Space Shuttles and Pork

I read an interesting article on the Hubble Space Telescope and whether it will be repaired or allowed to die. The Hubble, originally put into space in 1990, has provided a great deal of knowledge and images of the universe, particularly from the universe's early days. Some of these pictures have been spectacular and have captured much of the public's imagination. However, a couple years ago, the Hubble was put onto the death track. NASA was going to let the Hubble die, rather than repair it, as is required every few years.

"Why?" you might ask. Well, quite simply, NASA's funding priorities have shifted and the long-term plan for NASA doesn't focus on these kinds of explorations. Instead, as we all know, Bush has ordered NASA to prepare for a mission to Mars, which will be considerably expensive. In addition, NASA is trying to finish the International Space Station and eventually retire its fleet of space shuttles.

This brings me to my major point: NASA has become nothing but a giant pork-barrel agency. The space shuttle and the international space station serve nothing except to provide a means by which Congress can appropriate billions upon billions of dollars for the building and buying of parts for the shuttle and space station. After the Columbia disaster several years ago, I read an article examining why the shuttle program, despite all its flaws, was still around. Succinctly put, a majority of Congressional districts contain companies that are involved, in some way, with production of things for the shuttle program.

The shuttle program itself is useless. It was invented as a cheap, reliable, and quick-turnaround way to go back and forth to space. Instead, it has been expensive and unreliable and the delay between each shuttle trip is MUCH longer than originally planned, making the whole thing a giant waste of government money. Moreover, it is abundantly clear that the amount of knowledge being gained by shuttle trips, vis-a-vis things like the Mars rovers, is considerably less than one would hope for that amount of money.

So, now, of course, everyone says that we need the shuttle program to finish the space station, but I want to know why we need the space station. It seems to me that we have a piece of circular logic here. The space station was created in order to have a mission for the space shuttle (rather than being, say, an expensive ferry for satellites, which could be blasted into space by unmanned rockets). Now, the space station serves as a reason to keep the space shuttles around.

I realize that I'm rambling a bit here, but, to be frank, I'm baffled as to why all this money is poured into these things. We have tons of problems here on planet earth that a few extra billions could put a dent in. Our federal government is hemorrhaging money (due to the unnecessary reductions in taxes by the Republicans), and, despite this, we have a president who thinks it's a good idea to send a manned mission to Mars. What the %*#$ is going on with these people?

This is a complete and total waste. We have rockets that can ship things into space more cheaply and without the loss of life. The shuttle and station accomplish nothing more than serving each other. Mars provides no tangible benefit to our society except to drain away our money. Moreover, we now have private companies expressing interest in reaching space, even bringing up space tourists.

I think that what would be better is if Bush, in proposing we go to Mars, were to ask all Americans whether they want their taxes raised by "X" annually to support such a mission. It is absurd that we borrow the money to pay for such extravagant expenses, expecting future generations to pay higher taxes to pay back the money. What is wrong with the Republican Party?

The Right Strikes Back

In a stunning move, Rush Limbaugh has attacked actor Michael J. Fox for . . . having Parkinson's disease. Yes, I know, it seems ridiculous, but today, Limbaugh blasted Fox for exaggerating the effects of his disease in a recent commercial and called Fox's uncontrolled movement "purely an act". Fox is appearing in ads supporting candidates who support stem-cell research.

Let's set aside the obvious: a pathetic bloviating radio show host attacking a popular actor and genuinely good human being for uncontrollable movements, despite Limbaugh's own disease (drug addiction) causing him to do uncontrollable and, in his case, illegal things. (Perhaps Limbaugh, in his revenge on Fox, should start doing commercials where he uncontrollably pops pain killers and gets illegal prescriptions.)

I really don't understand how the right can sink lower, and yet they keep doing it. Fox suffers from Parkinson's disease, a movement disorder that results in tremors and an inability to make controlled movements. The extra movement that Limbaugh sees in the commercial is actually due to the effects of the drugs Fox takes to treat the disease: specifically, l-DOPA. Over time, l-DOPA leads to the opposite effects of the disease itself and, unfortunately, as time progresses, it is impossible to find a dose of the drug that alleviates Parkinson's symptoms and does not lead to its own motoric side effects.

I watched a very touching interview with Fox several months ago. During the interview, it was clear that he has a lot of uncontrolled movements that, he explained correctly, were due to the drug treatments. He also mentioned that sometimes he delays his next dose of the treatment just to relax. Although that means he cannot engage in any purposeful movements, he finds it to be a little helpful in recovering from the uncontrolled movements he has while on the drug.

