Press and punditry stampede tramples good judgment, and often the facts, too
When the New York Times published a story last December about plans for a Muslim prayer space near the World Trade Center site, there was little reaction.
After all, the imam in charge was quoted as saying the building was an effort to "push back against the extremists" in the shadow of the terrorist attacks. Only months later did a conservative assault on the project morph into the most incendiary issue on the media landscape.
The herd was stampeding again.
You hear their thundering hooves on cable shows and talk radio, watch the gathering dust on the blogs. They trample everything in their path. Passivity is impossible: Everyone must form an immediate opinion on the matter at hand and defend it passionately.
The quickly labeled Ground Zero mosque -- an Islamic cultural center neither at Ground Zero nor specifically a mosque -- is a classic case. It is a symbolic slugfest that lacks the maddening complexity of health care legislation or banking reform -- "Don't you care about religious freedom?" "Don't you care about the families of 9/11 victims?" -- and is tailor-made for the sound-bite stampede.
The media herd loves to chase stories with colorful personalities that we can either love or hate, defend or denounce. Blago fit the bill: The jury deadlocks on 23 of 24 counts and the insta-punditry begins. Did the government blow the case? Were the jurors out to lunch? Could Rod Blagojevich actually have been . . . innocent?
When prosecutors first released the tawdry tapes, the media mob reached the obvious conclusion, that the Illinois governor was a sleazy operator. He was selling Barack Obama's Senate seat! But as he raced from one television studio to the next, less attention was paid to whether he could be convicted in court. The herd likes morality plays, not legal strategizing. Hey, didja see Blago got bounced off "Celebrity Apprentice"?
What about the facts?
Such lemming-like behavior was also on display in the case of Steven Slater. It's August, you see, and media folks so much wanted to make the JetBlue hothead into an overnight folk hero that they loaded up the story with sociological baggage. This wasn't just a matter of an erratic flight attendant sliding down the emergency chute, it was a clarion call for fed-up workers everywhere! "The last-straw moment a lot of people identify with," said NBC's Ann Curry. "He did what a lot of Americans would have done," said MSNBC's Ed Schultz.
The story soared even as Slater's account was falling apart. Passengers told reporters that he had been rude, that he hadn't been provoked, that he'd gotten a bump on his head before the flight began. But by then the herd was heading off in another direction.
The herd isn't dumb, but it moves so quickly that snap judgments prevail and nuance gets lost. It decided within hours that Shirley Sherrod was a racist, then concluded just as forcefully that she had been framed. The first charge took place over a maliciously edited videotape, the second after the release of the full tape. Having belatedly vindicated her, the herd began a furious debate over the role of the White House, Andrew Breitbart and Fox News.
Some stories appear naturally in the pack's path; others are planted there by people with agendas, as with the Breitbart snippet of a speech by the Agriculture Department staffer. Controversies favored by the right are often pumped up by the Drudge Report, Fox and Rush Limbaugh; liberal crusades get picked up by the Huffington Post and MSNBC. The escalating rhetoric pushes the dispute onto op-ed pages and network newscasts, and there it remains until some countervailing force knocks it off.
At times, the early noise gives way to serious debate. When the BP oil well blew up, plenty of newly minted experts held forth on the advisability of a "top kill" or "junk shot" or other esoteric approaches, not to mention the nonstop argument over whether the president was responding with sufficient emotion. But as journalists gradually educated themselves, the country got a lesson in the risks of offshore oil drilling and the shortcomings of federal regulation.
More commonly, though, the media crowd doesn't stick around long enough to do more than stomp around. There was a furious argument over Obama giving General Motors a $50 billion bailout; now that the company is profitable and preparing a stock offering, the herd is MIA.
Next!
It always needs something new to chew on: Is Elena Kagan qualified despite never having been a judge -- and what about those rumors about her personal life? And the herd loses interest when the outcome isn't in doubt. Once it became clear that Republicans wouldn't block Kagan's Supreme Court confirmation, the coverage dwindled dramatically.
The herd is easily distracted by whatever buzzes by. Dr. Laura using the N-word? Was she racially insensitive or just trying to make a point about who gets to use such language? Never mind, she's quitting already. Wait -- Sarah Palin is defending her?
The media treated the withdrawal of the final American combat units from Iraq last week as a one-day story, despite the bloody toll of the 7 1/2 -year conflict. Yes, it was symbolic, the war isn't over and 50,000 U.S. troops remain behind, but the conflict dominated our politics for years -- and claimed the lives of more than 4,400 service members and untold Iraqi civilians. Except on MSNBC, which carried embedded correspondent Richard Engel reporting from the scene for hours, and a few front-page stories, the herd seemed disengaged. The pullout was expected; the new battlefront is Afghanistan.
The controversy over the mosque got a big-time boost when Obama called it a matter of religious freedom, then told CNN's Ed Henry the next day that he wasn't saying the project should be built. But little attention was paid to a Politico report that organizers of the $100 million center have raised only $18,255 -- making it unlikely that it will ever be built. To dwell on that, of course, would spoil the herd's fun.
Media morsels
-- Newsweek is undergoing a talent drain as it waits for 92-year-old Sidney Harman to close on buying the magazine from The Washington Post Co. With Editor Jon Meacham, Mike Isikoff and Evan Thomas already gone or leaving, columnist Fareed Zakaria has jumped to Time. He already hosts a show on CNN, part of Time's parent company.
-- Fox's Greta Van Susteren has challenged her colleague Glenn Beck's plan for a Lincoln Memorial rally Saturday on the anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech: "Yes, he has a First Amendment right to do it . . . but what about the wisdom of it?" she blogged. Her solution: Move Beck's event to another location, and move the Manhattan Islamic project as well. "It does not help heal the country on so many fronts if we poke a stick in eyes."
-- Village Voice reporter Elizabeth Dwoskin broke the story about Citibank staffer Debrahlee Lorenzana, who filed a claim -- denied by the company -- that the bank fired her because her bosses found her voluptuous body too distracting. While it was "extremely pleasurable" to watch the tale go viral, she writes in Columbia Journalism Review, it was also "slightly disturbing. As a journalist, you spend so much time plugging away at stories that you hope will impact society. Then, suddenly, you hit on a sexy banker who lost her job, and, delighted as you are, you also can't help but wonder: Is this what it takes to be talked about all over the world?"
Howard Kurtz also works for CNN and hosts its weekly media program, "Reliable Sources."
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Incendiary rant exposes Dr. Laura MEDIA MATTERS updater
Media Matters: Incendiary rant exposes Dr. Laura (again)
The year was 1998, and radio host Dr. Laura Schlessinger's celebrity was soaring. A media group had recently paid $71.5 million for her program -- the biggest radio deal at the time -- and the Los Angeles Times reported that she had the "fastest-growing show in radio history, a program now aired on 450 stations in the United States, 30 in Canada -- where she is the No. 1 talk radio personality -- and in South Africa." Schlessinger would soon begin discussions on hosting her own national TV show.
Just a few years later, Schlessinger began to stumble. In 2001, her syndicated Paramount television show was cancelled after a brief run, and in 2002, the New York Daily News reported that Schlessinger's radio audience had lost several million listeners.
Schlessinger's troubles then -- just like now -- began with incendiary remarks aimed at a minority group. During the 1990s, Schlesinger blasted "homosexuality" as "a biological error," "deviant behavior, a dysfunctional behavior," and linked gay men to pedophilia and child molestation. Schlessinger also touted "therapies which have been successful in helping a reasonable number of people become heterosexual."
When Paramount announced it had signed Schlessinger to a TV talk show for the fall of 2000, the group StopDrLaura.com successfully "waged a campaign to dissuade companies from sponsoring the show." Dr. Laura debuted to "disappointing" ratings and Paramount "had difficulty attracting national sponsors to the show," forcing the studio to sell ads at reduced rates (LA Times, 9/22/00).
In the spring of 2001, Dr. Laura -- to no one's surprise -- was cancelled. Schlessinger blamed the cancellation on gay rights groups such as StopDrLaura.com and Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), telling Larry King that "political correctness" "overpowers and overwhelms the United States of America today. ... This was strictly about trying to destroy my voice." Schlessinger defenders claimed that critics were trying to silence her "1st amendment" rights.
Nearly ten years later, the same controversy over Schlessinger played out again -- this time over racially tinged remarks to an African-American caller.
To give you a refresher, during the August 10 edition of her program, Schlessinger took a call from an African-American woman seeking advice on dealing with the resentment she felt when her white husband didn't speak out about racist comments his friends made. During the discussion, Schlessinger used the n-word 11 times, and told the caller that she had a "chip on [her] shoulder." Schlessinger added that "a lot of blacks voted for Obama" due to race and said that the caller shouldn't "marry out of [her] race" if she didn't "have a sense of humor."
After Media Matters posted audio of Schlessinger's racial rant, groups such as GLAAD, Women's Media Center, and UNITY Journalists of Color joined Media Matters to hold Schlessinger's "advertisers accountable and find out exactly where they stand."
Like in 2001, Schlessinger appeared on Larry King Live to claim that her "First Amendment rights have been usurped by angry, hateful groups who don't want to debate. They want to eliminate." Schlessinger announced that she was ending her radio show to "move on to other venues where I could say my piece and not have to live in fear anymore that sponsors and their families are going to be upset, radio stations are going to be upset, my peeps, as I call them, are going to be upset."
Some conservatives predictably rallied around Schlessinger. Michelle Malkin lauded Schlessinger for having "battled political correctness for years." Sarah Palin -- who's scheduled to join Fox News colleague Glenn Beck at his 8-28 rally to "reclaim" the civil rights movement -- defended Schlessinger's n-word rant by claiming Schlessinger has been "shackled" by her critics, and took to Twitter to tell Schlessinger, "Don't retreat... reload" after her "1st Amend.rights ceased 2exist."
