenol)  instead of the dropper (that came with the (now-discontinued infant formulas) could destroy childen’s livers.  According to the manufacturer, it’s the consumer’s faut, even though swapping the cup for the dropper was entirely foreseeable.  But now, the maker of Tylenol can blame the consumers for the need to take these products off the market rather than admit (because the pediatricians were correct) that these products didn’t really work.

Aside from the risk of liver toxicity (which exists only when the consumer more than the recommended dose of Tylenol), isn’t Tylenol an important and effective way to reduce your child’s fever?  Is fever always a bad thing?

Mass marketing has programmed parents to fear all fevers and to feel a deep need to prove their dedication to their children by pouring bright red chemicals into their children’s mouths at the first sign of fever. 

I have a different understanding of fever than most American consumers.   I believe that Tylenol’s multi-billion dollar budget (more money is spent per year on Tylenol than on Coca-Cola) is geared to making people needlessly anxious about fevers.   A low grade fever is not always dangerous.   In fact, it is rarely dangerous. Here are some guidelines as to when to treat a child’s fever.  

The maker of Tylenol (and those who manufacture other fever-reducing products) have successfully convinced the public that something absolutely must be done to bring down all fevers in young children.  Is that good medical advice?  Usually not.  The pediatrician treating my children made it clear to my wife and me that even a fever that spikes up to 106 is not a problem in a young child as long as that child is hydrating (drinking fluids and peeing regularly).   At some point, of course a sustained fever should give a parent concern.  But a few days of 102 or 103 is usually nothing to be worried about—unless you watch a lot of television commercials that tell you that you MUST get that fever down by pouring those bright red chemicals into your child’s body (chemicals that are potentially harmful to your child’s liver). 

Here’s one other thing to consider.  (more…)