The blog World of Psychology published an excellent post by Margarita Tartakovsky that examined an atrocious "editor's letter" that recently appeared in the chick mag Women's Health. The letter, by editor-in-chief Michele Promaulayko, was an abysmal failure in women's ongoing search for dignity in a world that demeans us at every turn. You can go over to World of Psychology to read the heinous text, then the five insightful criticisms of it made by Ms. Tartakovsky.

I cannot contain within myself a sixth criticism that was no doubt omitted only due to lack of space (really, a lot more than just five criticisms could have been made, but that would have required a whole series of blog posts). Ms. Promaulayko boasts, "We came up with a plan to help you look great naked—or in a barely there swimsuit."

Why exactly, Ms. Promaulayko, should women be so eager to parade around naked—or nearly so—in public? You did not say "nude," which implies a certain dignity in the natural human form—you said "naked," which is a much more sordidly suggestive word. Why should we do this? Because modern women should have no self-respect whatsoever? Because we should have no sense of modesty, nor view our bodies as temples? Is it because you feel it's important to women's health to manipulate and frustrate men (not to mention, the Catholic in me must add, tempt them to sin), or to to play petty games of intimidation with other women? Really, Ms. Promaulayko.

And no, the answer is not "it's encoded in our DNA."

When I was young, our priest had a sermon he recycled every year. The key point of that sermon was that we should be attentive when we pray. After all, if one programmed a robot to recite prayers, it would be meaningless.

Seems pretty straightforward to me. God is not some machine who can be fooled by machine repetitions. He's a person who listens to our personal messages.

It is not, apparently, straightforward to everyone. According to Marketplace, a show broadcast on National Public Radio, there's a website (not named) that will pray for you for the low, low price of $4.95 a month. For that sum, the text of your prayer (all denominations and faiths welcome) will be run through a voice synthesizer three times per day.

Yeah. God will really be moved by that.

Once, babies were considered gifts from God. Then we invented in vitro fertilization and took God out of the equation.

Now that babies are commodities, it stands to reason that we should be able to custom-order them. And finally, we can, thanks to Fertility Institutes of Los Angeles, California.

This clinic allows prospective parents to choose cosmetic traits in their offspring, such as hair color and eye color. Before today, baby trends included stroller brands and popular first names. Now baby trends can include baby blues!

Can we go any further on the path to making human life a commodity rather than a sacred gift? I'm asking seriously, not rhetorically. Leave an answer in the comments.

I've gotten less political here as the U.S. presidential election draws near. But I just have to comment on this bone-headed study, described in a Houston Chronicle story with the asinine title "Liberal versus conservative: DNA may tell."

What are the problems with the study? First, the research methods are flawed, because the concepts of "liberal" and "conservative" are very subjective and specific to modern United States culture. And second, the conclusion reached by the researcher being interviewed is far more than what is supported by the data.

The researchers started by having their sample fill out questionnaires on social policies such as "support for the war in Iraq, support for or opposition to immigration, opposition to gun control, [and] support for the death penalty." Each of these is a complex issue with nuanced arguments, about which many people have complex opinions, but since they were part of a questionnaire, it is likely that ratings were obtained simply on a polarized scale. My own opinion on the death penalty, for instance, cannot be classified into simple support or oppose; it would take me at least a couple of paragraphs to explain it.

The issues were categorized into "socially protective" and non-"socially protective" policies, about which the interviewee says "certainly there's a left-right orientation." Being themselves mired in American political culture (the study took place at Houston's Rice University), the researchers apparently cannot even see their own bias in labeling the various policies as "left" or "right." To them, "socially protective" policies are right-wing, not left-wing — even though in some cases, policies considered liberal could be seen as more "socially protective" than the corresponding conservative policies.

For example, the researchers considered opposition to gun control, classically a conservative position, as a "socially protective" policy, which fits their data (which I will get to below). Yet arguments in favor of gun control, classically liberal, always have a socially protective pitch; if not to protect innocent people from being killed by guns, why restrict them?

The biases of the researchers make the data worthless for the purpose the researchers are seeking — determining whether one's place on the political spectrum has at least a partial biological basis. Yet even if the data were good, the conclusion announced by the interviewee is on another planet from what those data actually show.