The First Amendment argument is as silly now as it was ten years ago. "Censorship, in the legal sense, really only occurs when the government is trying to prevent you from saying something. I think that actions that GLAAD has taken regarding Dr. Laura is the way we in the American system expect the system to work, and Dr. Laura has a right to say what she's doing," explained Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press executive director Lucy Dalglish on the June 15, 2000, edition of PBS's NewsHour.
The purported media critics at NewsBusters, meanwhile, bizarrely accused Media Matters of censorship because we were part of a campaign targeting advertisers. The criticism is strange considering NewsBusters and its parent, Media Research Center, also target advertisers of content they view as offensive. Indeed, MRC president Brent Bozell told the LA Times in 2000 that while he didn't approve of the anti-Dr. Laura cause, "It's perfectly acceptable for an organization to lobby to cancel a program they think is inappropriate. I don't think there's anything wrong with that at all."
At the end of the day, however, Schlessinger's racial rant is only the latest in recent public displays of racially loaded rhetoric by right-wing media figures. The question, as it was in 2000, is whether the audiences will hold figures responsible for their rhetoric.
Shouldn't the GOP be paying Fox?
In April, Rupert Murdoch, the chairman and CEO of Fox News parent company News Corp., responded to a question from Media Matters' Ari Rabin-Havt by stating that he doesn't "think we should be supporting the tea party, or any other party." Yet on Monday, Bloomberg News reported that News Corp. contributed $1 million to the Republican Governors Association. The large donation caps off more than a year and a half of pro-Republican activism during the Obama administration by Fox News hosts, reporters, and "political analysts."
Because it might be hard to keep track of Fox News' pro-GOP activism in all 50 states, here's a brief recap:
GOP fundraisers / events. Fox News hosts and "political analysts" have frequently spoken at or hosted fundraisers or events for Republican organizations and candidates. Recently, Fox News employee Dick Morris -- who's received money from GOP parties -- announced that he's planning to stump for more than 40 Republican candidates.
On-air endorsements. Fox Newsers regularly make on-air endorsements for Republicans. Fox Business host Eric Bolling, for example, told viewers they could "save" the country in 2012 by putting "a Republican in there. Turn it over in 2010."
Endorsing statements. Fox Newsers regularly release statements in support of candidates through their political organizations or social media accounts. Sarah Palin, for example, makes endorsements through her Facebook page, while Mike Huckabee endorses candidates on his Huck PAC website. Fox News has promoted both Huckabee and Palin's outside ventures.
Behind-the-scenes / campaign roles. Last year, Dick Morris worked as a paid consultant for unsuccessful Massachusetts gubernatorial candidate Christy Mihos. Fox News contributor Karl Rove, meanwhile, has been offering campaign advice to Republicans, such as the House Republican Conference and Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul.
Political fundraising groups. Fox News hosts and contributors are raising money for Republican candidates and causes using political action committees, 527 and 501(c)(4) organizations. These fundraising groups are also promoted on Fox News.
Frequent softball candidate promotions. Fox News has frequently opened its airwaves to promote Republican candidates such as Republican gubernatorial candidates Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell, and Senate candidates Marco Rubio, Mark Kirk, Scott Brown, Sharron Angle, and Rand Paul. Angle summarized Fox News' friendly haven for GOP candidates when she suggested that she prefers to appear on Fox because they let her raise money.
GOP in exile. Fox News boasts a long roster of possible 2012 presidential candidates on its payroll, such as Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin. Fox News, in turn, gives them exposure and air time while they decide whether they want to run for office.
GOP issue advocacy. Fox News has frequently pushed conservative misinformation about the Obama administration and various other issues. Perhaps most notably, Fox News became the voice of the opposition against health care reform earlier this year.
GOP events advocacy. Fox News has heavily promoted pro-Republican and anti-Democrat events such as the April 15 Tax Day Tea Parties, the Tea Party Express bus tour, and Rep. Michele Bachmann's anti-health care reform rallies.
As The Daily Show's Jon Stewart noted, "If anything, the Republicans should be paying Fox News millions and millions of dollars."
This weekly wrap-up was compiled by Media Matters research fellow Eric Hananoki.
The year was 1998, and radio host Dr. Laura Schlessinger's celebrity was soaring. A media group had recently paid $71.5 million for her program -- the biggest radio deal at the time -- and the Los Angeles Times reported that she had the "fastest-growing show in radio history, a program now aired on 450 stations in the United States, 30 in Canada -- where she is the No. 1 talk radio personality -- and in South Africa." Schlessinger would soon begin discussions on hosting her own national TV show.
Just a few years later, Schlessinger began to stumble. In 2001, her syndicated Paramount television show was cancelled after a brief run, and in 2002, the New York Daily News reported that Schlessinger's radio audience had lost several million listeners.
Schlessinger's troubles then -- just like now -- began with incendiary remarks aimed at a minority group. During the 1990s, Schlesinger blasted "homosexuality" as "a biological error," "deviant behavior, a dysfunctional behavior," and linked gay men to pedophilia and child molestation. Schlessinger also touted "therapies which have been successful in helping a reasonable number of people become heterosexual."
When Paramount announced it had signed Schlessinger to a TV talk show for the fall of 2000, the group StopDrLaura.com successfully "waged a campaign to dissuade companies from sponsoring the show." Dr. Laura debuted to "disappointing" ratings and Paramount "had difficulty attracting national sponsors to the show," forcing the studio to sell ads at reduced rates (LA Times, 9/22/00).
In the spring of 2001, Dr. Laura -- to no one's surprise -- was cancelled. Schlessinger blamed the cancellation on gay rights groups such as StopDrLaura.com and Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), telling Larry King that "political correctness" "overpowers and overwhelms the United States of America today. ... This was strictly about trying to destroy my voice." Schlessinger defenders claimed that critics were trying to silence her "1st amendment" rights.
Nearly ten years later, the same controversy over Schlessinger played out again -- this time over racially tinged remarks to an African-American caller.
To give you a refresher, during the August 10 edition of her program, Schlessinger took a call from an African-American woman seeking advice on dealing with the resentment she felt when her white husband didn't speak out about racist comments his friends made. During the discussion, Schlessinger used the n-word 11 times, and told the caller that she had a "chip on [her] shoulder." Schlessinger added that "a lot of blacks voted for Obama" due to race and said that the caller shouldn't "marry out of [her] race" if she didn't "have a sense of humor."
After Media Matters posted audio of Schlessinger's racial rant, groups such as GLAAD, Women's Media Center, and UNITY Journalists of Color joined Media Matters to hold Schlessinger's "advertisers accountable and find out exactly where they stand."
Like in 2001, Schlessinger appeared on Larry King Live to claim that her "First Amendment rights have been usurped by angry, hateful groups who don't want to debate. They want to eliminate." Schlessinger announced that she was ending her radio show to "move on to other venues where I could say my piece and not have to live in fear anymore that sponsors and their families are going to be upset, radio stations are going to be upset, my peeps, as I call them, are going to be upset."
Some conservatives predictably rallied around Schlessinger. Michelle Malkin lauded Schlessinger for having "battled political correctness for years." Sarah Palin -- who's scheduled to join Fox News colleague Glenn Beck at his 8-28 rally to "reclaim" the civil rights movement -- defended Schlessinger's n-word rant by claiming Schlessinger has been "shackled" by her critics, and took to Twitter to tell Schlessinger, "Don't retreat... reload" after her "1st Amend.rights ceased 2exist."
The First Amendment argument is as silly now as it was ten years ago. "Censorship, in the legal sense, really only occurs when the government is trying to prevent you from saying something. I think that actions that GLAAD has taken regarding Dr. Laura is the way we in the American system expect the system to work, and Dr. Laura has a right to say what she's doing," explained Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press executive director Lucy Dalglish on the June 15, 2000, edition of PBS's NewsHour.
The purported media critics at NewsBusters, meanwhile, bizarrely accused Media Matters of censorship because we were part of a campaign targeting advertisers. The criticism is strange considering NewsBusters and its parent, Media Research Center, also target advertisers of content they view as offensive. Indeed, MRC president Brent Bozell told the LA Times in 2000 that while he didn't approve of the anti-Dr. Laura cause, "It's perfectly acceptable for an organization to lobby to cancel a program they think is inappropriate. I don't think there's anything wrong with that at all."
At the end of the day, however, Schlessinger's racial rant is only the latest in recent public displays of racially loaded rhetoric by right-wing media figures. The question, as it was in 2000, is whether the audiences will hold figures responsible for their rhetoric.
Shouldn't the GOP be paying Fox?
In April, Rupert Murdoch, the chairman and CEO of Fox News parent company News Corp., responded to a question from Media Matters' Ari Rabin-Havt by stating that he doesn't "think we should be supporting the tea party, or any other party." Yet on Monday, Bloomberg News reported that News Corp. contributed $1 million to the Republican Governors Association. The large donation caps off more than a year and a half of pro-Republican activism during the Obama administration by Fox News hosts, reporters, and "political analysts."
Because it might be hard to keep track of Fox News' pro-GOP activism in all 50 states, here's a brief recap:
GOP fundraisers / events. Fox News hosts and "political analysts" have frequently spoken at or hosted fundraisers or events for Republican organizations and candidates. Recently, Fox News employee Dick Morris -- who's received money from GOP parties -- announced that he's planning to stump for more than 40 Republican candidates.
On-air endorsements. Fox Newsers regularly make on-air endorsements for Republicans. Fox Business host Eric Bolling, for example, told viewers they could "save" the country in 2012 by putting "a Republican in there. Turn it over in 2010."
Endorsing statements. Fox Newsers regularly release statements in support of candidates through their political organizations or social media accounts. Sarah Palin, for example, makes endorsements through her Facebook page, while Mike Huckabee endorses candidates on his Huck PAC website. Fox News has promoted both Huckabee and Palin's outside ventures.
Behind-the-scenes / campaign roles. Last year, Dick Morris worked as a paid consultant for unsuccessful Massachusetts gubernatorial candidate Christy Mihos. Fox News contributor Karl Rove, meanwhile, has been offering campaign advice to Republicans, such as the House Republican Conference and Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul.
