Month: June 2012

They don't of course:

According to [Norm Stamper, former Chief of the Seattle Police Department and author of Breaking Rank: A Top Cop’s Exposé of the Dark Side of American Policing], having small local police departments go around with tanks and military gear has "a chilling effect on any effort to strengthen the relationship" between the community and the cops. And that’s not the only danger. "There’s no justification for them having that kind of equipment, for one obvious reason, and that is if they have it, they will find a way to use it. And if they use it they will misuse it altogether too many times," said Stamper.

Banana slugs, which are hermaphrodites, have some unorthodox mating rituals, to say the least:

[Zoology professor Harold Heath] caught a couple of slugs in the act. He noted the biting and the insertion. And then Heath observed something puzzling. As the slugs were withdrawing their penises, "one of the animals turned its head and commenced to gnaw upon the walls of the organ," Heath wrote. The biting was "unusually vigorous," he added, "and within a very few minutes the penis was entirely severed."

Scientists call this apophallation, and it may confer an evolutionary advantage over rival slugs:

Imagine you have two slugs, Taylor and Bailey. They mate, and then Taylor chews Bailey’s penis off. Bailey can still receive sperm. However, because Bailey doesn’t have a penis, he can’t fertilize anyone else’s eggs. So maybe he won’t seek out more mates. Or perhaps he seeks them, but can’t find anyone willing to mate with a penisless slug. Either way, that works out well for Taylor. Chewing off Bailey’s penis helped ensure that Taylor’s sperm will fertilize Bailey’s eggs, thus Taylor gains the upper hand. Miller’s research supports this idea, but it falls short of conclusive proof.

Of course, the decision to chew another slug’s penis off isn’t as clearcut as it might seem. When one slug begins chomping, the other typically responds in kind. And then they both lose in this evolutionary penis-chewing arms race.

(Image via Wiki Commons)

Dan Ariely puts drug reps under the microscope:

One clever tactic they used was to hire physicians to give a brief lecture to other physicians about a drug. Now, they really didn’t care what the audience took from the lecture, but were actually interested in what the act of giving the lecture did to the speaker himself. They found that after giving a short lecture about the benefits of a drug, the speaker would begin to believe his own words and soon prescribe accordingly. Psychological studies show that people quickly start believing whatever comes out of their own mouths, even when they are paid to say it. This is a clear case of cognitive dissonance at play; doctors reason that if they are touting this drug, they must believe in it themselves — and so their beliefs alter to align with their speech.

Alyssa is excited to see Robot & Frank:

[T]he continued work and social lives of aging people, as well as elder care, are major issues that Hollywood almost never has the courage to touch, much less approach from the perspective of people who are aging rather than the younger people who will take lessons from them. I’m almost as excited for a thoughtful, funny, fully human story about retirees as I am to see a movie about robots.

A reader writes:

I can only imagine how many responses you're gonna get from this one. Our second baby was born at home (on our guest couch). My wife was committed to delivering the child without the aid of any doctors or machines. She found a midwife practice and a nutritionist (in addition to her regular doctor). Over the nine months, she managed her diet and kept a close eye on the fetus as it developed. As we crossed over the 37th week, we knew that the baby was in position and healthy.

Many people try to give birth in a hospital because it is safe and makes them comfortable. But for the most part, people go to the hospital because it is their only choice. Many states (like mine, Maryland) have regulations that make it very difficult for a midwife to practice. Hospitals have a monopoly, and expectant parents have little or no choice. If a woman and her fetus are healthy, then they should be free to deliver the baby at home or at hospital. If regulations allowed for more midwives to practice, fewer women would choose dangerous, off-the-books home (or barn) births. Maybe then the US would generate more meaningful research into home birth, like they have in Europe.

Another expands on several of those points and more:

The tragedy to me in this whole story is that once again a medical debate is being left to the extremes. Screams of "death panels!" drowned out any fair discussion of end-of-life care and the wholesale suffering that has been inflicted on the dying and the old in the name of modern medicine's "advances." As an advocate of home birth, bolstered by the fact that 30% of Dutch babies enter the world at home, the development of home birth in America as it stands now is disheartening.

The obstetric medical establishment is in need of some serious questions about overuse of medical intervention and gadgets, which culminates in an extremely high C-section rate. For one, I think women should get better information about the numerous side effects of epidurals. But any discussion of including home birth as an legitimate option has been met with disdain, and licensed medical professionals are often legally barred from attending home birth.

The result is that lay midwives have taken up the slack. Probably many of them are smart, cautious and aware of the risks and have done a great job for women in labor and their babies. I personally know many women who birthed at home successfully and happily. But the swift growth of a home birth culture that is openly hostile to modern medicine and all its benefits is only going to lead to tragedy.