So, let's face it: Parkinson's disease is a truly horrible neurodegenerative disorder that slowly robs you of your ability to engage in purposeful movements, while leaving most of your thinking and cognitive abilities intact. What's worse is that our best treatments (l-DOPA) create their own set of problems. To attack Fox for these uncontrolled l-DOPA-induced movements is beyond unsympathetic -- it's simply cold-blooded, cruel, and morally repugnant.

Moreover, Limbaugh didn't even get his criticism right. He said that Fox was either faking or didn't take his medication. On the contrary, Rush, you ignorant idiot, Fox must have taken his medication in order to have those movements. Without the medication, Fox would have had tremors but wouldn't have been able to speak much or move much. Idiot.

Finally, I also take issue with the idea that Fox was suggesting that opposition to stem-cell research was causing him to deteriorate. He doesn't say that in the commercial and he's not that stupid. In fact, I believe that Fox is doing absolutely the right thing if this is what he believes in. The promise of stem cells has always resided most prominently within those diseases, such as Parkinson's, where neurodegeneration has led to a loss of a specific group of cells. In theory, stem cells could be used to replace such cells. Therefore, it's not exactly a stretch to believe that opposition to federal funding of such research is slowing down the potential discoveries of new treatments, especially considering the central role federal funding plays in the biomedical world.

If only he could keep his story straight

So, for many, many months now (is it years? I can't keep track), Bush has been dividing the debate about Iraq into a simple binary choice: "cut-and-run" and "stay-the-course". He has accused Democrats of being "cut-and-run", due to their suggestions for alternative courses. This, of course, completely ignores the fact that Democrats' suggestions span a rather wide array of what should change -- i.e. "cut-and-run" is both an oversimplification as well as wrong. Moreover, this ignores the calls by some Republicans for a change in the course.

Ironically, it is now Bush saying that he never said that we should "stay the course" in Iraq. (Here's the interview with Bush where he denies saying it. To quote BUSH: Well, listen, we've never been stay the course). Unfortunately, Bush does not seem to realize that we have invented video cameras that record the use of such phrases. Here's the link with him using the phrase -- over and over and over.

Based on the interview, it appears that Bush believes that changing tactics is equivalent to not staying the course. It's unfortunate that A) he denies using the phrase, especially since he used it to malign those who disagreed with him and set up straw-man arguments against them and B) that he doesn't understand the difference between tactics and strategy. Certainly, when people discuss "staying the course" in opposition to "cut and run", no one is suggesting a difference of opinion in tactics. In fact, I don't think I've ever read much debate about the tactics used (though I've seen a little discussion of it -- just no real debate -- I mean, who's going to tell the Marines that they're fighting wrong?). So, Bush needs to have a basic lesson in strategy and tactics and needs to stop equivocating on these terms.

This problem of equivocation on Bush's part has been a major force in this war, and it greatly bothers me. It is a way of shutting up those who disagree with you and it is a way of claiming progress when none is being made. It is a way of saying that you've always held to position "A" when you used to make fun of your opponents for holding that position. It is a way of changing the rationale for the war post hoc. Ultimately, it is a way to be disingenous about this war even as soldiers die or as far more soldiers are injured (often for life) at an alarming rate.

What IS the goal in Iraq?

I've been wondering about this for a while now. Recently, there were rumors circulating that President Bush was about to change his strategy in Iraq. However, according to an article yesterday and Bush's own words, that is not the case. According to Bush, "victory" has always been our goal in Iraq and always will be. Well, that's certainly good to know. I was worried that Bush wanted "defeat" to be our goal. I mean, really, why are so many people enamored of such enormously stupid things coming out of his mouth?

So, my question is: What is the actual goal of our troops in Iraq? It's hard to know, as the rationale for invading Iraq and staying in Iraq has changed repeatedly. If victory is the goal, what are the benchmarks by which we decide whether we have achieved that goal? There is no government to surrender to us nor specific people who must be captured or killed. Rather, there is a giant mess in Iraq.

Most likely, if this question were to be asked of Bush, he would say "victory over the terrorists", but such an answer is, as all should realize by now, incredibly misleading. The "terrorists" are but one group among several in Iraq engaging in violence, unless of course "terrorists" include anyone killing other people in Iraq. However, if we define them that way, then we have to acknowledge that most of them pose no threat to the U.S. (i.e. unlike al-Qaeda). Of course, this is the problem with the misuse and overuse of the word "terrorist". Most of the fighting in Iraq is being committed by Sunni and Shiite factions, aimed primarily at each other's populations. The non-Iraqi "terrorists" are just another group thrown into the mix. So, who precisely do we need to be "victorious" over and how do we know when we've done that?