Political fundraising groups. Fox News hosts and contributors are raising money for Republican candidates and causes using political action committees, 527 and 501(c)(4) organizations. These fundraising groups are also promoted on Fox News.
Frequent softball candidate promotions. Fox News has frequently opened its airwaves to promote Republican candidates such as Republican gubernatorial candidates Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell, and Senate candidates Marco Rubio, Mark Kirk, Scott Brown, Sharron Angle, and Rand Paul. Angle summarized Fox News' friendly haven for GOP candidates when she suggested that she prefers to appear on Fox because they let her raise money.
GOP in exile. Fox News boasts a long roster of possible 2012 presidential candidates on its payroll, such as Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin. Fox News, in turn, gives them exposure and air time while they decide whether they want to run for office.
GOP issue advocacy. Fox News has frequently pushed conservative misinformation about the Obama administration and various other issues. Perhaps most notably, Fox News became the voice of the opposition against health care reform earlier this year.
GOP events advocacy. Fox News has heavily promoted pro-Republican and anti-Democrat events such as the April 15 Tax Day Tea Parties, the Tea Party Express bus tour, and Rep. Michele Bachmann's anti-health care reform rallies.
As The Daily Show's Jon Stewart noted, "If anything, the Republicans should be paying Fox News millions and millions of dollars."
This weekly wrap-up was compiled by Media Matters research fellow Eric Hananoki.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
The Rev Graham is Bull---- ARTIST!!
Evangelist leads 'disinformation campaign' on Obama
Rev. Franklin Graham says Obama was 'born Muslim' and appeared to doubt Obama's Christianity. Religion professor Stephen Prothero says Graham is spreading 'disinformation' about Christianity and Islam, which Graham once described as says a leading religion professor.
After CNN's John King gave Graham a full news cycle to raise a lifted eyebrow at President Obama's Christian profession of faith, Stephen Prothero, religion professor at Boston University, came on King's show Friday night to undercut Graham and question why CNN would ask an evangelist known to slur Islam, to speculate on its theology.
According to Prothero, author of God is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World, told King, the finding in a recent survey that 18% of Americans believe Obama is Muslim ...
... is because we have people who are supposed to be responsible public leaders, like Franklin Graham, who are spreading what seems to me like a sort of disinformation campaign... What Franklin Graham should say: 'Barack Obama says he's a Christian, he's a Christian, end of story.'
Prothero also pointed out that Obama prayed with Franklin and his father, America's most famous living evangelist, Rev. Billy Graham, in May but Franklin still repeatedly used the "if" word to answer King's questions Thursday on whether Obama has accepted Christ.
Prothero said: Franklin Graham doesn't seem to be interested in focusing on preaching the gospel of -- of Jesus. He wants to be spreading misinformation about the religion of Islam.
... Why are we listening to Franklin Graham?
Church and state issues underlie the current fracus over President' Obama's religious identity. CAPTIONBy Web Bryant, USA TODAYProthero, who also wrote a book on Americans' ignorance about their own faith traditions as well as those of others (Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know -- And Doesn't) told King,
.. it doesn't help the conversation we need to have as a public about Islam to be having people who are just basically spreading falsehoods about the tradition.
We should be listening to Muslims about their tradition. We should be listening to scholars about their tradition. But we shouldn't be listening to Evangelical preachers who are out to trash the Muslim religion in order to gain some political and perhaps religious advantage.
Prothero also pounced on Graham for cherry-picking quotes from the Quran that highlight violence. (In U.S. Protestant culture, picking quotes out of context from the Bible to prove a point is called "proof-texting.").
Prothero highlighted
... shared beliefs and practices across Christianity and Islam. And we shouldn't be talking about the worst of the tradition of Islam and comparing it with the best of the tradition of Christianity.
When Jesus says, "I come not to bring peace, but a sword," is it fair to say, oh, Jesus is out to kill people?
No, because you read that in the context of the whole Bible. You read that in the context of the Christian tradition. That's how you need to understand passages in the Quran, is in the context of the whole Quran and in the context of the whole Islamic tradition.
Rev. Franklin Graham says Obama was 'born Muslim' and appeared to doubt Obama's Christianity. Religion professor Stephen Prothero says Graham is spreading 'disinformation' about Christianity and Islam, which Graham once described as says a leading religion professor.
After CNN's John King gave Graham a full news cycle to raise a lifted eyebrow at President Obama's Christian profession of faith, Stephen Prothero, religion professor at Boston University, came on King's show Friday night to undercut Graham and question why CNN would ask an evangelist known to slur Islam, to speculate on its theology.
According to Prothero, author of God is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World, told King, the finding in a recent survey that 18% of Americans believe Obama is Muslim ...
... is because we have people who are supposed to be responsible public leaders, like Franklin Graham, who are spreading what seems to me like a sort of disinformation campaign... What Franklin Graham should say: 'Barack Obama says he's a Christian, he's a Christian, end of story.'
Prothero also pointed out that Obama prayed with Franklin and his father, America's most famous living evangelist, Rev. Billy Graham, in May but Franklin still repeatedly used the "if" word to answer King's questions Thursday on whether Obama has accepted Christ.
Prothero said: Franklin Graham doesn't seem to be interested in focusing on preaching the gospel of -- of Jesus. He wants to be spreading misinformation about the religion of Islam.
... Why are we listening to Franklin Graham?
Church and state issues underlie the current fracus over President' Obama's religious identity. CAPTIONBy Web Bryant, USA TODAYProthero, who also wrote a book on Americans' ignorance about their own faith traditions as well as those of others (Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know -- And Doesn't) told King,
.. it doesn't help the conversation we need to have as a public about Islam to be having people who are just basically spreading falsehoods about the tradition.
We should be listening to Muslims about their tradition. We should be listening to scholars about their tradition. But we shouldn't be listening to Evangelical preachers who are out to trash the Muslim religion in order to gain some political and perhaps religious advantage.
Prothero also pounced on Graham for cherry-picking quotes from the Quran that highlight violence. (In U.S. Protestant culture, picking quotes out of context from the Bible to prove a point is called "proof-texting.").
Prothero highlighted
... shared beliefs and practices across Christianity and Islam. And we shouldn't be talking about the worst of the tradition of Islam and comparing it with the best of the tradition of Christianity.
When Jesus says, "I come not to bring peace, but a sword," is it fair to say, oh, Jesus is out to kill people?
No, because you read that in the context of the whole Bible. You read that in the context of the Christian tradition. That's how you need to understand passages in the Quran, is in the context of the whole Quran and in the context of the whole Islamic tradition.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Fair & Balanced!? F-word Network is a shame!! Fox parent gives $1 million to RGA
Fox News Channel.Fox parent gives $1 million to RGA
News Corp., which owns Fox News and the New York Post, gave $1 million to Haley Barbour's Republican Governors Association this year, according to the RGA's most recent filing.
The company's media outlets play politics more openly than most, but the huge contribution to a party committee is a new step toward an open identification between Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. and the GOP. The company's highest-ranking Democratic executive, Peter Chernin, recently departed.
The $1 million contribution this June 24 was first reported by Bloomberg and appears on the RGA's July 15 filing with the Internal Revenue Service.
The group's other seven-figure donor is the libertarian billionaire David Koch.
UPDATE: News Corp. Spokesman Jack Horner emails, "News Corporation believes in the power of free markets, and the RGA’s pro-business agenda supports our priorities at this most critical time for our economy."
Tthe giant check to the RGA dwarfs low four-figure checks from Fox's PAC to Democrats including Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer.
News Corp., which owns Fox News and the New York Post, gave $1 million to Haley Barbour's Republican Governors Association this year, according to the RGA's most recent filing.
The company's media outlets play politics more openly than most, but the huge contribution to a party committee is a new step toward an open identification between Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. and the GOP. The company's highest-ranking Democratic executive, Peter Chernin, recently departed.
The $1 million contribution this June 24 was first reported by Bloomberg and appears on the RGA's July 15 filing with the Internal Revenue Service.
The group's other seven-figure donor is the libertarian billionaire David Koch.
UPDATE: News Corp. Spokesman Jack Horner emails, "News Corporation believes in the power of free markets, and the RGA’s pro-business agenda supports our priorities at this most critical time for our economy."
Tthe giant check to the RGA dwarfs low four-figure checks from Fox's PAC to Democrats including Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
YOUR NOSE KNOWS!
Scents and Sensibility
"Psychology Today" Magazine
By Elizabeth Svoboda
Psychologists Rachel Herz and Estelle Campenni were just getting to know each other, swapping stories about their lives over coffee, when Campenni confided something unexpected: She was living proof, she said, of love at first smell. "I knew I would marry my husband the minute I smelled him," she told Herz. "I've always been into smell, but this was different; he really smelled good to me. His scent made me feel safe and at the same time turned on—and I'm talking about his real body smell, not cologne or soap. I'd never felt like that from a man's smell before. We've been married for eight years now and have three kids, and his smell is always very sexy to me."
Everyone knows what it's like to be powerfully affected by a partner's smell—witness men who bury their noses in their wives' hair and women who can't stop sniffing their boyfriends' T-shirts. And couples have long testified to the ways scent-based chemistry affects their relationships. "One of the most common things women tell marriage counselors is, 'I can't stand his smell,'" says Herz, the author of The Scent of Desire.
Sexual attraction remains one of life's biggest mysteries. We might say we go for partners who are tall and thin, love to cook, or have a mania for exercise, but when push comes to shove, studies show, the people we actually end up with possess few of the traits we claim to want. Some researchers think scent could be the hidden cosmological constant in the sexual universe, the missing factor that explains who we end up with. It may even explain why we feel "chemistry"—or "sparks" or "electricity"—with one person and not with another.
Physical attraction itself may literally be based on smell. We discount the importance of scent-centric communication only because it operates on such a subtle level. "This is not something that jumps out at you, like smelling a good steak cooking on the grill," says Randy Thornhill, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of New Mexico. "But the scent capability is there, and it's not surprising to find smell capacity in the context of sexual behavior." As a result, we may find ourselves drawn to the counter attendant at the local drugstore, but have no idea why—or, conversely, find ourselves put off by potential dating partners even though they seem perfect on paper.
