Stupid Things -- The Fostering of Ignorance

I. Two states have legalized recreational marijuana and several others are considering it. Twenty-five states plus the District of Columbia have legalized the medical use of marijuana. It is, however, surprisingly difficult to do scientific research on pot.

Conducting large-scale clinical trials (the gold standard for investigating all drugs) is under the control of the FDA and the regulations currently in place are so onerous that virtually no scholarly work is being done. The application process can take up to two years and even if a proposal is approved, FDA guidelines restrict the THC levels that can be used in the research. Currently the only studies approved use 3.5% to 7% THC. To put that in context, Colorado’s recreational product averages over 18% and levels as high as 35% are being sold. Levels in use in states with medical marijuana have even higher concentrations.

So we find ourselves in a situation that no one, not the consumers, not the sellers, not the researchers and, if they knew about it, not the general public is happy with. A drug with known medical effects and well-documented psychotropic effects is being sold and used with and without both local and Federal approval and without a full understanding of its bio-psychological impact because the agency that is, in principle in charge of overseeing research won’t allow anyone to do the research.

Imagine the anger if the FDA were to put similar thresholds on the study of other drugs like antibiotics or cholesterol lowering compounds.

——————————————————————————————————-

II. Some 33,000 people are killed by gun violence in the US every year. Approximately 150 mass murders have occurred in recent years with an average of two per month. Nearly half of all mass murderers were suspected of having serious mental health issues. Note the fudge words “estimated,” “approximately.” They’re there because, astonishingly, we don’t really know with certainty what the real numbers are. In fact, we know precious little about gun violence, its links with various personality types, with mental illness or any of the scores of demographic factors that likely play a role.

When you have an epidemic where half a million Americans have died since the turn of the century you’d think there would be well-funded research into it. When something kills people, causes suffering, diminishes the quality of life, we collect data, pour over the numbers, look for patterns, find ways to mitigate the damage. It’s what we’ve done with tools, cars, planes, mining, drugs and disease. It’s what we’ve done with children’s toys, toasters, farm machines and bed sheets. It’s what we’ve done with our water, air and food supplies.

But not guns — because there is actually a Federal statute that prohibits funding research on gun violence and, remarkably cynically, it was renewed just after the Charleston mass shooting in 2015.

And if that little tidbit (which I suspect few know about) doesn’t get your dander up there’s the even more pernicious Tiahrt Amendment. Named for former Congressman Todd Tiahrt it prevents the release of information about the registry of or records about firearms to anyone other than a law enforcement officer or a court. It also blocks the use of these data in any civil law suit against a gun manufacturer.

But to me, a retired academic who’s spent well over a half-century as a scientist pursuing knowledge and understanding, the truly bizarre feature of this piece of legislated insanity is that it also forbids the use of these data in academic research of gun use in crimes.

Imagine the howls of outrage if the CDC were to put in place similar restrictions on the study of heart disease.

Hillary Derangement Syndrome -- An Addendum & An Endorsement

Okay, I’m losing it. Some my friends on the left (where I’ve lived my whole social-political-academic life) have fallen so far down the slippery slide of Hillary-hating that I’m beginning to worry about them.

Here are some of the more off-the-end-of-the-pier posts that I’ve run across recently in the popular social media outlets. I’ve not included names or screen handles and I’ve corrected spelling and punctuation errors because I don’t want readers to think they’re mine.

To be clear, these aren’t from Trumpeters, none of them came from right-wing sites or blogs. All are from Bernie supporters.

And, full disclosure, I caucused for Bernie. I believe in his vision and support virtually all of his positions. But he lost. He actually never had a chance but I am glad he ran, delighted that he got his message out and overjoyed at the impact it had on the Democratic Party and on Hillary. But the level to which his supporters are sinking is, at once, disturbing, amusing and incomprehensible. So, here we go:

“She’s a war monger, a cold heartless hawk. I will never vote for someone who wants to start WW III.”