The article goes on to mention that Bush says that commanders are always changing things on the ground to reflect the situation in Iraq. I assume he means that tactics change, but the larger question is what is our strategy? Yeah, I get that our troops change their tactics for fighting enemy combatants, but it's not clear what our overall strategy is to achieve our goal (if we knew what that goal was). Ostensibly, it's to get Iraqi forces to take over for our troops, but the past few months have demonstrated (for the umpteenth time) that Iraqi troops are in no position to do that. In fact, we have retreated from the Anbar province (main Sunni stronghold) and have focused on the previously calm (relatively speaking) Baghdad. Recent news indicates that Moqtada al-Sadr's militia is becoming active again, in fact briefly taking over a town that the Brits recently turned over to the Iraqis. George Will, in his continuing criticism of Iraq, points out the need for a government that these Iraqi forces are connected to. Quite frankly, a government without its own forces to govern its land is a government in name only, much like the exiled government of Somalia.

The lack of a government raises yet another issue. One of our goals in Iraq was to create a democracy. Sure, we've gotten people to vote, but that doesn't exactly make a democracy if the government can't govern. So, what are we left with? Our troops continue to defend a government that appears to have little likelihood of ever being able to govern.

So, Mr. Bush, what is our strategy in Iraq? Troops keep dying and getting injured, yet we have no realistic achievable goal or a strategy to reach such a goal. The problem, in my opinion, is that these goals set by the Administration have never been truly achievable. Their probability of being achieved has always depended less on what we do and more on what others choose to do. One of the most important life lessons anyone can learn is that the only person we can control is ourselves. We cannot control others' decisions or behaviors. This is important in relationships, from the romantic to the platonic to the foreign country-to-country relationships. Yet, our goals and strategies in Iraq have always depended on the hope and wishful thinking that Iraqis themselves would choose to do "A" over "B" and "X" over "Y". Our military can accomplish military aims, but this war in Iraq has always set aims far beyond what our military can accomplish -- not because our military is lacking in some way but because these aims have never been within our control.

Follow up to ADHD Post

Here's one article suggesting that ADHD is not overdiagnosed and, among select populations, is actually underdiagnosed. I realize it's from 2002, but this controversy has been going on since the mid-90s. I also don't have the time to do more thorough searches on this.

Of course, at this point, it's important to point out that proper diagnosis depends on a child meeting the diagnostic criteria set (I presume from my days in psych classes) by the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistics Manual (probably version IV -- though it may be IV-R by now -- I don't know off the top of my head and I don't feel like figuring it out ). So, it is possible for someone to disagree with the criteria themselves. However, in that Washington Post article I refer to in an earlier post on this, Roberts certainly does not take that approach. Rather, she just blatantly states that children are being overdiagnosed without any evidence to back her up.

As I mentioned, it has become popular sentiment for people to say that ADHD is overdiagnosed. However, assuming that that is not the case, I think the real problem may lie in our discomfort with the idea of children having psychiatric problems -- or as Roberts labels them "mental illnesses". Obviously, the use of such labels carries negative connotations and "mentally ill" is normally reserved for more serious problems, particularly those in which the patients are not fully in touch with reality. Roberts uses this term to pull at people's emotions because no one likes to think of children with ADHD as "mentally ill" or even of having a psychiatric disorder.

Perhaps what would be best is to do away with such terms. These terms create a false dichotomy between "normal" and "abnormal". They fail to take into account that brains, even those without psychiatric disorders, are not all the same and each has its own quirks. Some quirks are more serious than others and impair people's abilities. Some are so serious that people are no longer able to function within society. When we consider that such "quirks" of the brain are creating problems for people, then it seems reasonable to determine whether we can treat them. This certainly applies to ADHD as much as it applies to more serious disorders such as schizophrenia.

I also believe that people believe ADHD is overdiagnosed in part because it did not used to have such prevalence. Mostly, that's due to the fact that psychiatry, as performed in a more rigorous, scientific, criteria-driven manner, is actually a recent phenomenon (~40 years old). Without the ability to simply peer into someone's head to see what's wrong and with the vast array of possible things that CAN go wrong in someone's head, it's not surprising that so many diagnoses have been created in the past 40 years (or less). It's also not going to be the least bit surprising to me that such diagnoses will be refined and changed as knowledge of the brain becomes better.

I Thought I Was Done with the Foley Scandal

However, it turns out that things have gotten even crazier. It now appears that at least on Republican congressman knew of Foley's behavior in 2000 -- 6 years ago! Here's the latest.

