↧
Steve Jobs: Fox News Crystallizes The Forces Of Destruction
↧
George Carlin On Nature
↧
↧
Climate Scientists: By The Numbers
More to the point, would you encourage your only child to drive on
↧
Red-Winged Blackbird
The most common "exotic" bird where I grew up in and around Irondequoit, New York.
***
Red-Winged Blackbird
Wikipedia
***
Red-Winged Blackbird
National Geographic
↧
H.L. Mencken: The Enforcement Of Ideas
"The terrible thing about our time is precisely the ease with which theories can be put into practice. The more perfect, the more idealistic the theories, the more dreadful is their realization. We are at last beginning to rediscover what perhaps men knew better in very ancient times, in primitive times before utopias were thought of: that liberty is bound up with imperfection, and that limitations, imperfections, errors are not only unavoidable but also salutary. The best is not the ideal. Where what is theoretically best is imposed on everyone as the norm, then there is no longer any room even to be good. The best, imposed as a norm, becomes evil.”
"Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander,” by Trappist monk, Father Thomas Merton
***
Merton Quotations
***
Merton Quotations
↧
↧
Major General Smedley Butler: Self-Described "Racketeer For Capitalism"
Marine Commandant, Major General, Smedley Butler: "War Is A Racket"
↧
George Orwell: Truth, The New Hate Speech
↧
"Voter Suppression Laws Are Already Deciding Elections," Washington Post
"GOP Voter Suppression And Disenfranchisement. A Cartoon Compendium"
***
"Pax On Both Houses: Compendium Of Voter Fraud And Voter Suppression Posts"
Opinion writer
Voter suppression laws are already deciding elections
Voter suppression efforts may have changed the outcomes of some of the closest races last week. And if the Supreme Court lets these laws stand, they will continue to distort election results going forward.
The days of Jim Crow are officially over, but poll-tax equivalents are newly thriving, through restrictive voter registration and ID requirements, shorter poll hours and various other restrictions and red tape that cost Americans time and money if they wish to cast a ballot. As one study by a Harvard Law School researcher found, the price for obtaining a legally recognized voter identification card can range from $75 to $175, when you include the costs associated with documentation, travel and waiting time. (For context, the actual poll tax that the Supreme Court struck down in 1966 was just $1.50, or about $11 in today’s dollars.)
It’s still early to definitively quantify the effects that these laws had on national turnout or on the outcomes of individual races. Initial estimates suggesting that turnout rates sank to their lowest level since 1942 look pretty damning, but so many factors can affect turnout (weather, ballot initiatives, the perceived closeness of races, etc.) that it’s hard to isolate the effects of a single change. More data and statistical analysis expected next year will help.Whatever the motivation behind such new laws — whether to cynically disenfranchise political enemies or to nobly slay the (largely imagined) scourge of voter fraud — their costs to voters are far from negligible.
In the meantime, some back-of-the-envelope calculations from Wendy Weiser — director of the Democracy Program at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice — should at least give us pause: Right now, it looks like the margin of victory in some of the most competitive races around the country was as big as the likely “margin of disenfranchisement,” as Weiser puts it. That is, more people were newly denied the right to vote than actually cast deciding ballots.
Take, for example, Kansas.
In the state’s nail-biting gubernatorial race, Republican incumbent Sam Brownback bested his Democratic challenger, Paul Davis, by a mere 33,000 votes out of nearly 850,000 cast. Now, compare that with the estimated effects of Kansas’s new restrictions on voting.
We know that more than 21,000 people tried to register but failed because they lacked the necessary “documentary proof of citizenship” required by a new Kansas law. The state’s separate, strict voter ID law also had an effect: Applying findings from a recent Government Accountability Office reportthat examined how the voter ID law affected the state’s turnout in 2012, Weiser estimates that it probably reduced turnout this time around by about 17,000 votes.
Weiser finds similarly troubling results for close races in other states with restrictive voting laws, including North Carolina (where the U.S. Senate race was decided by about 47,000 votes, or 1.6 percentage points, in favor of the Republican candidate) and Florida (where the governor’s race was decided by about 66,000 votes, or 1.1 points, also in favor of the Republican).
Of course, we don’t know how the disenfranchised would have voted, and whether their votes would have flipped these races’ results. Restrictive voting laws tend to disproportionately affect certain groups that lean Democratic — minorities, the young, the poor — but such groups do not vote exclusively for Democrats. And another group that is frequently hurt by voter ID laws, the elderly, tends to lean Republican. For all we know, Virginia’s restrictive new voter ID law actually helped Sen. Mark Warner, a Democrat, narrowly “steal” victory from his Republican challenger (by just 16,000 votes!) because lots of elder conservatives lacked adequate idenfication documents.
If — when more data trickle in and statistical models get more finely calibrated — we learn that voter suppression efforts did indeed change election outcomes, no recourse would be available to disenfranchised constituents, or to candidates wrongly denied office. The courts (and other bodies that have the power to overturn elections) very rarely call for a revote, even when elections are fraught with obvious electoral malfeasance or incompetence. As those of us who were in Florida in 2000 well remember.
The best we can hope for is that the Supreme Court recognizes the damage these controversial laws have done — not just to individual voters’ rights, but to Americans’ confidence in the integrity of the democratic process more broadly — and strikes them down. Otherwise, should the current system stand, expect more protracted, Bush v. Gore-type battles in our immediate future.
