Month: July 2009

Failin’

by Chris Bodenner

Suzy Khimm looks back at Palin's last year in office:

All of Palin's major bills failed to pass this year's first 90-day session. But conversations with both Republican and Democratic legislators reveal that Palin's inability to get anything done has little to do with the media attacks the Alaska governor claims drove her from office. The lawmakers say it has more to do with how national exposure changed her, moving her much further to the right than she had been and making her nearly impossible to work with. And state Republicans seem just as incensed about it as the Democrats.

Saying Too Much

by Patrick Appel

Elizabeth Nolan Brown defends over-sharing:

I’m a huge fan of over-sharing…About myself. About the people around me. I’m sometimes accused by friends of telling too many details about their lives to other mutual friends, or to random strangers. I somewhat understand, but it’s never malicious. I just don’t understand the point in hiding most things. (note: most). I think it’s almost, as a rule, better if people know things about one another than don’t—if people blurt out how awkward they feel around one another, or how much they adore one another, how jealous they are, or in awe, or how they’re glad some thing has past, or they hope it will soon …

Outing Iran: Ghazal

by Chris Bodenner

A reader writes:

I've particularly enjoyed your Outing Iran series, and really liked your post on Niyaz. I'm very interested in the cultures of South Asia and historic Persia, and especially enjoy Persian classical music.

I wanted to mention, though, that the lead singer Azam Ali isn't singing in Farsi but in Hindi / Urdu, and the music in this piece exhibits strong influences from Indian music (not least because of the tabla's rhythms and the typically Indian drone that begins the melody). Persian and north Indian classical music have much in common, and I think are particularly well suited to fusion attempts. One of the best examples of such fusion in my opinion is the group Ghazal, which includes the Persian kemancheh (spike-fiddle) maestro Kayhan Kalhor and the Indian sitarist Shujaat Ali Khan. Here's a recording of Ghazal I found on Youtube, with the words taken from the opening verses of Rumi's mathnawi (pronounced in the Indian fashion, not the modern Iranian Persian style). Kalhor is very open to experimenting with other musical styles, and has recorded outstanding albums with Kurdish, Turkish, and Western artists.

I hope you find this information useful, and I certainly hope you enjoy the music! I think Persian classical music is absolutely exquisite, but it's also definitely an acquired taste.

Love Online

by Patrick Appel

Continuing Conor's online dating thread, people who use these services appear to defy stereotype:

The researchers found that people who are more “sociable are more likely to use Internet dating services than are those who are less sociable. This finding challenges the stereotypical profiling of Internet daters as being just lonely and socially anxious people.” …High self-esteem folks feel like they have little to lose by trying Internet dating. Low self-esteem folks have more to lose, since more of their own self-value is tied up in the process — unless they say, “Ah, yeah, it’s nice to have a partner, but whatever. I’m also just fine without one.” The upshot is that Internet dating is no longer the domain of the desperate nor those with low self-esteem (if it ever was). 

Irrational Thinking, Ctd

by Patrick Appel

A reader writes:

I think the atheist rationality argument is not really being made in good faith here. Atheists argue that rationality is the desired result – but we are fully aware that irrationality is a human condition that none of us (including Hitch) are immune to. But when confronted with our own irrationality, we need to recognize it and try our measured best to address it. Will atheists be irrational? Absolutely, but that's not an argument against atheism. Atheists don't pretend to be perfect any more than believers do. Believers have a sort of mixed goal. It's incredibly unfair to say that they reject rationality, because if they did, they'd never be able to do math, buy groceries, drive a car, or walk down stairs. But they certainly do embrace abandoning rationality when they have come to accept that it should be abandoned.

That's what it means to 'believe' or to 'have faith'. It's not necessarily an embrace of irrationality, but a willingness to abandon the pursuit of rationality, be it God, angels, ghosts, unicorns, the tooth fairy, all the way down to incredibly pedestrian things such as evil, fate, and bad luck. Where atheism itself quietly breaks down is out here at the tail. Lots of atheists broadly reject the existence of any God, but casually embrace concepts such as 'luck', which at its core isn't actually any different than just believing in God. Pointing that out is usually a pretty reliable litmus test for a true atheist vs an anti-theist.

What atheists chafe against is the arbitrariness of what rational pursuits do and don't get willingly abandoned by religion. Is evolution really so terrible a concept that many Protestants feel the need to consciously reject every effort to approach the subject rationally in order to retain their standing in the church? Why are the birther's claims (contrary all evidence) that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii any less valid than the claim that Jesus was the product of immaculate conception? Those that embrace the latter will gladly ridicule the former, but why? Why shouldn't we accept the birther's claims as broadly, vociferously, and blindly as we should accept a virgin Mary? Why hold one up to a rational test but not the other?

These are the things that mystify atheists. It's not the irrationality (which we also suffer from) but the absolute and arbitrary rejection of efforts to address irrationality when confronted by it.

Another reader:

No one claims to be free of irrational thinking. The entire letter by this believer addresses a straw man, which is sadly typical. Atheists are obviously aware of irrational thinking outside the bounds of religion. Some of them even study it. The field of behavioral economics provides many examples of human behaviors that are predictably irrational: that is, we can predict exactly how an average person's behavior will become irrational in some settings. Pointing out irrational thinking on the part of an atheist, like Hitchens, entirely misses the point, in the same fashion that criticizing the investing decisions of a Bigfoot skeptic misses the point. The skeptic may make irrational investment choices, but that doesn't invalidate his observations regarding the quality of evidence for the existence of Bigfoot. And this is patently obvious, though it somehow escapes many of your readers.