I really can't believe that Republicans are continuing to try to blame Democrats for this. There could be no Democrats left on this planet and yet, somehow, the Republicans would rationalize their misbehavior as the fault of the Democrats. Essentially, the Republicans are upset that their misbehavior has been found out. It reminds me of a man/woman getting caught cheating by their spouse and getting upset at the spouse because they didn't think the spouse should have found out. Yeah, it doesn't make any sense to me either.

Science and Opinion

I was reading an opinion piece in the Washington Post about medicating (or overmedicating) children for a variety of psychiatric problems, including ADHD, bipolar, and Asperger's syndrome. It was written by Elizabeth J. Roberts, a child and adolescent psychiatrist in California. Her argument is that too many children are being diagnosed with psychiatric disorders when the problem is actually bad parenting.

I have several problems with argument. By far, the largest flaw in her piece is the lack of evidence. This is a common technique used by people giving their opinions on various topics. They make a variety of statements without backing any of them up with evidence. This is particularly true for those who are "experts" in their field, as if their qualifications mean we should just believe what they are saying. In Roberts's case, she doesn't even make an attempt to cite any studies suggesting what she says to be true. She uses no statistics whatsoever and has only a couple anecdotes (based on hearsay) to back up what she's saying.

Her column, most likely, appeals to readers because it addresses a subject that has become a popular sentiment in the U.S. -- namely, that we're "overmedicating" our children. This has arisen following the increase in prescribing various medications to treat psychiatric/behavioral problems, most notably ADHD. There is a problem in this logic, however. The increased prescription rate may be due (and I strongly suspect is due) to the increased availability of drugs for treating such problems.

Nonetheless, the most important piece of information on this subject is missing: evidence that children are being misdiagnosed and given medications that they should not be taking. However, such evidence is deemed unnecessary by the Post editorial board for publication of this column. Why? I suspect it is because it has become such a popular sentiment that it is now just an accepted, yet unexamined, truth. Of course, if this belief is true and we all "know" it be true, then where the heck are all these doctors, psychiatrists, school teachers, and parents coming from? If Roberts is so right, then all her colleagues must be completely off their rockers. So, according to Roberts, she's just a voice in the wilderness -- a lone beacon of truth. Yeah, right.

Somehow, despite her idiotic article's assertions, I doubt that is the case. Why in the world would her colleagues continue to misdiagnose children despite her knowledge of the "truth" regarding this? Why don't they know what she knows? At a minimum, why don't they at least follow the brilliant Dr. Roberts's advice on this? Roberts doesn't answer this question in her column. I suspect that is because, if she knows the answer, she wouldn't want to write it.

The reality is, and her colleagues probably know this, systematic studies of this issue have found the perception of overdiagnosis of ADHD does not mesh with the reality. Studies suggest that most of these diagnoses are correct. Although there are some incorrect diagnoses, these are made up for by the kids who SHOULD be treated for ADHD but aren't getting such treatment. Unfortunately, such studies don't make for interesting newspaper reading. Basically, it flies in the face of popular belief and does little to outrage readers.

As for Roberts's other diseases (bipolar disorder and Asperger's), I know very little about the overdiagnosis of bipolar -- never heard about it before as a problem in children. For Asperger's, though, I find it interesting that she mentions it once at the beginning but then never again in her article. Why? I suspect it is because there are no medications for treating it. It's on the autism spectrum of developmental disorders. So, why the heck then did Roberts include it in her idiotic article? I have no idea, though she may have been trying to broaden her article beyond ADHD (and the out-of-left-field bipolar).

So, let's see how Roberts did in her treatment of this science subject. She used all opinion with no evidence to back anything up, except for a couple random anecdotes. She mentioned unrelated diseases that don't even fall under the idea that she promotes in the article. Finally, evidence does exist on her subject matter, but it contradicts her and she chose to ignore it. I can't believe the Post wasted space in its Opinion section on her.

This Just in on the Party of Corruption

According to this article in the Washington Post (picked up from the AP), a congressional aide warned aides to Speaker Denny Hastert about Mark Foley's behavior THREE YEARS AGO. This case just becomes more and more troubling. The evidence continues to mount that the Republicans are more interested in saving themselves and retaining power than in investigating and dealing with sexual predation by one of their own. It remains shocking to me that Republicans even continue to exist in this country.

On a related note, Republicans have been defending their party's handling of this by saying . . . that the Democrats have their own sex-page scandals . . . from 23 years ago. Of course, as I have said, I do not hold the Republican party responsible for an individual member's actions -- rather, my problem with the Republican party is that the Republican House leadership swept the whole thing under the rug and has essentially hidden Foley's sexual predation from outside investigation.