↧
Diane Rehm Show: Using Psychedelic Drugs To Treat PTSD & Other Mental Disorders
![This Sept. 29, 2009 photo shows U.S. Marine Lance Cpl. Greg Rivers, 20, of Sylvester, Ga., holding his neck while waiting to take psychological tests at the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center in Twentynine Palms, Calif. The U.S. government is testing hundreds of Marines and soldiers in search of clues that might help predict who is most susceptible to post-traumatic stress disorder.]()
This Sept. 29, 2009 photo shows U.S. Marine Lance Cpl. Greg Rivers, 20, of Sylvester, Ga., holding his neck while waiting to take psychological tests at the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center in Twentynine Palms, Calif. The U.S. government is testing hundreds of Marines and soldiers in search of clues that might help predict who is most susceptible to post-traumatic stress disorder.
This Sept. 29, 2009 photo shows U.S. Marine Lance Cpl. Greg Rivers, 20, of Sylvester, Ga., holding his neck while waiting to take psychological tests at the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center in Twentynine Palms, Calif. The U.S. government is testing hundreds of Marines and soldiers in search of clues that might help predict who is most susceptible to post-traumatic stress disorder.
***
"Diane Rehm Show: Using Psychedelic Drugs To Treat PTSD & Other Mental Disorders"
***
Since 2001, 364,000 veterans have received treatment for possible post-traumatic stress disorder. Some researchers believe the vets could benefit from a drug called MDMA. For 30 years, the federal government has blocked research into MDMA because it is the active ingredient in ecstasy, better known as the party drug that fuels raves.
"When it comes to the health and well-being of those who serve, we should leave our politics at the door and not be afraid to follow the data," Brig. Gen. Loree Sutton, a retired Army psychiatrist, told The New York Times. "There’s now an evidence base for this MDMA therapy and a plausible story about what may be going on in the brain to account for the effects."
Ecstasy first became popular among psychiatrists as a therapeutic tool after the Vietnam War. The drug, they found, made people more trusting and gave them the courage to talk about their pasts. They called it "penicillin for the soul." Yet no real research had been conducted on the drug. In 1985, the Reagan administration placed MDMA on Schedule I, declaring it an illicit substance without medical value despite the objections of an administrative law judge.
Since then, researchers have had a difficult time getting MDMA for use in clinical trials, and federal grants have been hard to come by as well. A not-for-profit organization in Santa Cruz, Calif. appears to be the only source of funding for studies right now. "Ecstasy is an illegal drug," a spokesman for the Department of Veterans Affairs told the Los Angeles Times. The V.A. "would not involve veterans in the use of such substances."
Meanwhile, some veterans have been seeking out the drug on their own, desperate for relief from the psychological burdens of coming back from war. In a given year, 11 percent to 20 percent of those who served in Iraq and Afghanistan experience PTSD, which can produce debilitating systems difficult to fully relieve.
One study, especially approved by the Food and Drug Administration and published in 2011, found that five out of six victims of PTSD were cured after receiving the drug before two sessions with therapists, compared to only a quarter of those who sat through the treatment sessions after taking a placebo. There were no serious side effects.
The study involved only twenty patients total, most of whom were not veterans, and it was the first of its kind. Scientists still can't say with confidence whether MDMA could really help veterans, which, after three decades, is a shame -- especially given these very promising initial results and anecdotal evidence. Yes, the drug carries risks; so do the commercial antidepressants that so many veterans take to deal with the memories of war. Are these risks worth it for people who can find no other way of living a normal life? That's a question without an answer.
↧
↧
Obama's Support For Net Neutrality. With Nothing Left To Lose, 44 Likely To "Go For It"
Obama realizes there's nothing to be gained from compromising on net neutrality. The FCC chairmen he's appointed have tried unsuccessfully to seek a middle ground. The president seems tired of waiting for them to choose the right solution. The New Yorker.
KLEIN: No, there's no Obamacare for the Internet, but there could be a public option! The Internet, just like the highway system, should be a government service provided universally, free of charge. Otherwise, natural monopolies, high fees and underinvestment are more or less inevitable. Vox.
KLEIN: No, there's no Obamacare for the Internet, but there could be a public option! The Internet, just like the highway system, should be a government service provided universally, free of charge. Otherwise, natural monopolies, high fees and underinvestment are more or less inevitable. Vox.
The president's statement calling for Title II regulation was his clearest yet. "I believe the FCC should create a new set of rules protecting net neutrality and ensuring that neither the cable company nor the phone company will be able to act as a gatekeeper, restricting what you can do or see online," Obama said. He also said Title II could be applied to wireless providers. The cable industry objected, saying that the broad authority Title II grants the FCC is unnecessary. Brian Fung in The Washington Post.
The proposal would mean regulating Internet connections like phone lines. Advocates say that doing so would protect new companies from being shut out from access to consumers by high fees designed to prevent competition. Critics say that higher fees could allow cable companies to invest in the kinds of infrastructure and technology that would improve Internet quality for things like watching movies or calling your friends. Tim Lee at Vox.
ANDY KESSLER: Don't regulate Internet providers like Ma Bell. The intricate regulatory regime for the old telephone company discouraged research and customer service. The Wall Street Journal.
The FCC is worried about lawsuits from the cable industry. Preparing for a likely legal challenge will take time, even if some advocates say that Title II is the safest legal option as well as the strictest. Nancy Scola in The Washington Post.
