How Mitt Romney proposes his $5 trillion tax cut without raising the deficit

Mitt Romney has spent the past year talking about his tax cuts for the wealthy (and, as of the last debate, everyone else), but he hasn’t spent any time talking about any specifics. Not a one. Fortunately, now we can all just look for ourselves at the details of his tax plan.

HPV vaccines do not lead to greater sexual activity

For quite some time now we have been hearing counter-common sense arguments that claim the administration of HPV vaccines will make young girls more likely to engage in sexual activity. One recent study shows those arguments to be bogus:

Adolescent girls who get the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine are no more likely to show signs they may be engaging in sexual activity than girls who do not get the vaccine, according to a new study that challenges a widely held belief…

Researchers from Emory University in Atlanta followed electronic data of nearly 1,400 girls aged 11 and 12 between July 2006 and December 2010 to see whether they received at least one dose of the vaccine within the first year and whether they were later counseled about contraception, acquired a sexually transmitted disease or became pregnant.

More than a quarter of girls ages 15 to 17 report being sexually active, according to the CDC.

The study followed the girls to the age range where sexual activity would have been initiated, according to the researchers.

The nearly 500 girls who received at least one dose of the vaccine were no more likely to be diagnosed with a sexually transmitted disease, discuss contraception or become pregnant than the nearly 900 girls who did not get the vaccine, the study found.

“We couldn’t directly look at sexual activity, so we looked at external outcomes that would suggest sexual activity,” said Dr. Robert Bednarczyk, clinical investigator with the Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research Southeast, and lead author of the study.

The sort of arguments that inspired the above study are of the same sort that inspire studies which show that abstinence-only education is an abysmal failure. Again and again, social conservatives and overly worried parents will claim or wonder if the exposure to greater information will cause their children to become sexually active at a young age. Only the wonder is justified; over and over we are seeing that access to proper information and sound medical protections are the correct path to take.

VP debate

I’m not going to write a whole lot about last night’s VP debate, but I do want to note how absolutely stunned I am that anyone, barring the employees of FOX News, could possibly imagine that Paul Ryan even came remotely close to winning. Vice President Biden ran circles around the guy, exposed mounds and mounds of Republican malarkey, and made an incredible case for President Obama.

Oh, and if Romney can be described as having energy in his last debate*, then why isn’t the media and everyone talking about how fired up Biden was? Come on.

*Romney didn’t have any real energy, nor did he win the first debate. The President showed a malaise like demeanor and thus, at least in style, lost. Romney was just there to accept the spoils. He may as well be the 2006 Cardinals or 2007 Giants.

Good on you, Kenneth Krause

The man who wrote a letter to news reporter Jennifer Livingston about her excessive weight has made him name public: Kenneth Krause. I believe he may have done this a few days ago, but I just saw a discussion of this on CNN. Here is an interview Krause gave:

I’ve seen some small spin here and there with what Krause said, so let me set the record straight: He apologized for offending Livingston, not for his letter. In fact, shortly after his letter, he wrote this:

Given this country’s present epidemic of obesity and the many truly horrible diseases related thereto, and considering Jennifer Livingston’s fortuitous position in the community, I hope she will finally take advantage of a rare and golden opportunity to influence the health and psychological well-being of Coulee Region children by transforming herself for all of her viewers to see over the next year, and, to that end, I would be absolutely pleased to offer Jennifer any advice or support she would be willing to accept.

I’m glad that Krause not only made himself public but that he has stood by what he said. With the growing number of fat people in America, his position is not a popular one. It’s good to see him sticking by his principles. It was also good to see him address the notion that he is a bully (see video). Of course he isn’t one. In fact, let’s look at what it would mean if he was one:

Livingston used the letter to emphasize October as National Bullying Prevention Awareness Month, an annual campaign launched by non-profit The PACER Center in 2006 to raise awareness about the dangers of bullying. On its website, the organization defines bullying as intentional behavior “that hurts or harms another person physically or emotionally,” in which the targets “have difficulty stopping the behavior directed at them and struggle to defend themselves.”

Did the popular local media figure have trouble defending herself? Were four minutes of air time not enough for her to mount her case? Did she experience any difficulty in stopping the barrage of…one…email to her inbox? I think it’s clear that anyone with any common sense can see that it is absolutely ludicrous to claim that this adult woman was at all bullied. Moreover, given Krause’s demeanor and reaction to everything, I think it’s pretty clear he was being sincere in his desire to see Livingston improve her health.

Good on you, Kenneth Krause.

Update: Apparently the news station identified Krause. To his credit, he didn’t hide from TV cameras when approached and he has given statements that stand by his letter. However, to the discredit of the station, they made it a point to publicly demean and humiliate this guy. I’m not willing to call their actions bullying, but they are definitely far closer than Krause to fitting the definition of what that means.

But I thought people with degrees couldn’t be anti-science?!

Our old friend Roxeanne de Luca recently had this to say about her anti-science nature:

You tried to say I was anti-science, got smacked down because I have an engineering degree, and haven’t learned?

