Year: 2013

A Pilgrimage With No Vacancies

The Economist finds that it has become harder for Muslims to complete the haj:

[T]he growing global Muslim population of 1.6 billion, coupled with cheaper international travel, has brought its own problems. Back in 2004, 2.2m Muslims went to Mecca. Last year the number was 3.2m, the highest ever. Stampedes in 1990, 2004 and 2006 caused hundreds of deaths. This year Saudi Arabia, which gives a quota of haj visas to each country on the basis of the size of its Muslim population, has slashed the number of visas for foreign pilgrims by 20%, as it carries out renovation works to expand the capacity of the Grand Mosque. … Next year the renovations should mean more visas once again. But the growing number of Muslims, and growing prosperity in many Muslim countries, means the backlog is likely to grow: South Africa recently announced that citizens on the waiting list may face another six years before they get a slot.

Additionally, Rebecca Kreston points out that “the Hajj poses serious challenges in the prevention and control of infectious diseases among the millions of faithful worshipers who seek to complete one of the five pillars of Islam”:

It’s not only that the Saudi Ministry of Health must be on the look out for the typical pathogenic fare that thrive on large masses of humans – such as meningitis, various exotic gastrointestinal bugs, or tuberculosis – but also for more troublesome pathogens. This year in particular seems hardwired for trouble as the beginning of flu season is coinciding with continuing instances of polio trickling throughout Northern Africa and the Middle East.

Last year, Kreston wrote at length about the Haj’s health issues:

Following the Stoning of the Devil and the completion of their religious rites, Hajjees migrate to Mina where hundreds of barbers await with razor blades to shave the scalps of male pilgrims and where women will trim a finger-length lock of hair. This last ritual seals the deal, so to speak, allowing pilgrims to compete their observance of the Hajj. Saudi officials require all barbers to be licensed though makeshift barbers still abound, waiting on roads for eager pilgrims with razors in hand. Pilgrims may also buddy up to shave each other’s scalps. These unlicensed barbers and pilgrims can often be found reusing unsterilized blades to communally head-shave Hajjees, a fabulous technique for transmitting blood-borne diseases (BBDs).

If You See Something, Text Something, Ctd

kubrick-subway-newspapers

A reader sends the above scene that Stanley Kubrick captured in 1946:

Yes, smartphones and iPads are the problem, because in the old days we all used to talk to each other on the subway instead of staring down at an electronic object …

Another:

Joe Eskenazi made an uncomfortable point:

Authorities are preaching vigilance, which is probably a smarter thing to do than play Angry Birds. But left unsaid is just what the hell a train full of vigilant people were supposed to do if they noticed a man waving about a pistol – a man, specifically, in search of a random passenger to murder. What then?

I would make a similar but different point.

The reason why people withdraw so much from the public world in transit is because there are about six people in your personal bubble, which is generally considered unpleasant, because you invited none of them. The only way to stay sane in our sardine-packed transit system is to withdraw in your own world. People used to close their eyes and pretend to sleep, or read. These days smart devices give more options to relieve the stress of being squeezed against that fat, sweaty, blob that didn’t shower in the last three weeks, than can be possible relieved by a vigilant, paranoid crowd looking for criminals and terrorists and preventing an occasional crime or very rare terror plot. If we were to allow the latter, the terrorists have won.

Another reader:

Regarding the idea that mobile devices have made us less aware of our surroundings, I would argue that this has actually helped to reduce crime. As a New Yorker and daily subway rider, I can attest to the fact that absorption in texting or gaming can reduce interpersonal incidents that can lead to violence. Additionally, wearing headphones allows you to legitimately ignore an insult – a response that satisfies your honor as well as that of the person trying to pick a fight with you.

Sitting Makes Us Soft

The evidence:

Comprehensive analyses of the incidence of back pain around the world consistently find that back pain is twice as high in developed versus less developed countries; further, within low-income countries, the incidence is roughly twice as high in urban versus rural areas. For example, lower back pain afflicts about 40 percent of farmers in rural Tibet but 68 percent of sewing machine operators in India. Neither of these populations lounges about in La-Z-Boys, but a general trend is that people who frequently carry heavy loads and do other “back-breaking” work get fewer back injuries than those who sit in chairs for hours bent over a machine.