Ted Cruz calls net neutrality "Obamacare for the Internet." Sen. John Thune also objected to the president's proposal. Dustin Volz in National Journal.
"Ted Cruz is the Obamacare of nonsensical analogies." -- @obsoletedogma
↧
If The Supreme Court Kills Obamacare It Will Be The Work Of A Real Death Panel
↧
Obama Should Issue An Executive Order On Immigration Now
Sign it.
***
↧
"Perils Of Perception" Study Reveals How Terribly Wrong Public Opinion Is
Australia: You have no idea about your own country NOVEMBER 01, 2014
![A new report shows that Australians have a warped perception of their own country.]()
A new report shows that Australians have a warped perception of their own country. Source: News LimitedAUSTRALIA, you may like to think you know this wide brown land of ours well, but it turns out we have some pretty significant blind spots.The Perils of Perception report by market research company Ipsos has revealed that there is a significant gap between the perception and the reality of who makes up the Australian population.“Aussies tend to be wrong when asked about the make-up of their population and the scale of key social issues such as immigration and unemployment,” the report states.Based on a survey of about 1000 Australians, Ipsos found that we tended to over-estimate the number of Muslims in the population and underestimate the number of Christians.![Australians tended to over-estimate the number of Muslim people in the country.]()
Australians tended to over-estimate the number of Muslim people in the country. Source: News LimitedThe average person guessed that there were 18 Muslims out of every 100 Australians, when in fact there are only two. Similarly we guessed that 45 per cent were Christian when the true percentage is 61.Only 6 per cent of adults are unemployed, but the average Aussie thinks it’s 23 per cent; and we think 35 in every 100 Australians are immigrants, when it is only 28.Of the respondents, about 33 per cent believed more than half of the population was made up of people born in a country other than Australia.“Respondents who thought immigration was more than double the actual figure said the main reason they over-estimated is because they believe immigrants enter the country without being counted,” the report states.More than half of Australians also incorrectly believe that the murder rate is rising.![There is a significant gap between the perception and the reality of who makes up the Aus]()
There is a significant gap between the perception and the reality of who makes up the Australian population. Source:SuppliedThe study covered 13 other countries with high internet penetration — Belgium, Canada, France, Great Britain, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Poland, South Korea, Spain, Sweden and the US — surveying a total of 11,527 adults.On the report’s Index of Ignorance, we finished 9th out of the 14 countries. Italy was on top with its people giving the least accurate responses, followed by the US and South Korea.Australia was equal fourth with Great Britain in exaggerating the number of Muslims in the country, behind France, Belgium and Canada.![Picture: NASA]()
Picture: NASA Source: Getty Images***
A new report shows that Australians have a warped perception of their own country. Source: News Limited
AUSTRALIA, you may like to think you know this wide brown land of ours well, but it turns out we have some pretty significant blind spots.
The Perils of Perception report by market research company Ipsos has revealed that there is a significant gap between the perception and the reality of who makes up the Australian population.
“Aussies tend to be wrong when asked about the make-up of their population and the scale of key social issues such as immigration and unemployment,” the report states.
Based on a survey of about 1000 Australians, Ipsos found that we tended to over-estimate the number of Muslims in the population and underestimate the number of Christians.
Australians tended to over-estimate the number of Muslim people in the country. Source: News Limited
The average person guessed that there were 18 Muslims out of every 100 Australians, when in fact there are only two. Similarly we guessed that 45 per cent were Christian when the true percentage is 61.
Only 6 per cent of adults are unemployed, but the average Aussie thinks it’s 23 per cent; and we think 35 in every 100 Australians are immigrants, when it is only 28.
Of the respondents, about 33 per cent believed more than half of the population was made up of people born in a country other than Australia.
“Respondents who thought immigration was more than double the actual figure said the main reason they over-estimated is because they believe immigrants enter the country without being counted,” the report states.
More than half of Australians also incorrectly believe that the murder rate is rising.
There is a significant gap between the perception and the reality of who makes up the Australian population. Source:Supplied
The study covered 13 other countries with high internet penetration — Belgium, Canada, France, Great Britain, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Poland, South Korea, Spain, Sweden and the US — surveying a total of 11,527 adults.
On the report’s Index of Ignorance, we finished 9th out of the 14 countries. Italy was on top with its people giving the least accurate responses, followed by the US and South Korea.
Australia was equal fourth with Great Britain in exaggerating the number of Muslims in the country, behind France, Belgium and Canada.
Picture: NASA Source: Getty Images
***
Perils of Perception reveals how terribly wrong the public can be
FEATURES
- Author: Statistics Views
- Date: 20 Aug 2013
- Copyright: Image appears courtesy of iStock Photo
On 9th July, the Royal Statistical Society, Kings College London and Ipsos Mori hosted a debate which focussed on ‘tackling the divide between public views and the evidence’. The panel included RSS Executive Director Hetan Shah, BBC Home Affairs Editor Mark Easton, Office for Budget Responsibility chair Robert Chote, Jill Rutter of the Institute for Government, Professor Ken Young, programme director for Public Policy at King’s, and Bobby Duffy of Ipsos MORI.
The event was the second in a series organised by the three hosts, the first being Margins of Error on public understanding and trust in statistics, as part of the International Year of Statistics.
The research carried out by Ipsos Mori revealed fascinating new research that proved to be startling evidence of just how wrong the general public can be on statistics and how much statistics can be overestimated.