What the data show is that people who favor "socially protective" policies (the ones pre-defined as "conservative") have stronger physiological responses to anxiety-provoking situations (disturbing images and startling sounds) than those who do not favor those policies. Physiological response to stress is strongly tied to psychological factors whose biological basis is unclear at best. But the interviewee cites some concrete numbers, apparently pulled out of thin air: "Probably two-thirds of the explanation is outside of biology," with the rest based on specifically on DNA. Keep in mind that this study did not look at genetic factors at all. There is absolutely no support for saying that correlation between biology and politics, if it exists at all, is based on DNA rather than on environmental effects on one's biology. In other words, there is no investigation into whether the results come from nature or from nurture. (In fairness, this conclusion is not presented in the abstract of the study itself.)

This study was published in the prestigious journal Science, yet almost all of the researchers hail from the field of political science. Only two of the eight authors have any background in psychology, and only one of those is clearly identified with biological psychology. As with some other journal articles, how this nonscientific rubbish passed peer review is a mystery.

The science world is all abuzz about the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in Europe. Located under the Switzerland-France border, it is the largest and, more importantly, the highest-energy particle accelerator in the world, with an energy of 7 tera-electron volts (TeV).

Take my word for it that that is a very high energy. Here is an easier number to understand: At full energy, the LHC will use $100,000 worth of electricity per day.

Americans could have outdone the LHC, with the planned Superconducting Super Collider, once planned to be built south of Dallas, Texas. It was to have an energy of 20 TeV. But Congress cancelled the SSC's funding in 1993.

Today the LHC lit up with its first beam. No particle collisions have been conducted, although once they start, particle physicists hope they will be able to fill in the gaps in the Standard Model of particle physics. The media hyperbolically calls this "the search for the God particle," i.e. a particle called the Higgs boson.

Some bosons, er, bozos have cried loudly that the LHC will create a microscopic black hole that will not immediately disappear, but that will consume the entire earth. To keep apprised of this developing crisis, I recommend this blog, Has the Large Hadron Collider Destroyed The Earth Yet?

When I was at university, I worked under the assumption that scientists (some of whom I knew personally, as my professors) were in the business of uncovering the truth of the natural world. Not so, according to the Internet! As a matter of fact, scientists are in the business of hiding the truth, say a staggering number of conspiracy theories.

I just want to know why I wasn't let in on any of these conspiracies. After all, as a student of science, I should have been told what discoveries I had to suppress! Maybe they were saving that for graduate school.

Top 5 conspiracies of science (as found on the Internet):

5. AIDS is not caused by a virus

People die of so-called AIDS because of the toxic effects of AIDS medications. HIV, the virus allegedly responsible for AIDS, is harmless. How do we know? Because there are no "scientific documents" that show HIV causes AIDS. And because a "growing" collection of "bio-medical scientists" says so!

Why the conspiracy? It must have something to do with money, since the website that exposes the conspiracy spells it "AID$".

4. The earth is growing

The earth is growing. Subduction — the meeting of two tectonic plates in which one slides under the other — is impossible according to Science. Yet we have evidence that the opposite of subduction — spreading — does occur. Since the plates undergo spreading but not subduction, the earth is getting bigger and bigger. Q.E.D.

Why the conspiracy? Because this discovery would upset an entire hundred years of science! Just like those other secret discoveries, the photoelectric effect and natural selection! Oh, wait... those weren't kept secret. Wonder why this one was?

3. There are 12 planets in the solar system

Astrologers have known for years that there are really 12 planets revolving around the sun. In 2006, the existence of three new planets was declared by one "Professor H. Cohen," according to T. Stokes, paranormalist. No word what it means to astrology now that Pluto has been redefined as a non-planet. Actually, there is no word about the three new planets, or even about where Prof. Cohen professes, from anyone but T. Stokes.

Why the conspiracy? This one is based on the ignorance of scientists, who could not be bothered to learn about astrology. Out of sad ignorance, they declared it bunk, so they missed out on the astrologers' knowledge.

2. Vaccines contain toxins that are injected right into your bloodstream

The DTaP vaccine, which confers immunity against diptheria, tetanus, and pertussis, contains toxins. Toxins! In fact, it contains toxins from dangerous diseases, including pertussis, tetanus and diptheria!

Why the conspiracy? Toxins! Toxins!