Gerrymandering ≠ Polarization

According to Trende:

[T]he point here isn’t that gerrymandering hasn’t had any effect on party polarization. It is just that the effects are likely very small. What’s really happened, more than anything else, is that conservative areas of the country have, at least for now, become extremely reluctant to elect conservative or moderate Democrats, while liberal areas have largely given up on liberal or moderate Republicans. This has resulted in party caucuses that are increasingly made up of ideologues, and has made political compromise difficult. If there’s anyone to point the finger at, it’s ourselves.

Enten adds:

The Senate shows … that the sharp upswing in polarization we see today is largely the product of natural voting patterns. And these manifest themselves on the state level without any gerrymandering. Texas put Ted Cruz in the Senate not because someone redrew Texas’ state lines, but because Texas voters became, on average, more conservative.

Map Of The Day

discoveries6

Historian Bill Rankin captions:

Every Columbus Day, we’re reminded of the difference between discovery and “discovery” – and rightly so. But let’s not sell Europe short; after all, European explorers found plenty of diminutive islands that no human had ever seen before, along with extravagant amounts of ice and snow. Just the islands alone add up to more than 0.14% of the world’s total land area, and today they’re home to more people than live in all of Connecticut!

All sarcasm aside, it’s worth remembering that almost everywhere Europeans went, they were met by existing inhabitants. Even in the vast Pacific and the barren Arctic, only a few isolated coasts were truly terra nullius. (Indeed, this map particularly underscores the maritime expertise of Pacific Islanders. Unlike the islands of the Atlantic and Indian Oceans, nearly all of the Pacific was settled by the 14th century.)

(Hat tip: Benjy Hansen-Bundy)

The GOP Must Know It Lost

Isaac Chotiner explains:

If Republicans get a win on the medical device tax but are generally considered to have been routed by the president, future hostage-taking becomes less likely. If the GOP is despondent and depressed, and the media coverage plays up their falling poll numbers, this disaster is unlikely to repeat itself. But if concessions are seen as a GOP win, then expect more hostage scenarios. Remember, Clinton went along with spending cuts as a way of ending the government shutdown in 1995. But the perception was that he had won a major victory over Republicans, and, consequently, we did not witness five more years of shutdowns. Of course a debt ceiling crisis is much more serious than a shutdown (we can be proud to currently face both). But the principle still holds. The medical device tax and cuts to entitlement programs are important on the merits. But in this case, and going forward, perception trumps reality.

Given the absurd expectations created by fanatics like Cruz and Lee, I cannot imagine how the Tea Party will envisage any deal that doesn’t replace the entire Democratic agenda with their own as capitulation. Drudge, I note, has dropped the negotiations as a leading topic in favor of a story of a food stamp stampede after a technical glitch in a couple of towns in Louisiana. Maybe the propaganda machine is adjusting expectations a little … Costa notes:

GOP enthusiasm for the showdown, from both conservatives and grandees, is waning. Members are spending considerable time calling one another to lament, and they’re worried about fading public support. “We can’t get lower in the polls. We’re down to blood relatives and paid staffers now,” said Senator John McCain on CBS’s Face the Nation. “But we’ve got to turn this around, and the Democrats had better help.”

The Abatement Of Cruelty, Ctd

Readers keep the thread going:

I have not eaten pork in several years, after I saw the “Pandora’s Box” episode of This American Life (the TV show). Half of the show is dedicated to pig farming and the science behind it.  They keep experimenting with how they house and treat the pigs, which is spurring unexpected side effects. That was galling enough but seeing how the pigs live, how they are shoved into small pens, how they don’t even procreate – they don’t even have a chance to fuck – it was too much for me. Based on all that, I decided I cannot eat any more pork.  Other people can choose to eat pork; that’s fine with me.  I know that I couldn’t.

Another sends the above video:

Two of your recent themes have merged; Banksy is now bringing attention to pig torture in the Meatpacking District.

Another shifts the discussion:

Matthew Scully asks, “Why is it right or fair to pamper dogs [ ] and torture pigs?” He goes on to describe the horrible treatment of dogs as food in Asia. Scully omits mistreatment right here in the United States of dogs for research and agriculture.