Got that? Someone who has an engineering degree can’t be anti-science. It just can’t happen. I mean, come on! It’s a science degree! Of course, we have to ignore the fact that she has argued that condom use is ineffective because not everyone uses them in South Africa. And we have to ignore the fact that she has claimed that HIV rates have fallen because of abstinence only education (when, in fact, condom education drives are the primary reason for the decline, not to mention the fact that abstinence only education has been shown to be largely ineffective). And ignore the fact that she has argued that the scientific concept of conception is the same as the philosophical (and subjective) concept of humanity. Ignore it all. She has a degree. It’s sort of like how President Obama has a law degree. I’m sure it will only be a matter of time until far-right, Obama-hating conservative Roxeanne starts arguing that the President can’t hold views that, in her opinion, are against the constitution since he has a J.D.

But, hey. I don’t want to put Roxeanne in a difficult position. I know moving beyond the partisan hackery is difficult for a lot people, so I’ll make this a little easier for her. Republican congressman Paul Broun has come out with a series of statements that I’m sure Roxeanne is most eager to defend:

“God’s word is true,” Broun said, according to a video posted on the church’s website. “I’ve come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell. And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a savior.”

Broun also said that he believes the Earth is about 9,000 years old and that it was made in six days.

Now, one may argue, so what? How does this relate to the rest of this post? I’m glad you asked. As it turns out, Broun has a notable educational background:

The Republican lawmaker made those comments during a speech Sept. 27 at a sportsman’s banquet at Liberty Baptist Church in Hartwell. Broun, a medical doctor, is running for re-election in November unopposed by Democrats.

He also has a B.S. in chemistry.

I think everything here is pretty clear. Anyone who has a degree in some science cannot possibly be anti-science. Hell, someone who claims otherwise ought to be prepared to get “smacked down” pretty quickly. At least that’s the world according to Roxeanne de Luca.

Jennifer Livingston does not know what bullying is

It’s that time again. Another video has gone viral on Facebook and other social media and, as usual, people are hyper-supportive of something that is completely stupid. First, here is the video:

For those too lazy to watch the video, news anchor Jennifer Livingston received an email from some random guy critiquing her for being overweight. She responded to him on air, reading the email as follows:

Hi Jennifer, It’s unusual that I see your morning show, but I did so for a very short time today. I was surprised indeed to witness that your physical condition hasn’t improved for many years. Surely you don’t consider yourself a suitable example for this community’s young people, girls in particular.

Obesity is one of the worst choices a person can make and one of the most dangerous habits to maintain. I leave you this note hoping that you’ll reconsider your responsibility as a local public personality to present and promote a healthy lifestyle.

Let’s get the facts out there right away:

  • Someone sent this news anchor a private email.
  • At no point in the email was Livingston harassed, nor were any factually incorrect statements made.
  • Livingston admits that the reason the letter became public was that her husband posted it for all to see on his Facebook page.
  • In addition to Livingston’s husband being the one who initially made this all public, Livingston herself went on television and spoke about the letter for about 4 minutes.

I have a serious problem with what’s going on here. Livingston is claiming that she has been bullied by some anonymous person on the Internet because he encouraged her to lose weight. That isn’t bullying. The man does not seem to have sent Livingston email after email. He was not insulting in his critique but, instead, factual. (Whether or not he was in good taste is a separate question.) He did not set out to mock her for some inherent trait like skin color. All he did was point out that she has been overweight for a number of years now, something which is objectively unhealthy. Livingston chooses to live an unhealthy lifestyle. Criticizing her for that is no different from criticizing her for the political affiliation she chooses or the religious beliefs she chooses to have.

I have other problems with what Livingston has said – she seems to say that the man has no right to criticize her because he doesn’t personally know her; she compares her weight problem to sexual orientation and skin color; she says that we should teach our children to be kind rather than think critically – but I’m going to largely skip that stuff. What really disturbs me is the continuation of this fat acceptance movement. It’s terrible. Being fat is not always a choice – many people are burdened with extra weight because their parents gave them a terrible diet, others have disabilities, some have diseases – but living an unhealthy lifestyle usually is a choice. (This is the point where someone inevitably ignores my intentional use of the word “usually” and points out specific examples where a person’s hands are tied in terms of diet and exercise.) The more and more we pretend like people are helpless to get themselves in shape, the more and more people will embrace bullshit excuses for staying unhealthy.

I don’t necessarily support sending off polite emails to overweight news anchors in an effort to curb obesity. Part of the reason is that I don’t know as there is enough time in the day, at least in America. But the primary reason is that I don’t think someone automatically needs to be a role model by virtue of being in the public eye. Perhaps if Livingston is active in her community and/or otherwise tries to be a role model, then her weight is a fair issue and I think she should address it to the best of her abilities. But I’m not convinced that she has to act like a role model just because she stands in front of a TV crew every day.

