In The Shadow of the Moon

Sounds like an excellent documentary about the Apollo crew. Thought you might want to see it.

Popcorn Worker's Lungs

Now some guy who had a microwave popcorn addiction, suffers from this:

Exposure to synthetic butter in food production and flavoring plants has been linked to hundreds of cases of workers whose lungs have been damaged or destroyed. Diacetyl is found naturally in milk, cheese, butter and other products.

Heated diacetyl becomes a vapor and, when inhaled over a long period of time, seems to lead the small airways in the lungs to become swollen and scarred. Sufferers can breathe in deeply, but they have difficulty exhaling. The severe form of the disease is called bronchiolitis obliterans or “popcorn workers’ lung,” which can be fatal.

Now People Are Worried. But look at his addiction:

The man told Dr. Rose that he had eaten microwave popcorn at least twice a day for more than 10 years.

“When he broke open the bags, after the steam came out, he would often inhale the fragrance because he liked it so much,” Dr. Rose said. “That’s heated diacetyl, which we know from the workers’ studies is the highest risk.”

Moral of the story: go easy on microwave popcorn and don't smell the fumes, dude.

Good-bye Summer

With home schooling, there's not so much an end as a renewal. More structure, less lazy. It was a good and busy summer. It will be a good and busy fall. I really want the leaves to change brilliantly this fall in Houston. Some years it happens. Maybe it will this time.

James Lileks has a wonderful post about summer.

Jodie Foster: A Gun-Toting Revenge-Killer?

John Hawkins brings attention to the disconnect that actors have between the message they send with their art (are we to believe that Foster's portrayal in The Brave One of a vigilante was ironic?) and the message they purport to live by. She actually said this:

I don't believe that any gun should be in the hand of a thinking, feeling, breathing human being. Americans are by nature filled with rage-slash-fear. And guns are a huge part of our culture. I know I'm crazy because I'm only supposed to say that in Europe. But violence corrupts absolutely.

To which John Hawkins says:

Moreover, Foster grew up with bodyguards, undoubtedly armed bodyguards, who were protecting her from crazed nuts like John Hinckley, Jr. If you were looking for a celebrity who's a perfect example of why people should be allowed to carry guns, Foster's experience with John Hinckley, Jr would make her one of the first people you'd point towards.

In a way, you almost have to feel sorry for celebrities like Foster because they live in such a bubble that there probably isn't anyone that they talk to on a regular basis that will have the courage to tell them that they're spouting complete nonsense.

Ms. Foster is a mother now. I simply cannot believe that she would deny her homicidal feelings should her child be purposefully hurt. That's perfectly natural. The most docile cow will become fearsome to a bull when protecting her calf. I'm not saying she would pick up the gun, but to deny that instinct? And she would claim it immoral to protect that same child? Or would it be moral to use a gun in self or family defense?

In Hollywood, the brain is on autopilot. I don't think that these people even think about what they're saying anymore.

Stopping Psychopaths & Others With Severe Mental Disorders From Hurting Others

What do you do about a guy like Cho (background here and here)? Everyone knew he was nuts. He scared people. And yet, no laws, no standards existed to do the sensible thing: lock the guy up until he recovered enough mental function so as not harm the public. Eugene Methvin recommends following the example of Maryland before hippies intervened and essentially neutered the law, which was eventually discarded:

A young lawyer named Jerome Robinson was in the courtroom the day Duker was sentenced. A few years later Robinson was in the Maryland legislature. He headed a "blue ribbon" study commission embracing the best legal and psychiatric minds of the time. They produced the 1951 "defective delinquent" law creating a hybrid prison and mental hospital, the Patuxent Institution, which opened its doors in 1955. It was a sound solution to the terrible problem posed by explosive criminals like Duker and James. The nation's best psychiatric authorities agreed such psychopaths comprise an unusual category of compulsive criminals who, while knowing the difference between right and wrong and hence legally "sane," nevertheless lack the normal moral restraints on rage impulses.

The law's authors made their priorities clear: 1. Protect the public. 2. Provide treatment within the limits of current psychiatric knowledge. 3. Research to advance the science. They wanted it made difficult to get into Patuxent, and then difficult to get out. Fourteen elaborate safeguards surrounded a convicted criminal before he could be committed to Patuxent -- many more than in other state civil proceedings permitting potentially lifetime civil commitment for insanity that federal courts had frequently upheld against constitutional attacks. Only convicted criminals were candidates for admission. A candidate was entitled to have psychiatrists of his own choice examine him and testify in his behalf, at state expense. And the ultimate question was left not to psychiatrists but to a citizen-jury: did this convicted criminal, "by the demonstration of persistent, aggravated antisocial or criminal behavior... evidence a propensity toward criminal activity... so as to clearly demonstrate an actual danger to society?"

The system ended up having superlative results both for the criminal and for society.

