Month: September 2010

Jonathan Weiner describes his new book on immortality research:

Most assume we have to age to make room for the next generation and it would be going against nature for that reason to try to extend human lifespan. In fact, most evolutionary biologists today think that evolution by natural selection has focused on making bodies that will grow vigorously to the age of reproduction and maybe a little past. And then the process of evolution by natural selection pays almost no attention to what happens to those bodies after they’ve had a chance to pass on their genes.

If that’s true, we can draw an opposite conclusion in regards to our mortal bodies.

Either conclude so many things go wrong that decline is pretty much random and we’ll never be able to maintain our bodies. If our aging is not designed, then the job of fighting the chaos we call aging is impossible. Or we could conclude that we really might be able to do something because we might be able to come up with solutions that evolution failed to find because evolution doesn’t [dictate what happens to us after reproductive age]…

The field is really badly underfunded. Even the National Institute of Aging spends a fraction of its budget on experimental gerontology. Most of the budget of the National Institutes of Health goes for fighting recognized diseases and it’s much more acceptable politically to declare war on cancer than to declare war on aging.

So if you want to study aging and dream of slowing it down, you’ve got a tough time getting funding. That worries me more now having finished the book and having spent so much time talking with the gerontology mainstream as well as Aubrey. We may be missing really wonderful opportunities by neglecting the sciences of aging, for instance all of those late onset diseases, not just cancer, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, atherosclerosis, all of those late onset diseases become more likely [as we age].

Johann Hari's inspiring, eloquent, pro-Catholic speech protesting the state visit to Britain of a man guilty of an international conspiracy to cover up the rape of thousands of children:

Lexington makes the case. He follows up at his blog:

Professor Klarman made four main points about what he calls "constitutional idolatry". They are (1) that the framers' constitution represented values that Americans should abhor or at least reject today; (2) that there are parts of the constitution America is stuck with but that are impossible to defend based on contemporary values; (3) that for the most part the Constitution is irrelevant to the current political design of the nation; and (4) that the rights that are protected today are mostly a result of the evolution of political attitudes, not of courts using the Constitution to uphold them.

Point (1) is surely unarguable: the protection of slavery, the restriction of suffrage and so on. Point (2): two senators per state regardless of population, restricting the presidency of a nation of immigrants to those born in America; (3) beyond Congress, the courts and the executive branch today's political system includes a fourth branch, the administrative state, which the framers could never have imagined and which is almost certainly "unconstitutional" in many ways but which no court will ever strike down; (4) when the Supreme Court has ruled to uphold rights it has generally been motivated by changing public opinion, not by a textual study of the Constitution. Judges, Mr Klarman says, are too much a part of contemporary culture to take positions contrary to dominant public opinion, no matter what the Constitution says.

Last week Gregg Easterbrook argued that shooting death row inmates in the head is the most humane method of execution. Nicholas Jackson gives details on lethal injection. It seems more humane to me, and I worry that shooting people in the head may actually give pleasure to those motivated by revenge or sadism. I find all such murders by the state repugnant and, as a Catholic, categorically wrong. The details, which we should all know more about, below:

At the warden's signal, between one and three chemicals are injected into the IVs, separated by a saline solution used to ensure that the chemicals do not mix. The first, sodium thiopental, is a barbiturate that puts the patient into a deep sleep. At the dose, between two and five grams, most often used in lethal injection cases, unconsciousness is induced in about 10 seconds. The second chemical, pancuronium bromide, acts as a paralyzing agent that freezes the diaphragm and lungs so that the patient stops breathing. As the patient is often legally dead after the first two injections, the third, potassium chloride, is only administered in some states. Potassium chloride stops the heart.

Ohio and Washington state use only the first chemical, sodium thiopental, but in such a large dose that the patient, after falling into unconsciousness, experiences the widening of blood vessels to such an extreme that blood pressure drops to a lethal level.

In Virginia, all three of the chemicals are used, though officials will not reveal their exact make-up.

Massie sides with Douthat and Larison:

[D]espite doing everything she can to appeal to the conservative base Palin is polling no better, and often worse, than Romney, Huckabee and Gingrich. She came fifth in the Values Voters Summit straw poll, winning just 7% of the votes cast. If Palin really were the undisputed front-runner we'd expect her to enjoy a lead in the polls right now. At this stage of the cycle one thing is clear: she's no Hillary Clinton. If she is the front-runner she might be the weakest GOP front-runner since Gerald Ford.