Though we may remain partially oblivious to scent signals we're sending and receiving, new research suggests that we not only come equipped to choose a romantic partner who smells good to us, but that this choice has profound biological implications. As we act out the complex rituals of courtship, many of them inscribed deep in our brain, scent-based cues help us zero in on optimal partners—the ones most likely to stay faithful to us and to create healthy children with us.
At first blush, the idea of scent-based attraction might seem hypothetical and ephemeral, but when we unknowingly interfere with the transmission of subtle olfactory messages operating below the level of conscious awareness, the results can be both concrete and devastating. When we disregard what our noses tell us, we can find ourselves mired in partnerships that breed sexual discontent, infertility, and even—in extreme cases—unhealthy offspring.
The Scent of Desire
When you're turned on by your partner's scent, taking a deep whiff of his chest or the back of her neck feels like taking a powerful drug—it's an instant flume ride to bliss, however momentary. Research has shown that we use scent-based signaling mechanisms to suss out compatibility. Claus Wedekind, a biologist at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland, created Exhibit A of this evidence by giving 44 men new T-shirts and instructing them to wear the shirts for two straight nights. To ensure that the sweat collecting on the shirts would remain "odor-neutral," he supplied the men with scent-free soap and aftershave.
After the men were allowed to change, 49 women sniffed the shirts and specified which odors they found most attractive. Far more often than chance would predict, the women preferred the smell of T-shirts worn by men who were immunologically dissimilar to them. The difference lay in the sequence of more than 100 immune system genes known as the MHC, or major histocompatibility complex. These genes code for proteins that help the immune system recognize pathogens. The smell of their favorite shirts also reminded the women of their past and current boyfriends, suggesting that MHC does indeed influence women's dating decisions in real life.
Women's preference for MHC-distinct mates makes perfect sense from a biological point of view. Ever since ancestral times, partners whose immune systems are different have produced offspring who are more disease-resistant. With more immune genes expressed, kids are buffered against a wider variety of pathogens and toxins.
But that doesn't mean women prefer men whose MHC genes are most different from theirs, as University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Martha McClintock found when she performed a T-shirt study similar to Wedekind's. Women are not attracted to the smell of men with whom they had no MHC genes in common. "This might be a case where you're protecting yourself against a mate who's too similar or too dissimilar, but there's a middle range where you're OK," McClintock says.
Women consistently outperform men in smell sensitivity tests, and they also make greater time and energy sacrifices on their children's behalf than men do—in addition to bearing offspring, they look after them most of the time. These factors may explain why women are more discriminating in sniffing out MHC compatibility.
Men are sensitive to smell as well, but because women shoulder a greater reproductive burden, and are therefore choosier about potential mates, researchers are not surprised to find that women are also more discriminating in sniffing out MHC compatibility.
Unlike, say, blood types, MHC gene complements differ so much from one person to the next that there's no obvious way to reliably predict who's MHC-compatible with whom. Skin color, for instance, isn't much help, since groups of people living in different areas of the world might happen to evolve genetic resistance to some of the same germs. "People of different ethnicities can have similar profiles, so race is not a good predictor of MHC dissimilarity," Thornhill says.
The Scent of Desire continued...
And because people's MHC profiles are as distinct as fingerprints—there are thousands of possible gene combinations—a potential sex partner who smells good to one woman may completely repel another. "There's no Brad Pitt of smell," Herz says. "Body odor is an external manifestation of the immune system, and the smells we think are attractive come from the people who are most genetically compatible with us." Much of what we vaguely call "sexual chemistry," she adds, is likely a direct result of this scent-based compatibility.
Typically, our noses steer us in the right direction when it comes to picking a reproductively compatible partner. But what if they fail us and we wind up with a mate whose MHC profile is too similar to our own? Carol Ober, a geneticist at the University of Chicago, explored this question in her studies of members of the Hutterite religious clan, an Amish-like closed society that consists of some 40,000 members and extends through the rural Midwest. Hutterites marry only other members of their clan, so the variety in their gene pool is relatively low. Within these imposed limits, Hutterite women nevertheless manage to find partners who are MHC-distinct from them most of the time.
The few couples with a high degree of MHC similarity, however, suffered higher rates of miscarriage and experienced longer intervals between pregnancies, indicating more difficulty conceiving. Some scientists speculate that miscarriages may be the body's way of curtailing investment in a child who isn't likely to have a strong immune system anyway.
What's more, among heterosexual couples, similar MHC profiles spell relational difficulty, Christine Garver-Apgar, a psychologist at the University of New Mexico, has found. "As the proportion of MHC alleles increased, women's sexual responsiveness to their partners decreased, and their number of sex partners outside the relationship increased," Garver-Apgar reports. The number of MHC genes couples shared corresponded directly with the likelihood that they would cheat on one another; if a man and woman had 50 percent of their MHC alleles in common, the woman had a 50 percent chance of sleeping with another man behind her partner's back.
The Divorce Pill?
Women generally prefer the smell of men whose MHC gene complements are different from theirs, setting the stage for the best biological match. But Wedekind's T-shirt study revealed one notable exception to this rule: women on the birth-control pill. When the pill users among his subjects sniffed the array of pre-worn T-shirts, they preferred the scent of men whose MHC profiles were similar to theirs—the opposite of their pill-free counterparts.
This dramatic reversal of smell preferences may reflect the pill's mechanism of action: It prevents the ovaries from releasing an egg, fooling the body into thinking it's pregnant. And since pregnancy is such a vulnerable state, it seems to activate a preference for kin, who are genetically similar to us and likely to serve as protectors. "When pregnant rodent females are exposed to strange males, they can spontaneously abort," Herz says. "The same may be true for human females." What's more, some women report a deficit in sex drive when they take the pill, a possible consequence of its pregnancy-mimicking function.
The Divorce Pill? continued...
The tendency to favor mates with similar MHC genes could potentially hamper the durability of pill users' relationships in the long term. While Herz shies away from dubbing hormonal birth control "the divorce pill," as a few media outlets have done in response to her theories, she does think the pill jumbles women's smell preferences. "It's like picking your cousins as marriage partners," Herz says. "It constitutes a biological error." As a result, explains Charles Wysocki, a psychobiologist at Florida State University, when such a couple decides to have children and the woman stops taking birth control, she may find herself less attracted to her mate for reasons she doesn't quite understand. "On a subconscious level, her brain is realizing a mistake was made—she married the wrong guy," he says.
"Some couples' fertility problems may be related to the pill-induced flip-flop in MHC preferences," Garver-Apgar adds. No one has yet collected data to indicate whether the pill has created a large-scale problem in compatibility. Still, Herz recommends that women seeking a long-term partner consider alternative birth control methods, at least until they get to know their potential significant other well and are sure they like the way he smells. "If you're looking for a man to be the father of your child," she says, "go off the pill before you start your search."
If you were on the pill when you met your current partner, the situation is more complicated. Once a relationship has progressed to long-term commitment, says Herz, a woman's perception of her partner's smell is so intertwined with her emotional reaction to him that it could be difficult for her to assess his scent as if he were a stranger. "If she's in love, he could smell like a garbage can and she'd still be attracted to him."
Crossed Signals
The pill subverts a woman's ability to sniff out a compatible mate by causing her to misinterpret the scent messages she receives. But it may warp olfactory communication channels in the other direction as well, distorting the signals she sends—and making her seem less appealing to men, an irony given that women typically take the pill to boost their appeal in a partner's eyes.
Geoffrey Miller, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of New Mexico and author of
The Mating Mind, noticed the pill's connection to waning male desire while studying a group of exotic dancers—women whose livelihoods depend on how sexually appealing they are to male customers. Non-pill-using dancers made about 50 percent more in tips than dancers on oral contraceptives. In other words, women who were on the pill were only about two-thirds as sexy as women who weren't.
Why were the pill-takers in the study so much less attractive to men? "Women are probably doing something unconsciously, and men are responding to it unconsciously," says Miller. "We just don't know whether it has to do with a shift in their psychology, their tone of voice, or if it's more physical, as in the kind of pheromones they're putting out."
The biggest earners in Miller's study were non-pill-using dancers at the time of ovulation. Other studies have shown that men rate women as smelling best when they are at the most fertile point of their menstrual cycles, suggesting that women give off scent-based signals that broadcast their level of fecundity. "The pill might be producing cues that a woman is in the early stage of pregnancy, which would not tend to elicit a lot of male sexual interest," Miller says. "It makes sense for men to be sensitive to that and for them not to feel the same chemistry with the woman
Drowning in Fragrance
The pill isn't the only way we might confound sexual chemistry. Every day, far more people may be subverting their quest for love with soap and bottled fragrances. In ancestral times, smelling ripe was just a fact of life, absent hot showers and shampoo. This held true well into the 19th century, when the miasma of body odor in Parisian streets grew so thick that it was dubbed "The Great Stink of 1880." Back when a person's scent could waft across a room, a mere handshake could provide valuable information about attraction.
Since the 20th-century hygiene revolution and the rise of the personal-care industry, however, companies have pitched deodorants, perfumes, and colognes to consumers as the epitome of sex appeal. But instead of furthering our quest to find the perfect mate, such products may actually derail it, say researchers, by masking our true scent and making it difficult for prospects to assess compatibility. "Humans abuse body smell signals by hiding them, masking them, putting on deodorant," says Devendra Singh, a psychologist at the University of Texas. "The noise-to-signal ratio was much better in primitive society."
Miller argues that modern hygiene may be such an impediment to sexual signaling that it could explain why so many people in our culture get so physical so fast. "Hunter-gatherers didn't have to do a lot of kissing, because they could smell each other pretty clearly from a few feet away," Miller says. "With all the showering, scents, and soap, we have to get our noses and mouths really up close to people to get a good idea of their biochemistry. People are more motivated to do a lot more kissing and petting, to do that assessment before they have sex." In other words, the need to smell our mates—and the comparative difficulty of doing so in today's environment of perfumes and colognes—may actually be driving the sexual disinhibition of modern society.