1. The Lucifer Project: Starchild!

Are you prepared.... ....for lots of bad.... PUNCTUATION???? And a video that acknoleges it's speling errors without apollogy? And as one of history's stupid sheeple, are you nevertheless concerned about the next thing on the agenda of the Illuminati after 9/11? 'Cause they are planning to illuminate Saturn by turning it into a second sun!

Why the conspiracy? The Illuminati are going to use the new star to evolve themselves above us "sheeple." How? Well, somehow, of course!

In an old post, I tallied the assorted protests of Pope Benedict XVI's visit to the United States. Expanding on that precedent, I present the 2008 Leave the lights on Awards for World Youth Day Protesters.

The Irony Award

For confusing one's own characteristics with those of the object of one's protest.
Winner: The Green Left for calling Benedict XVI "the reactionary pontiff."

The Most Outrageous Lie Award

For getting it so, so wrong.
Winner: Alex Bainbridge of the Socialist Alliance, who declared that the Church is waging a "war against sex"
Runner-Up: This guy, whose T-shirt reads, "I won't f---- with your gods, you don't f---- with my science"

The Most Childish Complaint Award

For the protest with the tone most akin to a child whining, "He got more pudding than I did!"
Winner: The Australian Greens, a political party, which was upset that the government of New South Wales spent so much on extra police, made road closures, and so forth — all for an event "just for Catholics"

The Most Legitimate Protest Award

For having a good point, even though the thing requested is logistically unrealistic.
Winner: Various victims' advocates who felt the Pope's public apology to sex abuse victims should have been made in personal audiences

I admit I was fascinated when I first heard about the Law of Attraction. Mainly, I was fascinated that so many people were so attracted to an idea so intellectually unattractive. Among those who have been taken in are the likes of Oprah Winfrey.

So I peeked a little deeper into the world of New Age channelled beings. They are an intriguing bunch! Here are the top ten things I learned:

10. Abraham, channeled by Esther Hicks, is not a single spirit, but a whole group of them. They thus often go by the name Abraham-Hicks. (This confusing nomenclature does not mean that Abraham are a bunch of rednecks, as it might appear at first glance.)

9. Abraham teach, among other things, that "anything that you can imagine is yours to be or do or have." Abraham do not, however, teach you not to split infinitives. (They would probably prefer that I say "to not split infinitives.")

8. Channelled spirits do not teach spelling, either. Take poor Djwal Khul. Other versions of his name variously add and remove H's. His followers often just give up and call him DK.

7. The continent of Lemuria was a short-lived hypothesis of the 19th century. A better understanding of plate tectonics made it obvious to science that Lemuria never existed — but the channelled spirit Ramtha, who claims to hail from that land, never got the message. Perhaps Ramtha is actually from the real sunken continent Zealandia. They didn't have geography classes 35,000 years ago.

6. Ramtha teaches that we are all gods. In fact, he calls us "forgotten gods" because we have forgotten our divinity. Apparently Ramtha himself forgot this when he led 2.5 million warriors into battle against the Atlanteans.

5. In the New Age, spiritual beings may be warm fuzzy teachers (except Ramtha), but extraterrestrials are militaristic. Just consider Ashtar Galactic Command, led by the ET Ashtar Sheran.

4. Channelled beings care a lot about their copyrights. Abraham's channeller Esther Hicks has been removed from the "Law of Attraction" video The Secret due to "contract issues." Meanwhile, the Austrian Supreme Court recognizes that only Judy Zebra Knight is allowed to channel Ramtha.

3. Channelled beings have their own secret societies. The Illuminati of the New Age is called the Great White Brotherhood. Despite their provocative name, they do not seem to have any connection to David Duke or the National Alliance.

2. Though Christians generally view the New Age movement to be inimical to their faith, Jesus is very busy in the New Age. He is constantly being reincarnated (despite not being dead). He dictates texts like A Course in Miracles that are in utter contradiction of his earlier words found in the Bible. In the New Age, poor Jesus is a pretty confused guy, and I suspect he must be very tired.

1. Jesus is part of the Great White Brotherhood. Of course he is.

Universal gravitation is just a theory, but it is taught in schools as if it were a fact. The Naked Loon, which bills itself as "Puget Sound's Most Spectacular News Source" (marking it as less ambitious than America's Finest News Source, the Onion), has the story on the new scientific alternative to the Theory of Gravity: Intelligent Motion.