On the website you linked to, Hurt by Homebirth, it's hard to read most of the stories. They are terrible, sickening tragedies that could have been averted if the practitioners had an inkling of what was going on, or if they weren't actually practicing an extreme ideology more than practicing midwifery. The malpractice in these cases is absolutely appalling. But is it home birth, or the fact that lay midwifery has grown with little direct supervision from the medical industry that prefers to demonize it rather than supervise it?

In the Netherlands, home birth is something that must be approved by a doctor, and the midwife that is attending the delivery is part of, not an alternative to, the medical system. When I gave birth in 2007 and 2009 at a birth center in Cambridge MA, a doctor had to sign off before I was allowed to deliver there, and there were very clear rules about when a midwife should transfer me across the street, something that made me much surer about the safety of my babies (and me). There was an awareness that birth is a risky business, and that merely wishing for a "natural" "beautiful" birth was not a guarantee – and that the hospital across the street was there for a good reason.

Today on the Dish, Andrew wrote in praise of Dishhead exceptionalism, he defended a German court's ban on infant male genital mutilation, and Fortune complicated the conservative movement's account of Operation Fast and Furious. We geared up for tomorrow's decision on Obamacare (predictions here), imagined the ACA without the mandate, and wondered about the implications for November (reality check here and above). Regardless of what happens, the Supreme Court is not the legal equivalent of Hannity and the GOP won't "own" the health care system. Meanwhile, the president does not have a built-in electoral college lead though the Obama campaign's attacks on Bain appear to be succeeding. 

Scott Horton compared Obama's record on civil liberties to Bush's, prisons abused solitary confinement, and a documentary illuminated gay rights activism in Uganda. A reparative therapist acknowledged that there is no "cure" for homosexuality, gay bars inevitably declined, and a reader reflected on her decision to have an abortion. Amazon ate away self-publishing royalties, Republicans seem to enjoy being "uncool," and nuclear power is not cost-effective. We explored super-human vision, baldness may carry some evolutionary advantages (or not), telecommuting is more productive, and the old and uneducated are glued to their TVs. Age itself doesn't necessarily cause hormone decline, male cancer patients lack support, and the US leads in cannabis consumption. A reader was bothered by Mormonism's "claim to empirical truths which are self-evidently not truths," and we winced at the moral righteousness of dogs. 

Quote for the day here, end of gay culture watch here, MHB here, VFYW here, FOTD here, and summer reading infographic here. Ad war updates here and here. 

—M.A.

Steven Lloyd Wilson wonders why we often blanch more at the fictional depiction of canine suffering than human suffering:

We know that our dogs would die to protect us, that they have a selfless loyalty burned into their bone and pounding in their veins. They have the moral code of Arthurian knights, steel sheathed in velvet kindness. This is the way of the pack, and when dogs accept us as their pack, it is in a sense the most horrific lie that humanity has ever told. We accept the mantle of pack leader without shouldering the responsibility. How many of you would throw yourself in front of a bear to protect your dog? How many of you would lay down on your dog’s grave to die?

Is it any wonder then that we cannot bear their suffering in a story? It isn’t because we feel more for dogs than we do for men, but because we cannot bear the reminder of our own betrayal.

Lyle Denniston, who will be closely watching tomorrow's decision, warns that the ruling may be opaque at first:

Leaving aside the ill-informed guessing and the petty blaming, there is still an actual decision to be made, and it may not be very easy — at first glance on Thursday – to tell just what the Court has decided.  No one outside the Court knows, for example, whether there will be one opinion that controls the multiple outcomes, or multiple opinions and mixed voting patterns, potentially complicating the result.

Ed Kilgore nods:

I’m probably not the only one thinking back to the strange night when Bush v. Gorewas handed down, and—with the exception of Judy Woodruff—most reporters had a very hard time understanding what the decision actually meant. This decision involves infinitely more complex issues and an almost endless array of options for the Court.

The oldest candidate to become a U.S. citizen, 102 year-old Joaquin Arciago Guzman from the Philippines, waits to take the oath of citizenship at a naturalization ceremony at the Los Angeles Convention Center on June 27, 2012 in Los Angeles, California. More than 7,000 candidates became citizens representing more than 120 countries. By Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images.

SCOTUSBlog's Tom Goldstein bets the mandate will survive:

I believe the mandate will not be invalidated tomorrow.  Far less important, I expect the principal opinion will be written by the Chief Justice; a majority of the Court will find it has jurisdiction; and the challenge to the Medicaid expansion will be rejected.

Tomasky differs:

This is easy. I take the darkest and most cynical possible view of the conservative majority; I believe, as I've written, that they are politicians in robes (with the partial exception of Kennedy); as such, I believe that they will behave here like politicians, and they will render the decision that will inflict the maximum possible political damage on Obama and the Democrats. That means overturning the mandate 5-4.

Walter Dellinger bets they'll split the baby:

[A] compulsory mandate would be unconstitutional but a financial incentive that leaves the choice to the individual would be OK. The practical effect would be to uphold all the operative provisions of the Affordable Care Act, while firmly planting a liberty flag that would limit future Congresses.

More predictions here, including mine.