Other scientists counter that odor detection is a bit subtler. For one thing, it's possible we select store-bought scents to complement our natural odorprints, rather than mask them entirely: One study found that people with similar MHC profiles tend to go for the same colognes. And Garver-Apgar points out that in spending hours together each day, partners have ample opportunity to experience each other sans artificial scents. "Once you're in a close enough relationship," she says, "you're going to get a real whiff at some point."
Scents and Sensibility
There's no way to know whether couples who shell out thousands of dollars to fertility clinics—and those who struggle to make a relationship work because "the chemistry just isn't there"—suffer MHC incompatibility. We might never know, since a multitude of factors contributes to every reproductive and romantic outcome. But we can, at least, be cognizant of the importance of natural scent.
Scents and Sensibility continued...
"Scent can be a deal breaker if it's not right, just like someone being too stupid or unkind or short," says Miller. Nevertheless, smell isn't the be-all and end-all of attraction, but one of a constellation of important factors. Armed with knowledge of how scent-based attraction operates, we have some power to decide how much priority we want to accord it. Is it more important to be with the partner who smells amazing and with whom you have great chemistry, or with the one who may not attract you quite as much on a physical level but is honest and reliable?
"People tend to treat this as an either-or situation: Either we're completely driven by pheromones, like moths, or we're completely in charge of our own destiny," University of Chicago psychologist McClintock says. "But it's not a wild idea that both factors are involved." While people like Estelle Campenni have reaped untold benefits by trusting their scent impressions, it's ultimately up to us how highly we value what our noses tell us.
Follow Your Nose
How to put your nose to work in choosing a partner—or evaluating an existing one.
Think twice about opting for the pill if you're seeking a long-term partner. The first few weeks of a relationship are critical to assessing compatibility, so make sure your nose is up to the task.
Try a fragrance-free week. Eliminate factors that could throw your nostrils off. Have your partner set aside scented shower gels in favor of fragrance-free soap, nix the cologne, and use only unscented deodorant.
Keep smell's importance in context. If you sometimes find your partner's scent off-putting, don't panic; it doesn't necessarily mean fertility issues are in your future. Connections between MHC compatibility and conception problems have yet to be confirmed in large-scale population studies, so don't plunk down big bucks for MHC testing at this point.
"Psychology Today" Magazine
By Elizabeth Svoboda
Psychologists Rachel Herz and Estelle Campenni were just getting to know each other, swapping stories about their lives over coffee, when Campenni confided something unexpected: She was living proof, she said, of love at first smell. "I knew I would marry my husband the minute I smelled him," she told Herz. "I've always been into smell, but this was different; he really smelled good to me. His scent made me feel safe and at the same time turned on—and I'm talking about his real body smell, not cologne or soap. I'd never felt like that from a man's smell before. We've been married for eight years now and have three kids, and his smell is always very sexy to me."
Everyone knows what it's like to be powerfully affected by a partner's smell—witness men who bury their noses in their wives' hair and women who can't stop sniffing their boyfriends' T-shirts. And couples have long testified to the ways scent-based chemistry affects their relationships. "One of the most common things women tell marriage counselors is, 'I can't stand his smell,'" says Herz, the author of The Scent of Desire.
Sexual attraction remains one of life's biggest mysteries. We might say we go for partners who are tall and thin, love to cook, or have a mania for exercise, but when push comes to shove, studies show, the people we actually end up with possess few of the traits we claim to want. Some researchers think scent could be the hidden cosmological constant in the sexual universe, the missing factor that explains who we end up with. It may even explain why we feel "chemistry"—or "sparks" or "electricity"—with one person and not with another.
Physical attraction itself may literally be based on smell. We discount the importance of scent-centric communication only because it operates on such a subtle level. "This is not something that jumps out at you, like smelling a good steak cooking on the grill," says Randy Thornhill, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of New Mexico. "But the scent capability is there, and it's not surprising to find smell capacity in the context of sexual behavior." As a result, we may find ourselves drawn to the counter attendant at the local drugstore, but have no idea why—or, conversely, find ourselves put off by potential dating partners even though they seem perfect on paper.
Though we may remain partially oblivious to scent signals we're sending and receiving, new research suggests that we not only come equipped to choose a romantic partner who smells good to us, but that this choice has profound biological implications. As we act out the complex rituals of courtship, many of them inscribed deep in our brain, scent-based cues help us zero in on optimal partners—the ones most likely to stay faithful to us and to create healthy children with us.
At first blush, the idea of scent-based attraction might seem hypothetical and ephemeral, but when we unknowingly interfere with the transmission of subtle olfactory messages operating below the level of conscious awareness, the results can be both concrete and devastating. When we disregard what our noses tell us, we can find ourselves mired in partnerships that breed sexual discontent, infertility, and even—in extreme cases—unhealthy offspring.
The Scent of Desire
When you're turned on by your partner's scent, taking a deep whiff of his chest or the back of her neck feels like taking a powerful drug—it's an instant flume ride to bliss, however momentary. Research has shown that we use scent-based signaling mechanisms to suss out compatibility. Claus Wedekind, a biologist at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland, created Exhibit A of this evidence by giving 44 men new T-shirts and instructing them to wear the shirts for two straight nights. To ensure that the sweat collecting on the shirts would remain "odor-neutral," he supplied the men with scent-free soap and aftershave.
After the men were allowed to change, 49 women sniffed the shirts and specified which odors they found most attractive. Far more often than chance would predict, the women preferred the smell of T-shirts worn by men who were immunologically dissimilar to them. The difference lay in the sequence of more than 100 immune system genes known as the MHC, or major histocompatibility complex. These genes code for proteins that help the immune system recognize pathogens. The smell of their favorite shirts also reminded the women of their past and current boyfriends, suggesting that MHC does indeed influence women's dating decisions in real life.
Women's preference for MHC-distinct mates makes perfect sense from a biological point of view. Ever since ancestral times, partners whose immune systems are different have produced offspring who are more disease-resistant. With more immune genes expressed, kids are buffered against a wider variety of pathogens and toxins.
But that doesn't mean women prefer men whose MHC genes are most different from theirs, as University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Martha McClintock found when she performed a T-shirt study similar to Wedekind's. Women are not attracted to the smell of men with whom they had no MHC genes in common. "This might be a case where you're protecting yourself against a mate who's too similar or too dissimilar, but there's a middle range where you're OK," McClintock says.
Women consistently outperform men in smell sensitivity tests, and they also make greater time and energy sacrifices on their children's behalf than men do—in addition to bearing offspring, they look after them most of the time. These factors may explain why women are more discriminating in sniffing out MHC compatibility.
Men are sensitive to smell as well, but because women shoulder a greater reproductive burden, and are therefore choosier about potential mates, researchers are not surprised to find that women are also more discriminating in sniffing out MHC compatibility.
Unlike, say, blood types, MHC gene complements differ so much from one person to the next that there's no obvious way to reliably predict who's MHC-compatible with whom. Skin color, for instance, isn't much help, since groups of people living in different areas of the world might happen to evolve genetic resistance to some of the same germs. "People of different ethnicities can have similar profiles, so race is not a good predictor of MHC dissimilarity," Thornhill says.
The Scent of Desire continued...
And because people's MHC profiles are as distinct as fingerprints—there are thousands of possible gene combinations—a potential sex partner who smells good to one woman may completely repel another. "There's no Brad Pitt of smell," Herz says. "Body odor is an external manifestation of the immune system, and the smells we think are attractive come from the people who are most genetically compatible with us." Much of what we vaguely call "sexual chemistry," she adds, is likely a direct result of this scent-based compatibility.
Typically, our noses steer us in the right direction when it comes to picking a reproductively compatible partner. But what if they fail us and we wind up with a mate whose MHC profile is too similar to our own? Carol Ober, a geneticist at the University of Chicago, explored this question in her studies of members of the Hutterite religious clan, an Amish-like closed society that consists of some 40,000 members and extends through the rural Midwest. Hutterites marry only other members of their clan, so the variety in their gene pool is relatively low. Within these imposed limits, Hutterite women nevertheless manage to find partners who are MHC-distinct from them most of the time.
The few couples with a high degree of MHC similarity, however, suffered higher rates of miscarriage and experienced longer intervals between pregnancies, indicating more difficulty conceiving. Some scientists speculate that miscarriages may be the body's way of curtailing investment in a child who isn't likely to have a strong immune system anyway.
What's more, among heterosexual couples, similar MHC profiles spell relational difficulty, Christine Garver-Apgar, a psychologist at the University of New Mexico, has found. "As the proportion of MHC alleles increased, women's sexual responsiveness to their partners decreased, and their number of sex partners outside the relationship increased," Garver-Apgar reports. The number of MHC genes couples shared corresponded directly with the likelihood that they would cheat on one another; if a man and woman had 50 percent of their MHC alleles in common, the woman had a 50 percent chance of sleeping with another man behind her partner's back.
The Divorce Pill?
Women generally prefer the smell of men whose MHC gene complements are different from theirs, setting the stage for the best biological match. But Wedekind's T-shirt study revealed one notable exception to this rule: women on the birth-control pill. When the pill users among his subjects sniffed the array of pre-worn T-shirts, they preferred the scent of men whose MHC profiles were similar to theirs—the opposite of their pill-free counterparts.
This dramatic reversal of smell preferences may reflect the pill's mechanism of action: It prevents the ovaries from releasing an egg, fooling the body into thinking it's pregnant. And since pregnancy is such a vulnerable state, it seems to activate a preference for kin, who are genetically similar to us and likely to serve as protectors. "When pregnant rodent females are exposed to strange males, they can spontaneously abort," Herz says. "The same may be true for human females." What's more, some women report a deficit in sex drive when they take the pill, a possible consequence of its pregnancy-mimicking function.
The Divorce Pill? continued...