Should Intelligent Motion get equal time with theory of gravity in our science classrooms? Discuss.

It sounds like a concept from a physics textbook — or from a self-help book on dating. The term itself is attractive, and makes one wonder, What compelling idea does this stand for?

It develops that "The Law of Attraction" actually says that when you activate within you a vibration for something, that thing will be drawn to you, whether it is good or bad.

Yeah.

The Law of Attraction was revealed by a group of spirit entities collectively known as Abraham, speaking through the medium of one Esther Hicks. She and her husband Jerry have attracted to themselves beaucoup bucks through the vibration of canny marketing.

Though Abraham is a personal being (or, rather, collection of beings), the Law of Attraction is apparently an impersonal supernatural force. In Catholic belief, there is no such thing as an impersonal supernatural force; thus the "Law" that is "attracting" things to the Hicks and their followers must be coming from some supernatural person — and it clearly isn't God.

Under Abraham's teachings, there is no charity. The Hicks give, but only to people who seem to want it, never to those who need it. Speaking of a waitress who "attracted" an envelope full of cash from him, Jerry Hicks explains: "She yelled: 'Oh my God, you can't believe what you have done for me. I was going to lose my apartment.' We said: 'If you'd told us that, we wouldn't have given you the money....'"

This quotation is from an interview in the U.K. publication The Independent. It's a story that shows a bewildering degree of shallowness on the part of Hicks couple. For instance, under the Law of Attraction, one brings all bad things upon oneself through bad vibes. When the interviewer inquires whether this applies to the millions of lives taken in the Holocaust, Esther Hicks responds with a banal story about a chicken named Renegade.

The point of the chicken story seems to be that like Renegade, victims of murder and other tragedies bring their fate upon themselves. They only get what they ask for — or, in the words of Esther, "the person receiving prejudice is the one who has the vibration that is attracting it." For his part, Jerry wonders aloud, "So what did they [the Jews] do to bring that on themselves, do you suppose?"

Catholic Mom, who is also a physician, has a good perspective on the issue of universal access to health care. In a recent post, she wrote:

[T]here is no universal definition of health care. Everyone is shouting for universal health care but I haven’t heard anyone define what that means.…

I do believe that it is objectively possible but politically perilous to define what is basic health care.… I also know that if basic health care is accurately defined based on scientific evidence, there will be great wailing and gnashing of teeth as people find out their favorite medical option is not included in a taxpayer funded medical plan.

That is a harsh reality that any politician trying to institute a national health care system will have to face. How do you devise a plan that satisfies enough Americans to be politically viable, yet which is small enough to remain manageable?

In the United Kingdom, a national health care system was established early, as health care technology and cost first began to increase. The national health care provider network and the government system that paid for it grew together organically, and that is reflected in the way its citizens look at health care.

In the U.S., we look at health care a bit differently. There has never been a baseline standard, but rather a spectrum: at one end, no insurance, followed by sickness and accident plans, high deductible plans, and various PPOs and HMOs. At the far end of the spectrum lie comprehensive plans, some of which pay 100% of the cost of services.

If I put on my idealist's hat, I might say that a panel of experienced physicians and former hospital administrators with absolutely no conflicts of interest -- including no membership in professional organizations that have the ear of Congress -- would sit in a room, isolated from public opinion, and devise a baseline plan. Even a person wholly innocent of cynicism can see that this is not possible, in part because in a physician, "experienced" and "no membership in professional organizations" are mutually exclusive conditions.

We will not be able to ensure affordable yet universal access to minimum health care until we begin an honest national conversation on what it should cover. And with the number and power of lobbying groups that exist in the health care industry, I wonder whether such a conversation is even possible.

del.icio.us

It's the weekend! I felt it was time to take a break from the weighty Right to Health Care series. What better way to relax than with online psychics?

At Online Psychic, you are invited to test your connection to a psychic. For FREE. Who could resist?

The link took me to a screen showing five face cards: K♥ J♣ Q♠ K♠ J♦ . Scrolling text (as if someone were... typing in real time!) informed me that a live connection was being established, then instructed me to pick a card and concentrate on it. The message warned that there may not be a strong psychic connection between us, in which case I should come back tomorrow.