Currently, criminals in the making must do one huge dastardly deed, but then it's too late. Society could be save mayhem and murder if the criminal was housed before he hurt. You're worried about slippery slopes. I am, too. While having dinner with a psychiatrist friend, though, I asked him whether the psychopaths, schizophrenics or manic-depressives he treats ever recover. He said that in all his 25 years of practicing (always in mental hospitals with the most dangerous people) and being Chief Physician in a psych hospital, he could count on one hand the number of people who recovered, and he wondered if they were diagnosed correctly in the first place. The others got worse with time. He explained that the law doesn't allow for dealing long-term with people so the institutions become a revolving door. He felt that it was a bad thing when the mentally ill got expelled from the hospitals.

Many of those released are street people. They may not harm others, but they're easy prey themselves. And then there are many criminals free to do their evil bidding because there's no place for them until they blow.

Perhaps it's time to re-examine the notion of a long-term psychiatric solution. There might not be a lot of psychological healing going on, but there'd be less societal problems.

H/T Instapundit

Light Posting

I'm on a super-secret quest, which I'll share next week, so posting will be light.

Glenn Love

You know, I really like to be linked by Glenn Reynolds. In fact, twice in two weeks the blog god looked kindly on me, driving up my traffic, spurring commenting, and generally giving me the warm glow. Somebody actually reads me blog! Yippee.... And that's when the trouble began.

Why can't people just argue the merits of the post? But noooo, the criticism can't stay on topic it must get personal. No wonder Glenn doesn't take comments. People can be such jerks.

Europe: Western Allies Again

A nice sum-up of trans-Atlantic relations.

President In Iraq

Connecting the bottom-up organization with the top-down organization is the goal going forward in Iraq. (Allah says that's impossible. Video of Bush, here.) That means that the local militias need to be connected to the Iraqi security forces. Once these threads are made, the fabric of Iraqi society strengthens significantly.

It is fashionable to be pessimistic. I think I might the only one in my family who still has hope. But I do have hope for these people. There is always a chance for a new kind of peace.

Gateway Pundit has the round-up. He also writes about the British Press spinning of the Brits leaving Basra.

As an aside:
The press corps are a big bunch of pansy-asses. I read the Pool Report. Give me a break. Here's some of the snark:

POTUS leaned slightly forward, both hands on a makeshift table, as the Marine with a pointer in hand, gave an overview. About 20 troops in fatigues framed POTUS during the briefing, making for better pictures, no doubt.

Are they capable of giving the facts without editorializing? That was a rhetorical question. And now from the Man Up Department:

From there, we left and were back to the file –or what passes for it. Internet connections are slow, and private accounts are tough to access. POTUS is now off to his meeting with Petraeus and Crocker, and co. Next is Maliki, after which they are to make a joint statement. Then it is a session with tribal leaders, remarks to the troops and back to the plane.

I wonder if the tone would have been better if they had access to caviar and T-1 lines.

Oh, and in Iraq right now, it's hot. Really, really hot. And the press doesn't like that either.

Hurricane Felix Cometh

He's probably visiting Beliz and Central America, but just FYI. Oh, and it's a CAT 5.

Vaginal Rejuvenation

Anyone who has cable TV knows about vaginal rejuvenation and labioplasties. As disturbing as it is to hear a young lass discuss her nether regions with all the perfunctory detachment of a newsman discussing the weather developments, it's even more disturbing to see a talking plastic surgeon, grin into the camera as he begins his scalpel work. There.

Evidently, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) are disturbed, too. They issued this statement:

The statement by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) says it is "deceptive to give the impression" that these procedures, which by some accounts are among the hottest new trends in plastic surgery, are "accepted and routine surgical practices."

"Vaginal rejuvenation," "designer vaginoplasty," "revirgination" and "G-spot amplification" are being marketed to women on late-night TV, in magazines and on the Internet. Doctors offering the procedures say they can enhance women's sexual pleasure and alleviate uncomfortable symptoms, and many of their patients agree.

But critics say these women are exposing extraordinarily sensitive body parts to interventions with questionable benefits and unknown risks.

Ya think? There's no support for these surgeries other than anecdotes, and I'm a-thinkin' the bad cases don't make Dr. 90210, you know? We won't see a patient screaming into the camera, "I've been ruined for sex, forever, because of YOU!" It would make for good TV, though.

The risk, of course, is that patients could suffer harm from the surgeries, including bleeding, scarring, infection and altered sensation, while experiencing little or no benefit. Brubaker is among several physicians who said in interviews that they had seen patients suffering from pain and discomfort as well as disappointment after these surgeries

That seems like a very big risk, to me. Many of the women are young. They have their whole lives ahead of them. A mistake could cause untold heartache. In addition, there seems to be this porn-star mentality now. Young people especially have specific notions about how a person should be groomed or look. Who is judging a labia as "ugly" is what I want to know. Who is spending time obsessing about it? How does a girl know she's different than other girls?

The British Medical Journal weighed in on the topic with a May article calling cosmetic genital surgeries an "extreme and unproved intervention" that "could undermine the development of other ways to help women and girls to deal with concerns about their appearance."

Most women don't understand that the size and shape of genitalia vary greatly, leading to "misguided assumptions" about what is normal, said the authors, a clinical psychologist and a gynecologist.

Now a woman doesn't just obsess about her face, her hair, her butt, her hips, her belly, her boobs, her chin, her arms and her bunions, she's obsessing over her labia, too. There's something wrong with this picture.