Catch up

My blogging has slowed a little bit, so I haven’t been keeping up on a few stories. I’m going to quickly mention a few topics here.

First, California has recently passed a law which bans gay conversion therapy. This is a good thing not only for gay people and the way the public perceives them, but it’ also a good thing for science. As the governor correctly stated, such therapies are nothing but quackery.

Second, it has been awhile since Mitt Romney made his comment about 47% of Americans not paying taxes and feeling entitled to government handouts. I’m usually pretty cautious about jumping all over politicians for the missteps they make. For instance, when Romney said he doesn’t care about the very poor, it isn’t difficult for me to recognize that he meant his focus is on preventing people in the middle class from needing to utilize government safety nets. In turn, he hopes that that (as well as corporate welfare and the like) will help out the very poor. This, however, is different. There is no spinning what he meant in the secret video of him: He believes nearly half of all Americans are lazy moochers who don’t want to take personal responsibility.

Third, I made a post a little while ago where I said I was calling this NFL season as invalid. The replacement referees were horrible – an opinion I held before the Seattle/Green Bay game. There was just no way that the outcome of any game could be considered legitimate. I stand by all that. Even though the real refs are back in place, we still had 3 weeks where teams were getting screwed because Roger Goodell is the worst person in all of sports. Three weeks may not sound like a lot, but it would be as if Major League Baseball replaced its umpires with unqualified people for about 30 games. It’s a huge chunk of the season. For that, there is nothing valid about the entire 2012 NFL season – even if my beloved Patriots win the Super Bowl.

Voter ID laws are a Republican ploy to disenfranchise poor and minority voters

There’s no denying it: The GOP is systematically attempting to make it so that black, Hispanic, and poor voters will not be able to vote as easily as the GOP “angry, white man” base. Aside from the fact that there is no voter fraud worth mentioning anywhere in the United States, and aside from the fact that we never seemed to have this problem before we had a black president, and aside from the fact that recent census data shows population shifts that weaken white voting blocs (a clear motivator in the magical urgency behind voter suppression efforts), and aside from the fact that we have laws in traditionally racist states being blocked by the courts, and aside from the fact that Florida has laws which specifically target the Sunday prior to the election when black churches bus people to polling locations for early voting, we have GOP leaders saying things like this:

It isn’t necessarily that this is all racially motivated. The primary impetus for these 19th century measures is more or less political. The GOP knows it only does well amongst a certain, homogenous group, so it makes sense for them to pass laws that hurt everyone else. This has been their MO for the past two years: Whine about budgets and deficits and liberty and freedom, but do nothing except pass measures demanding the government be involved in women’s health care and laws that stop black and Hispanic people from voting.

Of course, while the primary purpose is an interest in getting reelected, there is an overt disregard for not only minorities and the poor, but for the very heart of democracy itself. I need not spell out how genuinely disgusting that is.

Surprise, surprise: Gays don’t hurt the military

This is about what I expected:

For nearly 17 years, gay and lesbian soldiers of the U.S. military were expected to deny their sexuality under threat of dismissal as part of the policy known as “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

The repeal of the policy on September 20, 2011 stirred controversy, and inspired passionate arguments on both sides of the issue.

Now a year later, the first academic study of the effects of repealing “don’t ask don’t tell” has found the repeal has had “no overall negative impact on military readiness or its component dimensions, including cohesion, recruitment, retention, assaults, harassment or morale.”

In fact, military members have become more aware of their surroundings. Now that many of them actually know a gay person, they aren’t so ready to use derogatory language:

An enlisted soldier at a military university told researchers that when DADT was in effect, his unit mates would use degrading, anti-gay language, “almost absent-mindedly and with little consequence,” but that after repeal, he said, “it was kind of a big deal for two weeks,” as soldiers considered what it would mean for their comrades to be openly gay.

The report says the soldier told researchers that after people wrapped their heads around the idea, their consideration changed, “the new attitude seemed to be, ‘now that I know someone who is [gay], I’m talking about a real person. I’m not just using abstract insults [but words] that actually mean something.’”

This reminds me of the strategy of Harvey Milk: Make sure people know they know a gay person and bigotry and anti-gay measures will decrease.

The repeal of DADT has long been portrayed by the GOP as “social experimentation” and other such nonsense, but it was never anything of the sort. It was an exercise in treating our citizens equally in a way which was not merely neutral in the security of the United States but, indeed, in a way which strengthened our nation. The side benefit is that we’ve done away with a good deal of ignorance in the process.

A quote from Edwin C. Burleigh

As it so happens, my great-great-great grandfather was Edwin C. Burleigh, 42nd governor of Maine. And, as it so happens, he had this to say:

The convict should at the end of his term be a better man morally than he was when he entered the prison, or else his imprisonment has not been of lasting advantage to society.

It’s such simple common sense, yet it seems to be lost on so many people. Prisons are for improving society, not punishing people. Of course, punishment may be one of the means used to achieve the actual goal of prisons, but it is not an end unto itself.