I clicked "Continue," and Nancy's scrolling text told that me there was a strong psychic connection between us (oh goodie!) and that she had replaced the card I chose. And indeed, the card I chose had been replaced... as had been all four other cards: Q♣ K♦ Q♥ K♣ J♥ . And now I was invited to receive a more detailed reading about my life from Nancy for the low, low price of just $29.95.

Uh huh. Moving on...

At Free Psychic Network, I was presented with a box in which I was invited to type a question. I typed my question and clicked "Submit," and was carried to a page where I could submit my question (again) and have the answer e-mailed to me. I cleverly observed that this was a different site called Live Person, so apparently the question box was an ad. It's not an encouraging sign when your psychic subcontracts.

Nevertheless, I scrolled down and found a button for a Free Psychic Reading. No promises of a live psychic on the other end for me! My reading was:

Fortunate Encounter

I see a fortunate encounter with a stranger in your future.
The Crystal Ball Is Clear.
An nexpected chance meeting will provide a spring board for your carreer. (sic)

So my psychic is an optimist, but not a gifted typist.

Next I found Psychic Earth, which announces "Totally Free Psychics For Free Absolutely Free Psychic readings Online." A big golden button on the homepage advertises "Online readings only 1.20 (sic) per minute! Order here." The fine print at the bottom of the page (under the fold, of course) notes that "free readings are offered in the free reading room during scheduled times." The "free reading room" is a chatroom that was empty when I visited it.

So I ended up 0 for 3. I guess I need to find a better way to spend my weekend.

Protesters at the sites of the Holy Father's visit to the United States so far:

1. Protesters from SNAP calling for changes to policy regarding abusive priests
   
2. Protesters against the sex abuse scandal "cover-up"
   
3. Gay Catholics denouncing the Pope's lack of support for gay rights
   
4. Excommunicated supporters of women's ordination
   
5. Catholics who oppose the teachings of the encyclical Humanae Vitae regarding birth control (one of their major arguments is that American Catholics don't follow the teachings anyway)
   
6. Protestant protesters (I suppose that's redundant) complaining that Catholics have a Pope rather than "going directly to Jesus"
   
7. Hindu protesters who believe the Catholic faith is exclusionary to other religions
   
8. An atheist protesting the fact that a religious figure enjoys diplomatic status
   
9. The Westboro Baptist Church, for reasons only Satan knows (there are also protesters of these protesters)

It kind of seems to me that any organization that has ticked off that many disparate groups for so many diverse reasons (a) is very strong (almost... rock-like)in the face of fickle human opinion, and (b) might actually be getting something right, since it is at the center of a daisy of extreme views. And every bee knows that the center of the daisy is where the honey is.

Sources

• The BBC's slide show of the papal visit
  
• Reporter Glen Zimmerman's video blog
  
• NY1 online newschannel story
  
• Spero News story
  
• 365Gay story

del.icio.us

I just bought my first iPod, a tiny iPod Shuffle. Since I bought it online, I was able to get a pretty dark red one instead of silver or pastel. It was a web exclusive. A red iPod doesn't really seem remarkable, but this wasn't just a red iPod: it was a Product (RED) iPod.

Product (RED) (hereafter PR, as the full name is hard to type) was conceived by such luminaries as Oprah and Bono as a way to raise funds for AIDS treatment in Africa. The PR website features a "manifesto" that talks about choice, as in, we all have a choice whether to help poor AIDS sufferers in poor dark backward Africa.

Forgive my cynicism. I'm idealistic. I always thought donating was something you did to help others, not to brag about helping others by flaunting your PR products. Actually, I wonder how much "help" really goes to the AIDS relief effort. A dollar per product? A penny?

PR is an overt marketing ploy. It's brilliant, really: it feeds on Western consumer culture by making the purchase of unnecessary stuff -- already a noble pursuit -- into a bona fide virtue. No sacrifice necessary! Just buy the stuff you would already buy, except you get the privilege of imagining that you are actually making a donation -- although you don't pay any extra for the product you buy. Of course not -- remember, there's no sacrifice necessary! And you get to feel like such a generous, righteous soul without slowing down your material lifestyle.

Yes, I bought a PR iPod. As I said, I liked the color. Yes, I hope some of the purchase price actually helps someone. But no, the availability of PR did not make me buy the player -- I already planned on it -- and emphatically no, I don't think I did any great or generous thing by buying it.

Coming soon: Organs -- they're not just for donating anymore!