Today on the Dish, Andrew assailed the Republican Party's "Pledge To America." Reax here and here. The Obama administration decided to defend DADT against Republicans. Andrew called for Solmonese's head and sparred with other bloggers over Dem inaction. Steinglass instructed HRC to take notes from the Tea Party.

The "all fags must die" plot thickened. A Dem congresswomen race-baited her opponent, Boxer and Fiorina went a round, a conservative group aired a maudlin ad against Obama, and Larison rolled his eyes. Snapshots from the Tea Party here and here. Christianism watch here and Trig watch here. DiA disagreed with Douthat over Palin, a GOP congressional candidate slammed her celebrity, and Sharron Angle pwned the press. Wilkinson wanted members of the media to stop picking on red-staters, while Dan Savage sought to keep bigots from picking on suicidal teens.

A drug warrior in Spain came to his senses, Iran kept oppressing its press, and we may have already attacked the country's nuclear plants.  The world got fat, but cookstoves could be cleaner. Adam Ozimek looked at illegal immigration around the world, Felix Salmon warned us about market forecasters, Tyler Cowen defended the liberal arts, and Kate Hopkins kept the "culinary luddite" thread going. Readers dissented over Andrew's portrayal of Burning Man, and a combat vet called for showing more graphic content.

Blockbuster finally bit the dust. David Broder and Bob Woodward buck-raked to their wallets' content. A clever new ad strategy is coming to your captchas and this app went from cool to profound. MHB here, VFYW here, and FOTD here. Be lucky your name isn't Sarah Palin.

— C.B.
— Z.P.

The once-great video chain is bankrupt.

Yes, the administration usually defends the existing law against constitutional challenges. Here is Gibbs's defense:

Today, the Department of Justice made a filing in a legal challenge to the Don’t Ask, Don’t tell (DADT) policy, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged. This filing in no way diminishes the President’s firm commitment to achieve a legislative repeal of DADT … The President, along with his Administration, will continue to work with the Senate Leadership to achieve a legislative repeal of DADT as outlined in the NDAA this fall.

But does no one see the irony of the Log Cabin Republicans now suing Barack Obama in order to stop him firing people solely because they are gay? I wish I could feel some sympathy for the president on this issue. But he is making Bill Clinton look like a model of principle – and his rank cowardice on civil rights is one of the greatest disappointments of his first two years.

Austin Seraphin has been blind from birth. His iPhone review is enough to make you weep:

The other night, a very amazing thing happened. I downloaded an app called Color Identifier. It uses the iPhone's camera, and speaks names of colors. It must use a table, because each color has an identifier made up of 6 hexadecimal digits. This puts the total at 16777216 colors, and I believe it. Some of them have very surreal names, such as Atomic Orange, Cosmic, Hippie Green, Opium, and Black-White. These names in combination with what feels like a rise in serotonin levels makes for a very psychedelic experience.

I have never experienced this before in my life. I can see some light and color, but just in blurs, and objects don't really have a color, just light sources…

First, I saw one of my beautiful salt lamps in its various shades of orange, another with its pink and rose colors, and the third kind in glowing pink and red. I was stunned.

The next day, I went outside. I looked at the sky.

I heard colors such as "Horizon," "Outer Space," and many shades of blue and gray. I used color cues to find my pumpkin plants, by looking for the green among the brown and stone. I spent ten minutes looking at my pumpkin plants, with their leaves of green and lemon-ginger. I then roamed my yard, and saw a blue flower. I then found the brown shed, and returned to the gray house. My mind felt blown. I watched the sun set, listening to the colors change as the sky darkened. The next night, I had a conversation with Mom about how the sky looked bluer tonight. Since I can see some light and color, I think hearing the color names can help nudge my perception, and enhance my visual experience.

Austin's follow-up post on his iPhone review and the response it got is here.

Larison dissects this ad:

Perhaps the most annoying part of the ad is at the end when the narrators says that voters should “choose a smaller, more caring government, one that remembers us.” It doesn’t actually make sense to argue for a government that is both smaller and more “caring.” Under other circumstances, serious advocates of smaller government would not stoop to manipulating the sentiments of voters by talking about a government that is “more caring.” It used to be that critics of expansive and intrusive government sensed danger when people started talking about a government that “cares,” because this was cover for unnecessary and harmful power-grabs.