More on the Catholic bishops and the HHS rule

The Catholic bishops' caterwauling over the proposed HHS rule on employees’ benefits is just more of the same type of anti-Obama shark hunting on the Mississippi that the bishops engaged in even before Obama was sworn as President. The issue then was the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) and it was "religious freedom" and "freedom of conscience" then too. All the same far right wing quasi-Catholics, pundits like George Weigel, decried the Obama administration then as now. Too bad there wasn't even any such bill before the Congress at the time. Congress wasn't even in session but, we Catholics heard it from the pulpits and pews and bishops all across the nation about the evils of Obama. Thousands, maybe millions, of anti-FOCA postcards were sent to Washington. I sent one but, modified the text because I thought the bill would unconstitutionally usurp some states’ rights to regulate abortion under Roe v. Wade. Then, I found out there was no bill. Imagine my surprise as an Obama supporter. Now, the Catholic bishops and their piling-on sycophants decry a "mandate" where no such thing exists at all. There is a proposed rule, which isn't even in effect, that says that if an employer offers health insurance as a benefit to its employees, the insurance must cover contraceptive services. Strictly religious institutions are exempt from the proposed rule. No mandate, law, rule or regulation exists now or will exist that absolutely requires any Catholic employer to do anything against its conscience. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingMore on the Catholic bishops and the HHS rule

Voter preparation manual

I had posted on this Psyblog list before: "Why We do Dumb or Irrational Things: 10 Brilliant Social Psychology Studies." I re-read it this morning. It would seem to be a good article for all people to read before voting. It's important for each of us to know how our brains work before assuming that we are voting with "free will." We often act on the basis of invisible social pressures. It's not a good idea to simply declare that we are "rational" without examining these (and many other) vulnerabilities and biases. Here are the studies summarized in the Psyblog article:

  1. The Halo Effect: When Your Own Mind is a Mystery
  2. How and Why We Lie to Ourselves: Cognitive Dissonance
  3. War, Peace and the Role of Power in Sherif's Robbers Cave Experiment
  4. Our Dark Hearts: The Stanford Prison Experiment
  5. Just Following Orders? Stanley Milgram's Obedience Experiment
  6. Why We All Stink as Intuitive Psychologists: The False Consensus Bias
  7. Why Groups and Prejudices Form So Easily: Social Identity Theory
  8. How to Avoid a Bad Bargain: Don't Threaten
  9. Why We Don't Help Others: Bystander Apathy
  10. I Can't Believe My Eyes: Conforming to the Norm

Continue ReadingVoter preparation manual

Reasons modern Americans are so good at denying death

Peter Lawler, citing to the writings of Dr. Craig Bowron, argues that "we're much less accepting of the thought that death necessarily completes every natural life." I agree. Why is this so? Lawler suggests that "Each of us has a hard time thinking of himself or herself as a biological being." Why would that be so? Lawler offers the following: 1. Changing demographics. 80% of Americans live in urban areas, where death (especially the death of non-human animals) is rarely witnessed, and our food (notably our meat) is antiseptically prepared by grocery stores. Because most of us don't live in places where we see death as an ordinary and necessary part of life, we are better able to deny it. 2. In modern society, we segregate our elderly off to special places where we don't see them. Back in 1850, 70 percent of "white elderly adults lived with their children." Today, that number is only 16%. At bottom, our young "know less and less and about being old and less and less about death and dying." See also, my earlier article regarding the work of Mark Johnson, "Why it matters that humans are animals." See also, my previous writing on terror management theory.

Continue ReadingReasons modern Americans are so good at denying death

Because Whitney Houston died from abusing alcohol, America shrugs.

If Whitney Houston had died from the use of marijuana, politicians would have been screaming to enact even more vigorous anti-marijuana laws. Those who care about evidence know, however, that marijuana is an notably safe drug--it doesn't cause people to die. Whitney Houston actually died after abusing alcohol, a drug that causes many people to die every year. Because it was alcohol rather than a scheduled substance, Americans treat it as a sad occurrence, without villainizing Houston. In modern-day America, despite the grave dangers of alcohol abuse, alcohol related deaths are given winks and nods by our politicians:

Because drinking is legal for adults, safe in moderation, the rightful font of epicurean reveries and the foundation of a multibillion-dollar industry with lobbyists galore, it gets something of a pass. . . . [H]eavy drinking is the third leading preventable cause of death in this country, after smoking and a combination of bad diet and inactivity. By conservative estimates, it’s directly related to about 80,000 deaths each year, an agent of — or co-conspirator in — cirrhosis, esophageal cancer, overdose, homicide and much, much more. It seeds and squires a broad range of diseases. Multiplies the effects of illicit and prescription drugs. Adds the twitch to a trigger finger. Puts the wobble in legs on a staircase or hands on a steering wheel. And while 8 percent of Americans ages 12 and over use illicit drugs, 34 percent are addicted to alcohol or indulge in what public health officials consider risky drinking . . . .

Continue ReadingBecause Whitney Houston died from abusing alcohol, America shrugs.