Bobby Duffy kicked off the event by revealing that we have a very odd view of our own population – Out of every 100 people in Britain, how many do you think are:
| Category | Actual | Mean Estimate |
|---|---|---|
| Christian | 59 | 34 |
| Aged 65+ | 16 | 36 |
| Black/Asian | 11 | 30 |
| Unemployed | 8 | 22 |
| Muslim | 5 | 24 |
| Single parent | 3 | 28 |
The overestimation in the number of Muslims is staggering with the general public believing that 1 in 4 of UK residents are Muslim, and this is also the case for single parent families. What also is extraordinary is the public’s view of teenage girls. The public were asked ‘In your opinion, which proportion of girls under the age of 16 years in Britain get pregnant each year?’ The under was emphasised. Choice of answers ranged from 1% or less to 40%. 31% were honest and admitted that they did not know, 24% answered between 2-5%, whereas a surprising 7% said 40% or more. In an average class of 30 girls, this would mean 12 of them getting pregnant each year. Overall, this gave a mean score of 15% when the actual answer is 0.6%.
Duffy also touched on immigration, with the question being asked ‘In your opinion, is the number of people coming to live in the UK from other countries too high, too low or about right?' 76% said too high and Duffy explained how these statistics are based on legitimate concerns and Ipsos Mori is conducting a full review of people’s attitudes towards immigration that will be available later this summer. But there is a huge overestimation of scale. When asked 'what percentage of the UK population you think are immigrants to this country?', the mean reply was 31% whereas the reality is 13%. Intrigued by this response, Ipsos Mori posted a follow-up to respondents, explaining that during the last census of 2011, the percentage was actually 13% and what factors had contributed to their answer. The reply was that 59% did not believe the census – choosing the answer that people come into the country illegally and are just not counted. Their answer was also influenced by what they saw in their local area. 23% admitted they were just guessing.
The overestimation in the number of Muslims is staggering with the general public believing that 1 in 4 of UK residents are Muslim...The public were asked ‘In your opinion, which proportion of girls under the age of 16 years in Britain get pregnant each year?'...a surprising 7% said 40% or more. In an average class of 30 girls, this would mean 12 of them getting pregnant each year. Overall, this gave a mean score of 15% when the actual answer is 0.6%.
The public was asked if violent crime is rising with 51% believing it is when it is not. However, this is a step forward from 2005 when 83% believed violent crime was rising. They were also asked how the government spends their yearly budget. 45% believed the government spends most on interest payments on the national debt when in fact, the government spends most of their yearly budget on healthcare, working age benefits, state pensions, education and schools first before interest payments. Fifteen times more than is estimated is spent on pensions than jobseekers allowance. When asked ‘Out of every £100 spent on welfare budget, can you tell me how much of that is claimed fraudulently?’the mean answer was £24 when the actual answer is 70p.
Robert Chote added in his talk that we should be wary that people can try to shape perceptions by choosing from alternative accurate presentations and also to be wary of level versus change, units of measurement and stock versus flows. People’s perception of where they stand in income and distribution of earnings is also misjudged with most people thinking they earn an average income. He recalled conversations when at the Institute for Fiscal Studies from BBC researchers asking about the average household, and he would reply that the couple would probably earn about £14,000 each and there would a long pause on the line, when the researcher would reply, they were thinking of a couple jointly earning £60,000, one child in private education, etc.
Mark Easton from the BBC began with a perception quiz of his own – ‘What proportion of England is built on?’ and the audience raised their hands as to their answers. The results varied with most putting up their hands for 20%. The actual answer is 2.27%. How have we got this so wrong? This information came from the biggest mapping work ever to occur in the UK – the UK National Ecosystem Assessment who thought about everything from footpaths, tarmacked gardens, etc. We spend most of our time in towns and cities, stuck in traffic jams, and we see a built-on Britain. Yet when we board a plane and look upon England below after take-off, we see mainly fields, rivers, hills with the odd town dotted here and there and yet we forget.
“By definition, the mass media is for the mass, it wants to appeal to the biggest audience, to reflect their experience of the world and to reinforce their views because challenging people’s prejudices and their perceptions dosen’t sell newspapers or magazines, and does not win over your audience on television or radio either”.
- Mark Easton, BBC Home Affairs Editor
Easton argued that we have to understand the way the media works. “By definition, the mass media is for the mass, it wants to appeal to the biggest audience, to reflect their experience of the world and to reinforce their views because challenging people’s prejudices and their perceptions dosen’t sell newspapers or magazines, and does not win over your audience on television or radio either”. Most editors will admit that they shape stories and slot them into the preconceptions of their audience. This is why a BBC researcher rang up Robert Chote and asked about a family earning £60,000 because that is the world according to the BBC researcher. “The fact is that all our sources of information offer only partial understanding. Perception is in a way the reality until something or someone comes along to change it.”
Jill Rutter argued for more comprehensible graphs, especially those where the 0 was clearly visible so the starting point is clear! We need to be clearer with people and engage with the public, but then take people behind the statistics and personalise the stories to tackle their perception and therefore change their attitude, rather than presume the public are locked into certain attitudes.