Is this really a worthy medical advancement or just another symptom of our society's extreme narcissism?

South Korean Hostages Freed: Christians Being Harmless Doves Is Not Enough

For $20 million (possibly), the South Korean government bought the freedom of the young, naive Christian hostages in Afghanistan. It was a fools errand and their intentions paved a road to, well, you know where.

That is not to say that I'm against dangerous missionary work. Often the work is dangerous. Many lives have been lost so souls could be won, but Christians need to be wise as serpents not just harmless as doves. I think it's pretty well established that modern Christians have the harmless and dove part down, but many Christians lack wisdom.

The modern evangelical movement is long on emotion and short on knowledge. Not everyone, mind you, but it is a problem that I see especially with the younger generation. Young people will argue vociferously and with great feeling with scant thought backing it up. Enthusiastic rhetoric is not backed by rigorous logic which has no basis in fact. They end up sounding stupid and make a mockery of what they profess to believe. I think that part of this problem is the self-esteem movement in general and the educational system in particular. It's as if post-modernism has infected Christianity. Every idea and action is as worthy as any other, and anyway, who are you to judge? It's me and Jesus, man. Me and Jesus.

A Christian should be able to give an answer to the hope that lies within. Jesus could argue his perspective. He was persuasive because he was knowledgeable. Paul was a master at argumentation and the written word. Jesus wasn't a dummy and his followers shouldn't be either. When he spoke in the synagogue or the home or from a boat or to his friends, he argued logically and masterfully. He knew the scriptures--what we call the Old Testament. Modern Christians would do well to hit the Good Book every now and then.

Now, it might seem that I'm ganging up on these South Koreans for being so foolish. The truth is, I don't know their level of knowledge. I only know their actions. They were disobedient to their own government, which was not trying to be oppressive, but was looking out for their safety. Jesus Himself made it clear to submit to the laws of the land as long as they didn't violate the greater law. They clearly didn't understand the situation in Afghanistan and compromised both their mission work as well as the military objectives of people working for that nation's freedom--a goal not misaligned with Christianity.

So while I'm joyous at the safe return of these people, and deeply distressed and saddened at the deaths of their two friends and there is no question that the Taliban is a disgusting, animal, hate group, I'm disturbed by the naivité being passed off as devotion to duty.

Don't Mess With Farmers

Just. Don't.

The Morality of Leftist Morality

In my rather angry and convoluted post about the sordid toe tapping, stall mauling affair (Larry Craig's attempted indiscretion), I was trying to say what Jonah Goldberg says better. Here's what I wrote:

Let me put it this way: I think Republicans should retire over sex scandals when Democrats start voluntarily living carbon neutral lives in mud huts powered by windmills, give extra money to the government because taxes aren't high enough and boot the criminals in their midst.

The fact is that Democrats don't give a poop about toe tapping in a toilet stall. They don't care about $100K in a freezer. What they care about is power. Power comes by bringing the opposition down. It's especially delicious when there's sex involved.

Here's what Goldberg writes:

One solution to the hypocrisy epidemic, of course, is to have no morals at all. You can't violate your principles if you don't have any. Another solution: simply define down your principles until they are conveniently consistent with your preferred lifestyle. My own perfect moral code would mandate a strict regimen of not enough exercise, too much scotch and a diet rich in cured meats. Men would be religiously barred from taking out the garbage until their wives told them no less than three times to do so. "Thou Shalt Not Shave More Than Thrice Monthly": I'd never be a hypocrite if only the Bible gave us commandments like that.

But the left has another solution. Under its system, you can still be a moralizer. You can still tell people what to do and how to live. And, best of all, you can still fall short of your ideals personally while guiltlessly trying to use government to impose your moral vision on others. All you have to do is become a liberal moralizer.

Once you become a liberal, you can wax eloquent on the glories of the public schools while sending your kids to private school. You can wax prolix about the greedy rich while making a fortune on the side. You can even use the government to impose your values willy-nilly, from racial quotas and confiscatory tax rates to draconian environmental policies and sex-ed for grade-schoolers - all of which will paid for in part by people who disagree with you.

That was what I was trying to say. I'm fed up with the left's "moralizing for thee, but not for me." Their moral code is higgly-piggly and everyone must comply with their current whim. So Larry Craig screwed up--not a Bill Clinton screw up, mind you--but he screwed up. And by the left's moral code, he goes to the gallows not because they're against gay sex, casual sex or even sex in a bathroom where a father might bring in his son (a child should have early and explicit "education" after all), but because he's a hypocrite.

Republicans and the right actually have a moral code. The left loves to use the right's moral code against them. The left's moral code? Well, it changes on the day, and anyway, private lives are private and we shouldn't judge.

Wouldn't it be a wonderful world if everyone lived by the left's code of ethics? I'm afraid that too many already do.

"Some question the morality of building a private home that large."

Is there such a thing as a house that is too large? The home owner, Arthur Chase, a Hartford executive, will end up with a big home, but not the biggest, in America. It's only 50,900 s.f. And this is what I don't get: There are only five bedrooms. There's no guest house that I can see.