One more, from the other side of the divide:

My problem with the loud atheists is that I don't recognize what they are attacking as having anything to do with the faith that I was brought up in.  I was always taught that there is no proof of the existence of God; that belief is an existential choice, an intentional exception to judging all things by rational data (i.e., the "substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen").  Thus I was always confused by denominational claims that God is a rational fact, provable by human intelligence — and if that is what the atheists are attacking, well then welcome to the club, but you are 500 years behind the times.

As for whether religion is helpful or hurtful overall, I can't hear a message that doesn't make room for the fact that I have seen reminders of religious belief make an immediate and important difference for the better in people's lives.  For instance, I have seen people who were losing or had just lost loved ones, and been with them when they heard words from their faith tradition that spoke of all things being in God's hands, and seen them draw strength from that to deal with their loss.  So, yes, religion has to answer for the crusades.  And atheists have to answer for having no meaningful words of hope to provide in crisis.

Deranged Dentist Names

by Chris Bodenner

A reader writes:

Hah hah wow, I never thought I'd see a Dr. Bonebreak reference on Andrew's Blog! You must have grown up in Howard County, as did I, in Columbia. I never went to Bonebreak, but I live near his office in Kings Contrivance.

Another writes:

Your orthodontist's name was Dr. Bonebreak? That's hilarious. I've got it beat though — my childhood dentist's name was Dr. Hackman.

Another:

Mine was named Dr. Dredge. Later I had one named Furchtgott (fear of God.)

Yet another:

The oral surgeon who removed my wisdom teeth was named Dr Kevorkian. This was when the more well-known doctor was first hitting the news big-time.

Strange Blogfellows

by Chris Bodenner

In anticipation of Palin quitting her title today, Mudflats bids a bipartisan farewell to all her conservative critics in Alaska:

The phenomenon of Sarah Palin, whom [right-wing pundit Dan] Fagan now refers to as “Crazy Governor Lady,” has expanded my circle of virtual friends. Now, don’t get me wrong, I have not changed my political philosophy, but the last 2/3 of a term has done something fascinating. It has created some very strange bedfellows, indeed. In a certain limited way, I’ve been able to consider people like Dan Fagan, and Mike Hawker, and Jay Ramras, and a host of other Republicans kindred spirits. Frankly, I have found myself thinking, “You go, Dan!” on more occasions than I care to admit. […] Like some strange weather phenomenon, we all looked with fascination, knowing this strange cosmic event would quickly pass. It was interesting while it lasted.

Brace yourself, Lower 48.

Making The Case Against Kidney Donation

by Patrick Appel
Larissa MacFarquhar of The New Yorker joins the debate:

It is often assumed that at least permitting compensation for kidneys would result in more living donors, but this is not necessarily the case. Under the current system, a person who needs a kidney will usually turn to his family, and possibly his friends, for help, but if he could obtain a kidney from a stranger, paid for by his insurance, would he ask a person he loved to undertake the nuisance and risk of surgery? (Of course, this assumes that there would be enough kidney sellers to supply the need.) In Israel, where until recently the practice of transplant tourism—going abroad to receive a kidney transplant—was widely accepted, donations from living relatives were relatively rare. It seems likely, too, that the sort of person who might now donate to a stranger for altruistic reasons would not do so if the donation were a commercial proposition (one altruistic donor asks compensation proponents to consider whether an offer of cash from a boyfriend would increase the probability that the girlfriend would have sex with him)—though there are so few altruistic donors that their numbers don’t much affect the calculus.

But those in need of a kidney who have family members to ask will still ask for a kidney from a relative should a payed donor be unavailable. I also don’t understand why MacFarquhar doesn’t bring up Iran, the one country that has allowed kidney compensation and has eliminated the donor list. Matt Steinglass highlights what I take as the strongest (but still flawed) argument against allowing payment for kidney donation:

A society in which rich smokers went around buying poor people’s lungs would be contemptible. When you get to the point where market forces allow some people to take physical possession of vital, irreplaceable parts of other people’s bodies, you are entering the territory of slavery. It’s a territory in which some of the inalienable rights that underpin a liberal democratic society — and the inalienability of one’s possession of one’s own body, as in habeas corpus, is fundamental to all other rights – can disintegrate in the face of inequalities of wealth. That’s the moral basis of the anxiety over paying for organ donations in general, and it is warranted.

In fact, the case for legalizing kidney purchase hinges precisely on the fact that it is not like other organ donations: having just one kidney does not seem awfully risky to the donor’s life. (Further, one can mitigate the risk by placing the few kidney donors who subsequently develop renal disease at the top of the list for transplants, a measure that has been advocated as a non-market way to encourage donations.) As the harm to the donor goes down, tissue donations become more similar to donating blood. Donating blood has long been (slightly) financially compensated without fear of a “slippery slope” to a paid market for, say, eyes. But that’s not to say we should allow people to sell their eyes. It’s to say that perhaps donating blood and donating kidneys are special cases, and should be treated individually rather than as part of a blanket policy towards donating “organs” or “tissue”.

Meet The New Boss, Same As The Old Boss

by Patrick Appel

A few days ago Obama's new drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske, said that marijuana "has no medicinal benefit," which doesn't exactly match up with the science. Kevin Drum sighs:

It's disappointing to hear him say that — and a bit cowardly.  But hardly unexpected. Despite a flurry of optimism a few months ago, Obama and Kerlikowske have obviously come to the same conclusion as all of their predecessors: this isn't a fight worth fighting.  They've got other fish to fry, they know perfectly well there's no support for marijuana legalization in Congress, and there's no political upside in taking the side of a bunch of potheads.  It's better to simply denounce the demon pot, provide the culture warriors with nothing to complain about, and move on. We might legalize marijuana someday — de facto if not de jure — but not today.  Maybe in another ten years or so.