Governments can try to establish a trusted message, “OK, you don’t believe us but here are some UK citizens and you can judge.” The coalition’s first real policy act was to put together the Office for Budget Responsibility to give credibility to an area where the Treasury was non-credible – namely forecasting. Professor Young referred to a national problem – taking decision- making closer to the people who know the reality of the situation rather than randomly asking on a national level. "The nearer you make decisions to people, who have real-life experiences of these situations, rather than basing them on fractional multiples, the closer you are to a better solution. The counter to this is the 'postcode lottery'."
Rutter asked when and does any of this matter? The BBC series Pointless reveals some lack of knowledge with a recent question on Radio 4 programmes, “Which programme has been presented by John Humphreys since 1987?” – None of the couples knew the answer. Six out of 100 knew it was the Today programme. 100 people working in Whitehall would know the answer. There is an assumption as to how much people are interested in facts and what actually matters to people. Election time matters to people. "If we want good debates and elect people on the right basis, we need to ask that we see independent assessments of the policies that they want to push forward."
The day after the event, the research sparked much interest in the media which the RSS News reported on here. Bobby Duffy and Hetan Shah contributed blog posts to the New Statesman and The Huffington Post. It also sparked debate on Twitter and newspapers covered it from The Guardian to even the Daily Express advising their readers that immigration statistics are actually much lower than what the public believe!
So why do these gaps exist in the general public? Misrepresentation in the media is one. Statistical literacy would be another when faced with large or small numbers, how we are socially affected by these numbers in our psychology which would lead to emotional innumeracy, where we pick numbers that reflect our concerns, rather than looking at what the facts are. Duffy also suggested imprecision of questions from Ipsos Mori. We do tend to overestimate things that we are worried about and as Duffy said, in our own way, we are like Einstein, “if the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts.” The getstats campaign needless to say will continue to pursue their goal of statistical literacy in this country.
(To watch video footage of the event, please see the Youtube video below)
↧
↧
Diane Rehm Interviews "For Love Of Country" Authors. Brilliant Probe Of U.S. Veterans
The story of Bill Krissoff and his son Nate are featured in "For Love Of Country."
Tuesday, Nov 11 2014
Howard Schultz and Rajiv Chandrasekaran: “For Love Of Country”
Only 5 percent of Americans have a direct tie to our military. This disconnect often leads to misperceptions about veterans. How to bridge the civilian-military divide, and valuing the contributions of veterans beyond the battlefield.
↧
Diane Rehm Interviews Author: "The Stranger: Barack Obama In The White House"
In this Sept. 6, 2014 image released by NBC, Chuck Todd, left, speaks with President Barack Obama prior to an interview for "Meet the Press" at the White House in Washington.
Tuesday, Nov 11 2014
Chuck Todd: “The Stranger: Barack Obama In The White House”
Diane talks with Chuck Todd, moderator of NBC's "Meet The Press." He's written a new book about President Barack Obama behind the media spotlight and why he believes understanding the "real" Obama holds the key to understanding his presidency and legacy.
↧
Like The Interstate Highway System, The Internet Should Be A Free Gov't Service
Ezra Klein: No, there's no Obamacare for the Internet, but there could be a public option! The Internet, just like the highway system, should be a government service provided universally, free of charge. Otherwise, natural monopolies, high fees and underinvestment are more or less inevitable. Vox.
↧
Why High School Is A Provable Form Of Child Abuse
"Sleep Deprivation"
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_deprivation***
"Sleep Is Key To College Students' Success"
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2012/09/sleep-key-to-college-students-success.html
***
Why high schools should let kids sleep in
Years of research have suggested that early-morning starts at high schools keep kids from learning and staying health. Now there's even stronger evidence that first period will always be a drag on high school students.
In a new study, researchers followed several dozen children ages 9-19 over two and a half years, periodically monitoring their sleeping habits. They gave the subjects an actigraph, a kind of motion sensor worn on the wrist that records whether a person is up and moving about or in bed and likely asleep. They also brought the kids into the laboratory for an evening, swabbing their saliva with cotton every half hour for a few hours before their bedtime to test for a chemical that indicates the body is ready to rest.
Although the risks for young people who don't get enough sleep have been thoroughly studied, the new study is among the more detailed yet published on when adolescents go to sleep, when they ought to go to sleep, when they wake up, and how their sleep habits change over time.
They found that as children get older, their internal biological clocks, or circadian rhythms, shift a couple of hours later in the day. They also become able to stay awake later past when that clock begins to prepare the body for sleep. As adolescents' bodies are changing, they have more and more reasons to stay up, from conversations with friends online to homework to part-time jobs. Whatever the reason, they're awake later and later into the night.
Meanwhile, they're getting up earlier, as middle schools and high schools tend to start early in the day than elementary schools. Once the subjects of the study graduated from high school, they started waking up about two hours later, which the researchers took as an indication that high school had been suppressing the students' natural tendency to sleep in.
The American Academy of Pediatrics issued a detailed statement in August arguing that a typical adolescent should be expected to sleep from about 11 p.m. to about 8 a.m., and calling for secondary schools to start no sooner than 8:30 a.m. Summarizing the research on sleep among the young, the academy noted that where schools have delayed start times, the number of car crashes involving adolescents decreased sharply. Other work points to a small but significant effect on academic performance, and researchers also believe that lack of sleep can lead to obesity and depression in some young people.
Studies of students at schools that have moved their schedules later suggest that students don't take advantage of the change to go to bed later. They continue turning in around the same time and get more sleep as a result.