So, how did the Democrats handle the sex-page scandal from 23 years ago (which, by the way, actually involved two Congressmen - one Republican and one Democrat)? It turns out they handled it in the best possible way. One of the outside investigators brought in to look into this scandal 23 years ago (Joseph Califano, Jr.) wrote a nice op-ed piece explaining what happened then, in comparison to now. Then, everything was opened to the public, information was shared between parties, and every little piece of dirt was thoroughly examined. Of course, back then as well, the Democrats made sure that they had a working ethics committee. As everyone knows, Republicans have rendered the ethics committee completely impotent and silent.

Frankly, everyone should have figured out several years ago that the Republicans must be corrupt simply based on the fact that the Republicans shut down the ethics committee. When there's no light shining on you, it's easy to engage in illegal or unethical behaviors. It's sort of like when a dictator shuts down all the newspapers and kicks out all the journalists -- you know things are about to get ugly.

Foley's Folly

Well, it appears, based on information since the Foley scandal unfolded, that Foley has checked into a rehabilitation center for alcoholism treatment. Moreover, according to the latest "breaking news", Foley was once sexually abused by a priest. You may wonder: What exactly is going on here?

Really, it's quite simple. Foley has taken a page straight from the Hollywood playbook. When you get in trouble/do something stupid, you must declare yourself an addict of some kind, typically an alcoholic. You must then immediately check yourself into a treatment center (for Hollywood types: the Betty Ford Center is best) and have your spokespeople offer your (or their) sincerest and deepest apologies and regrets for your actions. You do this in hope that, someday, people will see you as "courageous" for "taking on" your addiction.

Unfortunately for Foley, the American people aren't really willing to let sexual predation of children slide due to alcoholism. Moreover, people can't even see the connection between the sexual predation and alocholism (I mean, what the heck is the connection? It was just a non sequitur that I don't think the media even knew how to handle it).

So, realizing this, Foley and his handlers decided to explain that he had once been sexually molested -- by a priest. Isn't it amazing and shocking that the priest sex scandal of just a few years ago would be resurrected in the current one? What an amazing coincidence that the two seemingly unrelated events could be connected! See, this whole thing isn't really Foley's fault -- it's those evil priests from a few years ago and those bishops who protected them. It's their fault!

Frankly, this is now just absurd. If Foley was actually abused, I have the deepest sympathy for him for that. No one should ever be sexually abused. And perhaps, if he's in a court of law or facing God, this may be a mitigating factor for his punishment (not an absolution of his potential crimes -- just a mitigating factor in deciding his punishment). Nonetheless, these revelations of his smack of playing the victim and passing the buck. First, he's a just a victim of his disease - addiction. Then, he's a victim of sexual abuse himself. Somehow, this last piece of information is supposed to explain his actions, but mostly it seems to suggest that the truly evil person -- the "source" of the evil -- was a priest from his childhood and that he is not fully to blame.

I'm not buying it, though. It sounds a little too convenient for me. Perhaps, in his next revelation, we'll find out about the guy holding the gun to his head while he wrote those IM exchanges.

More on the Republican Sex Scandal

Well, it seems that the Washington Post has followed up a little on the sex scandal and written an article addressing the fact that the Republican House Leadership KNEW about Mark Foley. However, the leadership is, of course, not taking any sort of responsibility and is merely passing the buck among themselves.

CNN and MSNBC have, however, apparently forgotten about the whole thing, at least as of 5:40 PM on Sunday. Fox News, surprisingly, is still covering it, though they don't lead with the part about how the leadership knew about Foley since at least last spring (and up to 11 months ago). Oddly, the NY times has a similar take as Fox News.

Is it really too much to ask the news media to recognize that the fact that the House Leadership KNEW about Mark Foley and, therefore, was complicit in covering it up is absolutely disgusting? I mean, really -- this should be a no-brainer. These House leaders (Hastert, Boehner, et al.) are morally bankrupt. When it comes to many issues, I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt on my disagreement with people, but this is not one of those issues. Anything of a sexual nature between a Congressman and a minor (and, in this case, there appears to be more than one) should be treated with the utmost seriousness. All allegations should be thoroughly investigated and dealt with. Moreover, the country should be informed about this -- not kept in the dark.

Basically, what we have here is a leadership that was more interested in sweeping the story under the rug to protect their members than in protecting children from a sexual predator. To all you Republicans out there: How do you vote for this in good consience?