“She’s a weapons dealer who’s sold arms to terrorists and funnelled the money back into the Clinton Foundation.”

“She’s the brains behind the crafting of the TPP and no matter what she says now, will put it in place the day she’s sworn in.”

“Hillary is a pathological liar who cannot help herself. Nothing she says can be trusted.”

“Hillary is really a moderate Republican and I cannot, will not ever vote for a Republican.”

“She was raised a Republican and always been one at heart. She loves Wall Street and wars.”

“If she ends up in the White House she will be worse than G. W. Bush. We have to save the world from Hillary!!!!” (yes, all four exclamations marks were in the original).

“She’s a warmonger but luckily Putin and Xi are on to her and can neutralize her if she wins.”

“All she wants is power and she will do anything to get it. I still think she had Vince Foster killed.”

There are lots more like these and they tend to get repetitive so I’ll just drop in one last, deliciously paranoid comment:

“Donald Trump is a Hillary-plant. She and Bill are behind his whole campaign. They encouraged him to run last year because they knew it’s the only way she can be made to look good.”

Friends and fellow leftists, it’s time to bury the hatchet. Ms. Clinton won the nomination and as fairly as any nomination gets won. She’ll be a fine president. She’s a life-long feminist, the first to propose a national health care program, she supports Obama-type immigration policies, has always been a staunch defender of minority rights, LGBT rights, a woman’s right to choose, an opponent of unregulated capitalism (yeah, really). She’s worked on children’s issues her whole life, backs gun control, a progressive tax code and a gradual increase in the minimum wage.

She will nominate progressive judges to the Supreme Court and place thoughtful, liberal people in government agencies and her cabinet.

Are there positions of hers that are not ones I support? Yes, of course — no one gets their ideal candidate. I wish she’d back off her stance on fracking, though I understand why she takes it (it produces a large proportion of relatively clean energy and there are those swing states) and I worry that she might be pushed into returning to her earlier support of the TPP. And I wish she’d take a harder line on the idiotic war on drugs, back Federal legalization of marijuana and support a $15/hr minimum wage.

She was a fine Senator (with a voting record that matched Bernie’s 93% of the time) and when she stepped down from her job as Secretary of State she was compared with the greats like Dean Acheson.

She’s been accused of dozens of things, been investigated scores of times and nothing has come of any of it. And these investigations weren’t softballs. They were cranked up by Republicans hell-bent on finding her guilty of some crime or complicit in some illegal scheme. They found nothing. 

The glaring brutal truth is that she is, right now, running against Donald J. Trump — a man who cannot be allowed to become president. It is incumbent on all Moderates, Liberals and Progressives to vote for Clinton. A vote for Stein, a Sanders’ write-in or a blank ballot is, effectively, a vote for Trump.

Perhaps some have forgotten — Nader gave us Bush and the world is still reeling from his catestrophic eight years. Imagine the wreckage that a Trump in the Oval Office would create. 

Hold your nose if you have to but punch that chad for Hillary.

More Trumpian Thoughts

Trump’s been pushing the bonkers-ville envelope with some seriously crazy shit.

1. He insinuated that Obama is a secret Muslim and that he was complicit in the hate-crime massacre in Orlando.

2. He reiterated his call for closing the borders to all Muslims and added that Muslim communities should be under close surveillance and that Mosques should be monitored.

3. He barred reporters from the Washington Post from his meetings and press conferences.

4. He attacked a Federal judge for the crime of being born of Mexican heritage.

And then for something different:

5. He hinted that the minimum wage might be raised.

6. He slammed NAFTA, saying he’d tear up the deal and announced his opposition to the TPP.

7. He supported Medicare and Social Security and promised not to scale them back.

The first positions are certain to turn off any moderate who might consider voting for him. The second make it unlikely that traditional Republicans can support him.

Is it possible that he is slowly coming to grasp how far over his head he is, how unprepared he is for the job, how unfit he is to be commander-in-chief? Even the most ego-encrusted narcissist can have moments of self-revelatory doubt.