Rush University's Stephanie Crowley, one of the authors of the new paper, said that many adolescents would benefit from an earlier, set bedtime, but that in their study, there were some kids who just wouldn't have been able to drift off any earlier, whose circadian clocks were running a few hours slow. "The early school start time is especially burdensome for them," she said. "They do have this biological propensity to fall asleep later."
Moving school start times later is a complicated undertaking for administrators. Buses have to be coordinated, football schedules have to be arranged and someone has to look after younger siblings if the older ones are still at school late in the afternoon.
These logistical problems, though, might be easier to deal with than the cultural and biological reasons that young people stay awake too late at night. One study by the Brookings Institution estimated that the benefits of later start times in dollar terms outweighed the costs by a ratio of nine to one.
"It's definitely not an easy task, but I think if people really wanted to do this, it's possible," Crowley said.
Max Ehrenfreund is a blogger on the Financial desk and writes for Know More and Wonkblog.
↧
↧
The Party Of Personal Responsibility Is The Party Of Personal Irresponsibility
Here's lookin' at you kid!
***
***
"NYT: Critics of Welfare State Rely on Welfare"
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2012/09/nyt-critics-of-welfare-state-rely-on.html***
"How Losing Weight Could Help Save Us Billions"
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2012/09/how-losing-weight-could-help-save-us.html
***
"Red State Moocher Links"
http://paxonbothhouses.
***
Don't miss this 2004 critique of The Bible Belt.
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2012/09/how-losing-weight-could-help-save-us.html
***
"Red State Moocher Links"
http://paxonbothhouses.
***
Don't miss this 2004 critique of The Bible Belt.
"Fuck the South"
http://fuckthesouth.com/
***
Historians will record that Red Staters really did cling to their guns and bad religion.
***
"Personal Irresponsibility In Red States: Healthcare Implications"
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2012/05/personal-irresponsibility-in-red-states.html
***
Historians will record that Red Staters really did cling to their guns and bad religion.
"Any Religion That Needs Fear To Thrive Is Bad Religion"
"Bad Religion: A Compendium"
***
"Personal Irresponsibility In Red States: Healthcare Implications"
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2012/05/personal-irresponsibility-in-red-states.html
↧
Why Bernie Sanders's Candidacy Would Be Good For Democrats And For Hillary
Why a Bernie Sanders presidential candidacy is good for Democrats — and for Hillary Clinton
Ever since people started thinking about the 2016 presidential primaries, the assumption has been that the Republican side will feature a fascinating and bloody donnybrook with no initial frontrunner and as many as a dozen potentially realistic candidacies, while the Democratic contest will be no contest at all, but rather a coronation for Hillary Clinton.
But might we finally have a real clash of ideas on the Democratic side? Yes, we might:
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has spent months fishing for a strategist to guide his potential 2016 presidential campaign. On Monday, he hooked a big one: Tad Devine, one of the Democratic Party’s leading consultants and a former high-level campaign aide to Al Gore, John Kerry, and Michael Dukakis.“If he runs, I’m going to help him,” Devine said in an interview. “He is not only a longtime client but a friend. I believe he could deliver an enormously powerful message that the country is waiting to hear right now and do it in a way that succeeds.”Devine and Sanders, who first worked together on Sanders’s campaigns in the 1990s, have been huddling in recent weeks, mapping out how the brusque progressive senator could navigate a primary and present a formidable challenge to Hillary Rodham Clinton, the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination.
The height of Devine’s influence may be in the recent past, but he still brings establishment credibility that could lead people in the media to give Sanders more attention. His involvement is also a sign that Sanders isn’t just thinking he’ll get a van and drive around New Hampshire, but instead that he’d mount a serious campaign, no matter how formidable the obstacles to victory. That could mean a genuinely interesting debate about the problems America confronts and how the Democratic party should address them.
Sanders says he’ll center his campaign on economic inequality and the struggles of the middle class, and this is what Clinton needs to address as well. That may be the most important message for Democrats of the 2014 election, not to mention Barack Obama’s continuing low approval ratings:Democrats need to figure out how to address persistent economic insecurity, stagnating wages, and the failure of the recovery’s gains to achieve widespread distribution.
If you look at most economic measures, the Obama administration seems spectacularly successful. Since the economy stopped hemorrhaging jobs at the end of 2009, it has added 10 million. We’ve now had nine straight months with over 200,000 jobs created, which hadn’t happened since the mid-1990′s. Unemployment is below 6 percent, GDP growth is steady, and the federal deficit is less than half what it was when Obama took office. Yet his approval on the economy is an anemic 40 percent.
The reasons why are many and complicated (the most important is that wages are not increasing), but one problem Democrats face is that they don’t have a coherent story to tell on the economy that explains what they’ve done right, connects with people’s current displeasure, and shows a way forward. If by focusing on the economy Sanders forces Clinton to articulate that story and support it with a specific agenda that she could implement if she wins, he will have done her a great service.
Of course, he’d say he isn’t running to do Hillary Clinton any favors. But the reality is that he would. By critiquing her from the left, he could pull her in his direction in order to satisfy primary voters, which on many issues would wind up being to her advantage. At the same time, the broader message their debates would communicate to the general electorate is that she’s a moderate. When Republicans try to argue that she’s some wild-eyed Alinskyite radical bent on turning America socialist (just as they did with Obama), she can say, “I ran against an actual socialist in the primaries, and it’s pretty obvious we aren’t the same person.”