The tendency to favor mates with similar MHC genes could potentially hamper the durability of pill users' relationships in the long term. While Herz shies away from dubbing hormonal birth control "the divorce pill," as a few media outlets have done in response to her theories, she does think the pill jumbles women's smell preferences. "It's like picking your cousins as marriage partners," Herz says. "It constitutes a biological error." As a result, explains Charles Wysocki, a psychobiologist at Florida State University, when such a couple decides to have children and the woman stops taking birth control, she may find herself less attracted to her mate for reasons she doesn't quite understand. "On a subconscious level, her brain is realizing a mistake was made—she married the wrong guy," he says.
"Some couples' fertility problems may be related to the pill-induced flip-flop in MHC preferences," Garver-Apgar adds. No one has yet collected data to indicate whether the pill has created a large-scale problem in compatibility. Still, Herz recommends that women seeking a long-term partner consider alternative birth control methods, at least until they get to know their potential significant other well and are sure they like the way he smells. "If you're looking for a man to be the father of your child," she says, "go off the pill before you start your search."
If you were on the pill when you met your current partner, the situation is more complicated. Once a relationship has progressed to long-term commitment, says Herz, a woman's perception of her partner's smell is so intertwined with her emotional reaction to him that it could be difficult for her to assess his scent as if he were a stranger. "If she's in love, he could smell like a garbage can and she'd still be attracted to him."
Crossed Signals
The pill subverts a woman's ability to sniff out a compatible mate by causing her to misinterpret the scent messages she receives. But it may warp olfactory communication channels in the other direction as well, distorting the signals she sends—and making her seem less appealing to men, an irony given that women typically take the pill to boost their appeal in a partner's eyes.
Geoffrey Miller, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of New Mexico and author of
The Mating Mind, noticed the pill's connection to waning male desire while studying a group of exotic dancers—women whose livelihoods depend on how sexually appealing they are to male customers. Non-pill-using dancers made about 50 percent more in tips than dancers on oral contraceptives. In other words, women who were on the pill were only about two-thirds as sexy as women who weren't.
Why were the pill-takers in the study so much less attractive to men? "Women are probably doing something unconsciously, and men are responding to it unconsciously," says Miller. "We just don't know whether it has to do with a shift in their psychology, their tone of voice, or if it's more physical, as in the kind of pheromones they're putting out."
The biggest earners in Miller's study were non-pill-using dancers at the time of ovulation. Other studies have shown that men rate women as smelling best when they are at the most fertile point of their menstrual cycles, suggesting that women give off scent-based signals that broadcast their level of fecundity. "The pill might be producing cues that a woman is in the early stage of pregnancy, which would not tend to elicit a lot of male sexual interest," Miller says. "It makes sense for men to be sensitive to that and for them not to feel the same chemistry with the woman
Drowning in Fragrance
The pill isn't the only way we might confound sexual chemistry. Every day, far more people may be subverting their quest for love with soap and bottled fragrances. In ancestral times, smelling ripe was just a fact of life, absent hot showers and shampoo. This held true well into the 19th century, when the miasma of body odor in Parisian streets grew so thick that it was dubbed "The Great Stink of 1880." Back when a person's scent could waft across a room, a mere handshake could provide valuable information about attraction.
Since the 20th-century hygiene revolution and the rise of the personal-care industry, however, companies have pitched deodorants, perfumes, and colognes to consumers as the epitome of sex appeal. But instead of furthering our quest to find the perfect mate, such products may actually derail it, say researchers, by masking our true scent and making it difficult for prospects to assess compatibility. "Humans abuse body smell signals by hiding them, masking them, putting on deodorant," says Devendra Singh, a psychologist at the University of Texas. "The noise-to-signal ratio was much better in primitive society."
Miller argues that modern hygiene may be such an impediment to sexual signaling that it could explain why so many people in our culture get so physical so fast. "Hunter-gatherers didn't have to do a lot of kissing, because they could smell each other pretty clearly from a few feet away," Miller says. "With all the showering, scents, and soap, we have to get our noses and mouths really up close to people to get a good idea of their biochemistry. People are more motivated to do a lot more kissing and petting, to do that assessment before they have sex." In other words, the need to smell our mates—and the comparative difficulty of doing so in today's environment of perfumes and colognes—may actually be driving the sexual disinhibition of modern society.
Other scientists counter that odor detection is a bit subtler. For one thing, it's possible we select store-bought scents to complement our natural odorprints, rather than mask them entirely: One study found that people with similar MHC profiles tend to go for the same colognes. And Garver-Apgar points out that in spending hours together each day, partners have ample opportunity to experience each other sans artificial scents. "Once you're in a close enough relationship," she says, "you're going to get a real whiff at some point."
Scents and Sensibility
There's no way to know whether couples who shell out thousands of dollars to fertility clinics—and those who struggle to make a relationship work because "the chemistry just isn't there"—suffer MHC incompatibility. We might never know, since a multitude of factors contributes to every reproductive and romantic outcome. But we can, at least, be cognizant of the importance of natural scent.
Scents and Sensibility continued...
"Scent can be a deal breaker if it's not right, just like someone being too stupid or unkind or short," says Miller. Nevertheless, smell isn't the be-all and end-all of attraction, but one of a constellation of important factors. Armed with knowledge of how scent-based attraction operates, we have some power to decide how much priority we want to accord it. Is it more important to be with the partner who smells amazing and with whom you have great chemistry, or with the one who may not attract you quite as much on a physical level but is honest and reliable?
"People tend to treat this as an either-or situation: Either we're completely driven by pheromones, like moths, or we're completely in charge of our own destiny," University of Chicago psychologist McClintock says. "But it's not a wild idea that both factors are involved." While people like Estelle Campenni have reaped untold benefits by trusting their scent impressions, it's ultimately up to us how highly we value what our noses tell us.
Follow Your Nose
How to put your nose to work in choosing a partner—or evaluating an existing one.
Think twice about opting for the pill if you're seeking a long-term partner. The first few weeks of a relationship are critical to assessing compatibility, so make sure your nose is up to the task.
Try a fragrance-free week. Eliminate factors that could throw your nostrils off. Have your partner set aside scented shower gels in favor of fragrance-free soap, nix the cologne, and use only unscented deodorant.
Keep smell's importance in context. If you sometimes find your partner's scent off-putting, don't panic; it doesn't necessarily mean fertility issues are in your future. Connections between MHC compatibility and conception problems have yet to be confirmed in large-scale population studies, so don't plunk down big bucks for MHC testing at this point.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Glenn Beck, Holy Warrior
Media Matters: Glenn Beck, Holy Warrior
Back in April, Glenn Beck informed his radio listeners that during his trip to the Vatican, an "individual" there told him that "what you're doing is wildly important" in the upcoming struggle against forces of "great darkness."
Earlier the same week, Beck explained that he was promoting "the plan that [God] would have me articulate, I think, to you," against "darkness." While notable on their own merits, Beck's comments were especially striking because they marked what was (at the time) the culmination of Beck's regular portrayal of himself as fighting on behalf of "good" against the forces of "evil" and "darkness."
Since then, Beck has made it abundantly clear that he does not use this sort of language metaphorically -- he quite literally believes he is fighting on the side of God against Satan. In the months since his trip to the Vatican, Beck has ramped up the frequency and intensity with which he frames the current political debate in our country in biblical, and sometimes apocalyptic, terms.
For example, in recent months, Beck has:
Compared Barack Obama to Lucifer.
Looked skyward on his TV show and said, "Lord, it's your turn, we've done everything we can" while comparing the current situation in our country to Stephen King's post-apocalyptic novel The Stand. In the same segment, Beck also told people they need to ask for forgiveness, and said that "we're in a dark, dark place" and "dark dudes" are "coming our way." He added, "Now, I'm hoping the guy with horns doesn't actually show up, but he could."
Explained that we are fighting "the oldest battle that man has ever fought. It is the battle in the war in heaven. It is the battle that we fought in the Garden of Eden. Choice." Beck also compared Obama and his administration to the snake in the Garden of Eden because he "will make the choices for you."
Hosted a panel of pastors and preachers that he billed as "people that need to start standing up." During the show, Beck plugged the "excellent" book by Rev. John Hagee, Can America Survive? 10 Prophetic Signs That We Are the Terminal Generation, which he apparently had just started reading. Hagee's book interprets biblical prophecy to argue that the world is fast approaching Armageddon and the second coming of Jesus Christ. Beck explicitly endorsed Hagee's theory by stating as fact that "a lot of the pieces that have never been here for the prophecy are here now."
Repeatedly suggested that progressives and liberals are "enemies of God" and "enemies of Him," and declared that they "don't have [God] on their side."
Told his listeners to "make no mistake: You are fighting a power far greater, far greater than any elected official. This has been the works for a very long time." He then warned that the "gates of Hell will open up."
This brings us to Beck's upcoming "Restoring Honor" rally, which is slated to take place in two weeks. Beck has repeatedly described the rally as historic and modestly declared that it "will be remembered in American history as the turning point." As he has explained it, Beck originally wanted to schedule the rally for September 12, but didn't want people to "work on the Sabbath," so he rescheduled it for August 28. When he later discovered that this date marked the 47th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech, rather than chalking it up to coincidence, Beck claimed that it was "divine providence."
Just think about that for a second -- Beck is so convinced he is working on behalf of the forces of "good" that he believes God made sure the date of his self-aggrandizement festival coincided with the anniversary of a landmark speech by a civil rights icon.
Beck's messianic religiosity took the next logical step this week, when he announced a new event scheduled on the eve of the 8-28 rally. Employing his characteristic humility, the event will be titled "Glenn Beck's Divine Destiny" and will feature "nationally-known figures from all faiths." Beck describes the evening as an "eye-opening" event "that will help heal your soul."
While Beck regularly garners plenty of attention, his increasingly intense religiosity has flown mostly under the radar. If we're to take him at his word, then he sincerely believes that he is fighting on behalf of God against the forces of Satan -- or as Beck calls them, "progressives." If that isn't the case, then he's cynically using biblical fearmongering in order to continue to grow his brand and score political points.