The USDA estimates that 65,000 dogs are used in animal testing in the United States. Pertinently for Dish readers, beagles are one of the most common breeds used in research because they are “friendly, docile, trusting, forgiving, and people-pleasing.” Invasive research on dogs commonly involves exposure to experimental chemicals like cosmetics, insecticides, and dog products like flea medicine to determine their toxicity. These experiments ultimately lead to suffering and death.

One of the most horrifying facts about research on dogs is that many animal shelters have arrangements to give abandoned dogs – who at one time were companion animals for a family – to research facilities. These people are infamously known as Class B Dealers in the animal rights community. Everything I just described for dogs in research is wholly permissible under the Animal Welfare Act as long as basic conditions are satisfied such as the provision of clean food and water.

Likewise, the Animal Welfare Act does surprisingly little to protect dogs used for breeding purposes in so-called puppy mills. That law imposes no limits whatsoever on the number of dogs that can be used for breeding at a facility. I am a practicing animal rights attorney and commonly encounter reports of facilities with upwards of three hundred dogs (breeding females and puppies). The space requirement for breeding dogs is sadly insufficient – cages must be a mere six inches longer and wider than the dog herself. Breeders must provide clean food and water, as well as proper veterinary care.

Facilities that meet these requirements can call themselves USDA licensed and are often certified by third party groups like the American Kennel Club that are normally but incorrectly viewed of as reputable. Compliance with the Animal Welfare Act is generally checked during annual USDA inspections, and non-compliance almost always results in a warning with no penalty. When penalties are imposed, they are so insubstantial that the last two Office of the Inspector General audits of the USDA’s Animal Care Program (2005 and 2010) have found that penalties are viewed merely as the cost of doing business rather than having actual deterrent value. (I would link to those reports, but they are offline due to the government shutdown.)

An Opening For A Third Party?

Last week, Gallup found record desire for a third party:

Third Party

Jamie Chandler contends that the “midterm elections represent a rare opportunity for independents to mount viable campaigns – capitalizing on voter disgust with Beltway politics.” Nate Cohn disagrees:

After decades of culture wars and self-sorting, today’s Republicans are largely unified on policy, even if they disagree on tactics. And even if the disagreements between the tea party and moderates were substantive, it still wouldn’t produce a wave of independent candidates. National intraparty divisions don’t tend to produce opportunities for independents at the district-level, since representatives tend to reflect their districts. For the most part, ultraconservative Republicans hail from ultraconservative districts; moderates represent relatively moderate districts. That helps explain the apparent unity of post-war congressional Democrats: Even while Strom Thurmond and George Wallace mounted third-party challenges against pro-civil rights Democrats in presidential contests, Dixiecrats and northern liberals represented their districts well.

Unless, that is, the end-result of this recent bout of recklessness on the right provokes the Cruz-Palin-Lee wing to go rogue with a Tea Party ticket. A lot of dissatisfaction toward the GOP is coming from the right, after all. I suspect that if a third party emerges temporarily, it would be from the far right, not the increasingly empty center.

Email Of The Day

A reader writes:

I have been a registered Republican for almost 20 years now and I have endured some horrendous candidates within my party because I truly believed Republicans were capable of rational discourse and realistic methods to reining in what I believe is an out-of-control government. I have endured Bush in 2004 with his disgusting gay baiting, Palin in 2008 and Tea Party of 2010/2012. I have taken serious abuse from friends who cannot fathom why in the hell I would belong to such a party.

I grew up during the Reagan years, where the promise of America was real for everyone. I believed in my country and its leaders. I “thought” Republicans stood FOR something … but the sad reality is that they only are AGAINST everything that does not square with their delusional idea of what America used to be … and actually never was.

I think it was Ted Cruz who led me to my breaking point with his phony filibuster and his propaganda machine to exacerbate the already gripping paranoia in the Republican party. Make no mistake, I think Obamacare is a disaster and the Democrats barely capable of doing anything to get our country on the right path. But I’d rather work to fix the mess than to support a party totally incapable of governing in a fact-based manner.

I am ashamed it took me this long to change. But I just filled out my voter registration document to change party affiliation. I will not associate myself with this destructive party any longer. And I bet I am not alone.