A strong Sanders candidacy will do something else: make liberal Democrats feel that their opinions and their concerns are getting a fair hearing in the 2016 process. Sanders is an eloquent and unapologetic voice for liberalism. His presence as a real contender on the campaign trail would assure liberals that their party can still be a vehicle for their ideology, even if the candidate who triumphs is the more centrist establishment figure. And that’s something they could use right now.
↧
Satyagraha: Gandhi's "Truth Force"
Satyagraha
From Wikipedia
For the opera, see Satyagraha (opera). For the 2013 Hindi film, see Satyagraha (film).
Satyagraha (/ˌsætɪəˈɡrɑːhɑː/; Sanskrit: सत्याग्रह satyāgraha), loosely translated as "insistence on truth" (satya "truth"; agraha "insistence") or holding onto truth[1] or truth force, is a particular philosophy and practice within the broader overall category generally known as nonviolent resistance or civil resistance. The term satyagraha was coined and developed by Mahatma Gandhi.[2] He deployed satyagraha in the Indian independence movement and also during his earlier struggles in South Africa for Indian rights. Satyagraha theory influenced Nelson Mandela's struggle in South Africa under apartheid, Martin Luther King, Jr.'s andJames Bevel's campaigns during the civil rights movement in the United States, and many other social justice and similar movements.[3][4] Someone who practices satyagraha is a satyagrahi.
Contents
[hide]Origin and meaning of name
The term originated in a competition in the news-sheet Indian Opinion in South Africa in 1906.[2] It was an adaptation by Gandhi of one of the entries in that competition. "Satyagraha" is a Tatpuruṣa compound of the Sanskrit words satya (meaning "truth") and Agraha ("polite insistence", or "holding firmly to"). Satya is derived from the word “sat”, which means “being”. Nothing is or exists in reality except Truth. In the context of satyagraha, Truth therefore includes a) Truth in speech, as opposed to falsehood, b) what is real, as opposed to nonexistent (asat) and c) good as opposed to evil, or bad. This was critical to Gandhi’s understanding of and faith in nonviolence:”The world rests upon the bedrock of satya or truth. Asatya, meaning untruth, also means nonexistent, and satya or truth also means that which is. If untruth does not so much as exist, its victory is out of the question. And truth being that which is, can never be destroyed. This is the doctrine of satyagraha in a nutshell.” [5] For Gandhi, satyagraha went far beyond mere "passive resistance" and became strength in practising non-violent methods.[6] In his words:
In September 1935, a letter to P.K. Rao, Servants of India Society, Gandhi disputed the proposition that his idea of Civil Disobedience was adapted from the writings of Thoreau.
Gandhi described it as follows:
Contrast to "passive resistance"
Gandhi distinguished between satyagraha and passive resistance in the following letter:
Ahimsa and satyagraha
It is important to note the intrinsic connection between ahimsa and satyagraha. Satyragraha is sometimes used to refer to the whole principle of nonviolence, where it is essentially the same as ahimsa, and sometimes used in a “marked” meaning to refer specifically to direct action that is largely obstructive, for example in the form of civil disobedience.
Gandhi says:
Defining success
Assessing the extent to which Gandhi's ideas of satyagraha were or were not successful in the Indian independence struggle is a complex task. Judith Brown has suggested that "this is a political strategy and technique which, for its outcomes, depends of historical specificities."[12] The view taken by Gandhi differs from the idea that the goal in any conflict is necessarily to defeat the opponent or frustrate the opponent’s objectives, or to meet one’s own objectives despite the efforts of the opponent to obstruct these. In satyagraha, by contrast, “The Satyagrahi’s object is to convert, not to coerce, the wrong-doer.”[13] The opponent must be converted, at least as far as to stop obstructing the just end, for this cooperation to take place. There are cases, to be sure, when an opponent, e.g. a dictator, has to be unseated and one cannot wait to convert him. The satyagrahi would count this a partial success. For more on the meaning of “success” in nonviolence see “work vs. “work”.
Means and ends
The theory of satyagraha sees means and ends as inseparable. The means used to obtain an end are wrapped up in and attached to that end. Therefore, it is contradictory to try to use unjust means to obtain justice or to try to use violence to obtain peace. As Gandhi wrote: “They say, 'means are, after all, means'. I would say, 'means are, after all, everything'. As the means so the end...”[14]
Gandhi used an example to explain this:
Gandhi rejected the idea that injustice should, or even could, be fought against “by any means necessary” – if you use violent, coercive, unjust means, whatever ends you produce will necessarily embed that injustice. To those who preached violence and called nonviolent actionists cowards, he replied: “I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence....I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonour....But I believe that nonviolence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment.”[16]
Satyagraha versus Duragraha
The essence of Satyagraha is that it seeks to eliminate antagonisms without harming the antagonists themselves, as opposed to violent resistance, which is meant to cause harm to the antagonist. A Satyagrahi therefore does not seek to end or destroy the relationship with the antagonist, but instead seeks to transform or “purify” it to a higher level. A euphemism sometimes used for Satyagraha is that it is a “silent force” or a “soul force” (a term also used by Martin Luther King Jr. during his famous “I Have a Dream” speech). It arms the individual with moral power rather than physical power. Satyagraha is also termed a “universal force,” as it essentially “makes no distinction between kinsmen and strangers, young and old, man and woman, friend and foe.”[17]
Gandhi contrasted satyagraha (holding on to truth) with “duragraha” (holding on by force), as in protest meant more to harass than enlighten opponents. He wrote: “There must be no impatience, no barbarity, no insolence, no undue pressure. If we want to cultivate a true spirit of democracy, we cannot afford to be intolerant. Intolerance betrays want of faith in one's cause.”[18]
Civil disobedience and non-cooperation as practised under Satyagraha are based on the “law of suffering”,[19] a doctrine that the endurance of suffering is a means to an end. This end usually implies a moral upliftment or progress of an individual or society. Therefore, non-cooperation in Satyagraha is in fact a means to secure the cooperation of the opponent consistently with truth and justice.