I'm not sure which is worse. Either way, it's deserving of more attention.
Bottom of the anti-mosque barrel
If conservatives had a reasonable case against the supposed "Ground Zero mosque," they wouldn't need to rely on blatant falsehoods to make their arguments. However, when you are working backward from the thesis "Muslims are all terrorists and terrorist sympathizers," then you are bound to make some leaps of logic in support of your "point."
This week, conservative media figures focused much of their ire on Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's upcoming State Department trip to the Middle East to "discuss Muslim life in America and religious tolerance." Several of the usual suspects complained that Rauf was going on a "taxpayer-funded fundraising jaunt" to finance his proposed Islamic cultural center. As we noted, the State Department has made explicit that fundraising of any kind is prohibited during the trip.
Perhaps more importantly, conservatives' attacks on Rauf's trip amount to an accidental indictment of a program the Bush administration felt was useful in fighting terror. Rauf began participating in the outreach program during the Bush administration. Of course, people like unhinged right-wing blogger Pam Geller ignored such inconvenient facts when they were calling the trip "disturbing."
Sean Hannity repeatedly took Rauf's writings out of context to paint him as "anything but moderate" and falsely claimed that Rauf wants to "shred our Constitution" and replace it with Sharia law. Glenn Beck joined Hannity in smearing Rauf by saying that Rauf "employs" an imam who blamed "the Jews" for 9-11. He doesn't.
But the anti-mosque discourse bottomed out (hopefully), as it often does, with our friends at NewsBusters. This week, Mark Finkelstein uncovered a "chilling" fact about the Islamic community center as he discussed Geller's anti-mosque ads on New York buses -- which tastelessly depict the image of a plane hitting the World Trade Center on 9-11, falsely suggest that the mosque is opening on September 11, 2011, and add an imaginary star and crescent to the artist's rendering of the building. I'll let him explain his discovery:
Have a look at the screencap below showing the mosque's proposed design [note that the anti-mosque group wasn't misrepresenting the design. See mosque architect's rendering here]. Sure looks a lot like the WTC towers themselves, doesn't it? Hard to imagine that's a coincidence. A certain implicit triumphalism involved?
I can think of no better encapsulation of both the ineptitude of NewsBusters and the ongoing desperation of conservative media figures struggling to find a not-overtly bigoted reason to oppose the Islamic center than parsing the "certain implicit triumphalism involved" in shaping it like a building.
Back in April, Glenn Beck informed his radio listeners that during his trip to the Vatican, an "individual" there told him that "what you're doing is wildly important" in the upcoming struggle against forces of "great darkness."
Earlier the same week, Beck explained that he was promoting "the plan that [God] would have me articulate, I think, to you," against "darkness." While notable on their own merits, Beck's comments were especially striking because they marked what was (at the time) the culmination of Beck's regular portrayal of himself as fighting on behalf of "good" against the forces of "evil" and "darkness."
Since then, Beck has made it abundantly clear that he does not use this sort of language metaphorically -- he quite literally believes he is fighting on the side of God against Satan. In the months since his trip to the Vatican, Beck has ramped up the frequency and intensity with which he frames the current political debate in our country in biblical, and sometimes apocalyptic, terms.
For example, in recent months, Beck has:
Compared Barack Obama to Lucifer.
Looked skyward on his TV show and said, "Lord, it's your turn, we've done everything we can" while comparing the current situation in our country to Stephen King's post-apocalyptic novel The Stand. In the same segment, Beck also told people they need to ask for forgiveness, and said that "we're in a dark, dark place" and "dark dudes" are "coming our way." He added, "Now, I'm hoping the guy with horns doesn't actually show up, but he could."
Explained that we are fighting "the oldest battle that man has ever fought. It is the battle in the war in heaven. It is the battle that we fought in the Garden of Eden. Choice." Beck also compared Obama and his administration to the snake in the Garden of Eden because he "will make the choices for you."
Hosted a panel of pastors and preachers that he billed as "people that need to start standing up." During the show, Beck plugged the "excellent" book by Rev. John Hagee, Can America Survive? 10 Prophetic Signs That We Are the Terminal Generation, which he apparently had just started reading. Hagee's book interprets biblical prophecy to argue that the world is fast approaching Armageddon and the second coming of Jesus Christ. Beck explicitly endorsed Hagee's theory by stating as fact that "a lot of the pieces that have never been here for the prophecy are here now."
Repeatedly suggested that progressives and liberals are "enemies of God" and "enemies of Him," and declared that they "don't have [God] on their side."
Told his listeners to "make no mistake: You are fighting a power far greater, far greater than any elected official. This has been the works for a very long time." He then warned that the "gates of Hell will open up."
This brings us to Beck's upcoming "Restoring Honor" rally, which is slated to take place in two weeks. Beck has repeatedly described the rally as historic and modestly declared that it "will be remembered in American history as the turning point." As he has explained it, Beck originally wanted to schedule the rally for September 12, but didn't want people to "work on the Sabbath," so he rescheduled it for August 28. When he later discovered that this date marked the 47th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech, rather than chalking it up to coincidence, Beck claimed that it was "divine providence."
Just think about that for a second -- Beck is so convinced he is working on behalf of the forces of "good" that he believes God made sure the date of his self-aggrandizement festival coincided with the anniversary of a landmark speech by a civil rights icon.
Beck's messianic religiosity took the next logical step this week, when he announced a new event scheduled on the eve of the 8-28 rally. Employing his characteristic humility, the event will be titled "Glenn Beck's Divine Destiny" and will feature "nationally-known figures from all faiths." Beck describes the evening as an "eye-opening" event "that will help heal your soul."
While Beck regularly garners plenty of attention, his increasingly intense religiosity has flown mostly under the radar. If we're to take him at his word, then he sincerely believes that he is fighting on behalf of God against the forces of Satan -- or as Beck calls them, "progressives." If that isn't the case, then he's cynically using biblical fearmongering in order to continue to grow his brand and score political points.
I'm not sure which is worse. Either way, it's deserving of more attention.
Bottom of the anti-mosque barrel
If conservatives had a reasonable case against the supposed "Ground Zero mosque," they wouldn't need to rely on blatant falsehoods to make their arguments. However, when you are working backward from the thesis "Muslims are all terrorists and terrorist sympathizers," then you are bound to make some leaps of logic in support of your "point."
This week, conservative media figures focused much of their ire on Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's upcoming State Department trip to the Middle East to "discuss Muslim life in America and religious tolerance." Several of the usual suspects complained that Rauf was going on a "taxpayer-funded fundraising jaunt" to finance his proposed Islamic cultural center. As we noted, the State Department has made explicit that fundraising of any kind is prohibited during the trip.
Perhaps more importantly, conservatives' attacks on Rauf's trip amount to an accidental indictment of a program the Bush administration felt was useful in fighting terror. Rauf began participating in the outreach program during the Bush administration. Of course, people like unhinged right-wing blogger Pam Geller ignored such inconvenient facts when they were calling the trip "disturbing."
Sean Hannity repeatedly took Rauf's writings out of context to paint him as "anything but moderate" and falsely claimed that Rauf wants to "shred our Constitution" and replace it with Sharia law. Glenn Beck joined Hannity in smearing Rauf by saying that Rauf "employs" an imam who blamed "the Jews" for 9-11. He doesn't.
But the anti-mosque discourse bottomed out (hopefully), as it often does, with our friends at NewsBusters. This week, Mark Finkelstein uncovered a "chilling" fact about the Islamic community center as he discussed Geller's anti-mosque ads on New York buses -- which tastelessly depict the image of a plane hitting the World Trade Center on 9-11, falsely suggest that the mosque is opening on September 11, 2011, and add an imaginary star and crescent to the artist's rendering of the building. I'll let him explain his discovery:
Have a look at the screencap below showing the mosque's proposed design [note that the anti-mosque group wasn't misrepresenting the design. See mosque architect's rendering here]. Sure looks a lot like the WTC towers themselves, doesn't it? Hard to imagine that's a coincidence. A certain implicit triumphalism involved?
I can think of no better encapsulation of both the ineptitude of NewsBusters and the ongoing desperation of conservative media figures struggling to find a not-overtly bigoted reason to oppose the Islamic center than parsing the "certain implicit triumphalism involved" in shaping it like a building.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Study To Determine Why Picky Eaters Won't Eat More
Picky Eaters: When Waffles and Fries Are All You Eat
New Study To Determine Why Picky Eaters Won't Eat More Food
By EMILY FRIEDMAN
Bob Krause hates Thanksgiving, and not because of that all forced family time.
Krause, 63, calls himself a picky eater -- one who won't eat anything that's served at a traditional Thanksgiving dinner, or any other dinner, for that matter.
Krause survives on little more than grilled cheese sandwiches, French fries and waffles. And, like other picky eaters, Krause hopes that a registry of adult picky eaters, recently begun by Duke University and the University of Pittsburgh, will bring attention to a problem he believes should be considered a medical condition.
The registry, dubbed the Food F.A.D. Study, or the Finicky Eating in Adults study, has already attracted more than 2,000 participants. According to its website, the survey and registry was created to learn more about adults who describe themselves as picky eaters.
"Much of the research on picky eating has been done in children," reads the site, which is run by Dr. Nancy Zucker at Duke University Medical Center along with colleagues at Western Psychiatric Institute in Pittsburgh. "We know very little about what picky eating looks like in adults and whether such eating habits cause any problems for either yourself or your family."
Krause says he knows all too well what picky eating can do to a person's social life. Now on this third marriage, Krause said that his first two ended partially because of his picky eating.
"I absolutely think picky eating is a type of eating disorder," said Krause.
Pickyeatingadults.com, an online help group created by Krause, has attracted other picky eaters more than 1,500 who have confessed that their own eating habits have cost them not only life partners, but also jobs.
"I've seen all sorts of extremes in the group," said Krause. "One thing we all do share is that our eating has affected us to the point that it will cause social embarrassment."