Is it possible that, at some level, he is trying to push his GOP colleagues to find some way to deny him the nomination? Is it possible that, if this die be cast, that he is ensuring that he loses the general election?

Just asking…

Thoughts for Today

1. The Orlando massacre was not a terrorist act. It was a hate crime. The Republicans are trying to deflect the issue away from the need to reinstitute the assault weapons ban, the need to introduce sensible gun regulations and the need to diminish the influence of the gun lobby.

2. Climate change is real. There is nothing called “climate skepticism.” There is only climate science and climate science denial. The latter represent a cohort bought and wholly owned by the fossil-fuel industry. Denying climate change is like denying evolution — oh, wait a minute ….

3. Washington DC should become the 51st state. It has more people than either Wyoming or Vermont. It currently lacks representation in the US Congress (its House member has voice but no vote) which, in my head, isn’t what representative democracy is all about.

3a. It ain’t gonna happen until the Democrats take back the House and Senate.

4. The ACA has to be amended to allow for the public option. The insurance companies are starting to ratchet up rates and many are going to find their policies unaffordable. It feels like an effort to undermine the success of the legislation. It’s important that this not be allowed to happen.

5. Sanders’s people will come ‘round. A month or two of Trump and even the most recalcitrant among them will realize that a Trump presidency would make Bush II look good — and don’t forget it was Dubya who made Nixon look good. See how that works?

6. Moderate, sensible conservatives, independents and Republicans will vote for Hillary. They won’t like it. They won’t tell anyone. They will hold their noses and punch that chad.

7. Trump may be under indictment when the election is held. Eric Schneiderman, New York State Attorney General, is currently ascertaining whether Trump’s actions while head of Trump University (sic) violated RICO guidelines. And that “biased” “Mexican” judge is still on the bench in the class-action suit.

8. And FWIW, I have a title for the world’s shortest book: “A Compendium of Sensible Proposals Put Forward by Donald J. Trump.” It’s a quick read. Trump won’t even need a ghost writer this time.

Why Insulting Trump Backfires: Two Views

I had a long discussion with an old friend today. He thinks that Democrats hurt themselves when they call Trump a racist or a misogynist. Attacking someone by slapping an ugly label on them, he said, diminishes the person making the accusation because it’s just classic stereotyping and is a cheap and ineffective way to try to win an argument.

This is an interesting point, one I’d not thought of before. I think it’s wrong though because it doesn’t look deeply enough into the phenomenon that is the Trump candidacy.

Trump’s base is made up of largely of racists, Evangelicals, defenders of “family values” who are anti-women and anti-LGBT and those who’ve gotten hurt financially. These are, of course, the very folks the GOP has been courting since Lee Atwater. But they got nothing the GOP promised. They feel lied to, reneged on.

In fact, things got worse. Wages stagnated. Jobs moved overseas, Wall Street grew while their wallets shrunk. Gays got the right to marry. Women were in combat roles. Planned Parenthood was a strong lobby for women’s reproductive rights.

And, God forbid, a Black dude got elected President — twice.

The Trump phenomenon is these people angrily reacting to the feeling of being fucked over. They’d been holding onto their beliefs, fears, confusions and angers for decades — but nobody, till Trump, ever actually said the things they were thinking.

When he speaks white racists hear racist messages; anti-feminists hear attacks on women; Evangelicals hear that abortion will be criminalized and women punished; anti-LGBT people hear messages that demonize gays, lesbians and the trans-gendered; those who’ve lost jobs or haven’t had a raise in a decade hear him blame immigrants for taking their jobs and applaud calls for them to be banned and deported.

It is true, as my friend said, attacks on Trump for being a racist or a sexist do seem to boost his ratings. But I don’t think it’s because voters are reacting angrily at people for stereotyping Trump. I suspect it is precisely because they are racists and misogynists and it reinforces their attachment to him for just these reasons.