Satyagraha in large-scale conflict[
Main articles: Bardoli Satyagraha, Champaran and Kheda Satyagraha, Dharasana Satyagraha, Flag Satyagraha, Guruvayur Satyagraha, Non-cooperation movement, Quit India Movement, Salt Satyagraha andVaikom Satyagraha
When using satyagraha in a large-scale political conflict involving civil disobedience, Gandhi believed that the satyagrahis must undergo training to ensure discipline. He wrote that it is “only when people have proved their active loyalty by obeying the many laws of the State that they acquire the right of Civil Disobedience.”[20]
He therefore made part of the discipline that satyagrahis:
- appreciate the other laws of the State and obey them voluntarily
- tolerate these laws, even when they are inconvenient
- be willing to undergo suffering, loss of property, and to endure the suffering that might be inflicted on family and friends[20]
This obedience has to be not merely grudging, but extraordinary:
Principles for satyagrahis
Gandhi envisioned satyagraha as not only a tactic to be used in acute political struggle, but as a universal solvent for injustice and harm. He felt that it was equally applicable to large-scale political struggle and to one-on-one interpersonal conflicts and that it should be taught to everyone.[22]
He founded the Sabarmati Ashram to teach satyagraha. He asked satyagrahis to follow the following principles (Yamas described in Yoga Sutra):[23]
- Nonviolence (ahimsa)
- Truth – this includes honesty, but goes beyond it to mean living fully in accord with and in devotion to that which is true
- Non-stealing
- Chastity (brahmacharya) – this includes sexual chastity, but also the subordination of other sensual desires to the primary devotion to truth
- Non-possession (not the same as poverty)
- Body-labor or bread-labor
- Control of the palate
- Fearlessness
- Equal respect for all religions
- Economic strategy such as boycotts (swadeshi)
- Freedom from untouchability
On another occasion, he listed seven rules as “essential for every Satyagrahi in India”:[24]
- must have a living faith in God
- must believe in truth and non-violence and have faith in the inherent goodness of human nature which he expects to evoke by suffering in the satyagraha effort
- must be leading a chaste life, and be willing to die or lose all his possessions
- must be a habitual khadi wearer and spinner
- must abstain from alcohol and other intoxicants
- must willingly carry out all the rules of discipline that are issued
- must obey the jail rules unless they are specially devised to hurt his self-respect
Rules for satyagraha campaigns
Gandhi proposed a series of rules for satyagrahis to follow in a resistance campaign:[17]
- harbour no anger
- suffer the anger of the opponent
- never retaliate to assaults or punishment; but do not submit, out of fear of punishment or assault, to an order given in anger
- voluntarily submit to arrest or confiscation of your own property
- if you are a trustee of property, defend that property (non-violently) from confiscation with your life
- do not curse or swear
- do not insult the opponent
- neither salute nor insult the flag of your opponent or your opponent’s leaders
- if anyone attempts to insult or assault your opponent, defend your opponent (non-violently) with your life
- as a prisoner, behave courteously and obey prison regulations (except any that are contrary to self-respect)
- as a prisoner, do not ask for special favourable treatment
- as a prisoner, do not fast in an attempt to gain conveniences whose deprivation does not involve any injury to your self-respect
- joyfully obey the orders of the leaders of the civil disobedience action
- do not pick and choose amongst the orders you obey; if you find the action as a whole improper or immoral, sever your connection with the action entirely
- do not make your participation conditional on your comrades taking care of your dependents while you are engaging in the campaign or are in prison; do not expect them to provide such support
- do not become a cause of communal quarrels
- do not take sides in such quarrels, but assist only that party which is demonstrably in the right; in the case of inter-religious conflict, give your life to protect (non-violently) those in danger on either side
- avoid occasions that may give rise to communal quarrels
- do not take part in processions that would wound the religious sensibilities of any community
Satyagraha and the civil rights movement in the United States
Satyagraha theory also influenced many other movements of civil resistance. For example, Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote in his autobiography about Gandhi's influence on his developing ideas regarding the civil rights movement in the United States:
Satyagraha and the Jewish Holocaust
In view of the Nazi persecution of the Jews in Germany, Gandhi offered satyagraha as a method of combating oppression and genocide, stating:
When Gandhi was criticized for these statements, he responded in another article entitled “Some Questions Answered”:
In a similar vein, anticipating a possible attack on India by Japan during World War II, Gandhi recommended satyagraha as a means of national defense (what is now sometimes called "Civilian Based Defense (CBD) or "social defence"):
See also
- Nonviolence
- Gandhi Heritage Portal
- People Power Revolution
- Resistance movements
- Salt Satyagraha
- Constructive Program
- Gandhi as a Political Strategist
↧