One woman who identified herself only as "Kathy" wrote to Krause telling him that she has turned down "dream jobs" because she feared she would have to explain her picky eating to co-workers. Another woman wrote to Krause that she "just wants to be normal" and is too scared to go away to college for fear that her peers will notice her bizarre eating patterns.
Do Picky Eaters Have a Medical Disorder?
In addition to Thanksgiving, Krause does anything he can to avoid sit-down banquets and weddings where he might have to explain his picky eating. His website even features a list of the best excuses to get out of events that require eating in public.
Krause called picky eating "the great secret" kept by many who suffer from it. He said that he would just "not go" when invited to his ex-wives' families' homes for meals.
"It was a horrible situation," he added.
Marla Lopez, a 51-year-old real estate investor in Idaho, says she faces the embarrassment of her condition every time she attends business meetings, where she often only eats bread.
"Basically I eat French fries, potato chips, corn chips, cheerios , baked potatoes and a ton of milk," said Lopez, "And plain ice cream."
"I just have never eaten meat, fruit or vegetables in my entire life," said Lopez, adding that on the few occasions she was forced to eat a bite of meat she threw it up immediately.
"The biggest frustration is that people don't understand and think that I'm just looking for attention," said Lopez. "I'd give up everything to be able to eat normally."
"Do people really think I want to show up at a business meeting and only eat bread rolls?" she said.
Lopez, who, like Krause, is participating in the Duke survey and registry, said she hopes for "some kind of validation of the condition."
"It's very difficult to explain what you're going through to people, and it's hard to feel like a freak all the time," she said.
Lopez and Krause each have theories on why they are picky eaters, and both say they believe it has some sort of genetic or neurological origin. They also associate their picky eating with obsessive compulsive disorder, but say that the true cause won't be known without proper research.
Zucker, the doctor leading the study, was not made available for an interview, but psychologist Marcia Pelchat of the Monell Chemical Senses Center in Philadelphia studies picky eaters and says that the survey really could provide some relief for individuals who are suffering from their relationships with food.
Do Picky Eaters Have a Medical Disorder?
In addition to the social consequences picky eating can have on a person's life, Pelchat said that there are also more traditional negative health consequences that might be avoided if a cause of picky eating -- or a cure -- was discovered.
"Many of these adult picky eaters are obese," said Pelchat. "You think if you're picky and there's nothing to eat, you might be thin but many of these picky eaters eat very high-caloric items. They just don't eat anything that is low in caloric density."
Both Krause and Lopez claim that they are healthy. Krause admits being 25 pounds overweight but says that he does not have more health problems than his father did when he was 63. Lopez, who has two children, said that she has low blood pressure and low cholesterol, and that despite concerns from her doctors both her babies were born healthy and she was able to breastfeed. For them, the social discomfort is the worst part of their picky eating habits.
Pelchat said that she hopes the Duke study will help determine what differentiates a severe picky eater to simply a person who is finicky about food. That will make it easier for insurance companies to determine what to procedures and therapies to cover, should they accept picky eating as a medial disorder.
Until then, picky eaters like Krause and Lopez will continue their battle with the food groups they find revolting.
"Tomatoes," said Krause, an expression of disgust coming through in his voice, "Are public enemy No. 1."
New Study To Determine Why Picky Eaters Won't Eat More Food
By EMILY FRIEDMAN
Bob Krause hates Thanksgiving, and not because of that all forced family time.
Krause, 63, calls himself a picky eater -- one who won't eat anything that's served at a traditional Thanksgiving dinner, or any other dinner, for that matter.
Krause survives on little more than grilled cheese sandwiches, French fries and waffles. And, like other picky eaters, Krause hopes that a registry of adult picky eaters, recently begun by Duke University and the University of Pittsburgh, will bring attention to a problem he believes should be considered a medical condition.
The registry, dubbed the Food F.A.D. Study, or the Finicky Eating in Adults study, has already attracted more than 2,000 participants. According to its website, the survey and registry was created to learn more about adults who describe themselves as picky eaters.
"Much of the research on picky eating has been done in children," reads the site, which is run by Dr. Nancy Zucker at Duke University Medical Center along with colleagues at Western Psychiatric Institute in Pittsburgh. "We know very little about what picky eating looks like in adults and whether such eating habits cause any problems for either yourself or your family."
Krause says he knows all too well what picky eating can do to a person's social life. Now on this third marriage, Krause said that his first two ended partially because of his picky eating.
"I absolutely think picky eating is a type of eating disorder," said Krause.
Pickyeatingadults.com, an online help group created by Krause, has attracted other picky eaters more than 1,500 who have confessed that their own eating habits have cost them not only life partners, but also jobs.
"I've seen all sorts of extremes in the group," said Krause. "One thing we all do share is that our eating has affected us to the point that it will cause social embarrassment."
One woman who identified herself only as "Kathy" wrote to Krause telling him that she has turned down "dream jobs" because she feared she would have to explain her picky eating to co-workers. Another woman wrote to Krause that she "just wants to be normal" and is too scared to go away to college for fear that her peers will notice her bizarre eating patterns.
Do Picky Eaters Have a Medical Disorder?
In addition to Thanksgiving, Krause does anything he can to avoid sit-down banquets and weddings where he might have to explain his picky eating. His website even features a list of the best excuses to get out of events that require eating in public.
Krause called picky eating "the great secret" kept by many who suffer from it. He said that he would just "not go" when invited to his ex-wives' families' homes for meals.
"It was a horrible situation," he added.
Marla Lopez, a 51-year-old real estate investor in Idaho, says she faces the embarrassment of her condition every time she attends business meetings, where she often only eats bread.
"Basically I eat French fries, potato chips, corn chips, cheerios , baked potatoes and a ton of milk," said Lopez, "And plain ice cream."
"I just have never eaten meat, fruit or vegetables in my entire life," said Lopez, adding that on the few occasions she was forced to eat a bite of meat she threw it up immediately.
"The biggest frustration is that people don't understand and think that I'm just looking for attention," said Lopez. "I'd give up everything to be able to eat normally."
"Do people really think I want to show up at a business meeting and only eat bread rolls?" she said.
Lopez, who, like Krause, is participating in the Duke survey and registry, said she hopes for "some kind of validation of the condition."
"It's very difficult to explain what you're going through to people, and it's hard to feel like a freak all the time," she said.
Lopez and Krause each have theories on why they are picky eaters, and both say they believe it has some sort of genetic or neurological origin. They also associate their picky eating with obsessive compulsive disorder, but say that the true cause won't be known without proper research.
Zucker, the doctor leading the study, was not made available for an interview, but psychologist Marcia Pelchat of the Monell Chemical Senses Center in Philadelphia studies picky eaters and says that the survey really could provide some relief for individuals who are suffering from their relationships with food.
Do Picky Eaters Have a Medical Disorder?
In addition to the social consequences picky eating can have on a person's life, Pelchat said that there are also more traditional negative health consequences that might be avoided if a cause of picky eating -- or a cure -- was discovered.
"Many of these adult picky eaters are obese," said Pelchat. "You think if you're picky and there's nothing to eat, you might be thin but many of these picky eaters eat very high-caloric items. They just don't eat anything that is low in caloric density."
Both Krause and Lopez claim that they are healthy. Krause admits being 25 pounds overweight but says that he does not have more health problems than his father did when he was 63. Lopez, who has two children, said that she has low blood pressure and low cholesterol, and that despite concerns from her doctors both her babies were born healthy and she was able to breastfeed. For them, the social discomfort is the worst part of their picky eating habits.
Pelchat said that she hopes the Duke study will help determine what differentiates a severe picky eater to simply a person who is finicky about food. That will make it easier for insurance companies to determine what to procedures and therapies to cover, should they accept picky eating as a medial disorder.
Until then, picky eaters like Krause and Lopez will continue their battle with the food groups they find revolting.
"Tomatoes," said Krause, an expression of disgust coming through in his voice, "Are public enemy No. 1."
health insurance - rate increases as high as 39%
Executives at health insurance giants cash in as firms plan fee hikes
Leaders of Cigna, Humana, UnitedHealth, WellPoint and Aetna received nearly $200 million in compensation in 2009, according to a report, while the companies sought rate increases as high as 39%.
By Noam N. Levey, Los Angeles Times
The top executives at the nation's five largest for-profit health insurance companies pulled in nearly $200 million in compensation last year — while their businesses prepared to hit ratepayers with double-digit premium increases, according to a new analysis conducted by healthcare activists.
The leaders of Cigna Corp., Humana Inc., UnitedHealth Group and WellPoint Inc. each in effect received raises in 2009, the report concluded, based on an analysis of company reports filed with the Security and Exchange Commission.
H. Edward Hanway, former chief executive of Philadelphia-based Cigna, topped the list of high-paid executives, thanks to a retirement package worth $110.9 million. Cigna paid Hanway and his successor, David Cordani, a total of $136.3 million last year.
Only one executive in the list actually saw his paycheck shrink last year: Ron Williams, the CEO of Hartford, Conn.-based Aetna Inc., earned nearly $18.2 million in total compensation, down from $24.4 million in 2008.
"Most families are struggling to hang on. Employers are struggling to stay in business. And these guys were giving themselves huge raises," said Ethan Rome, executive director of Health Care for America Now, a coalition of advocacy groups that prepared the report.
A spokeswoman for WellPoint said executives' compensation reflects their effort to improve care and hit corporate goals. Representatives of the other four insurers either declined to comment Tuesday on the report or did not respond to questions.
The executive packages were calculated by adding base salaries, bonuses, stock awards and other compensation reported on company financial statements. It did not include the value of exercised stock options.
Last year was highly profitable for most of the country's big publicly traded insurers. In the first two quarters of this year, profits for many insurers have continued to soar more than 20%.
Aetna's net income jumped more than 40% in the second quarter of 2010 compared with a year earlier. Indianapolis-based WellPoint recorded a 51% increase in its profit in the first quarter compared with the same period in 2009.
At the same time, the companies have sought major premium hikes. In Rhode Island, UnitedHealth of Minnetonka, Minn., this spring sought increases of up to 15.5%. In Utah, some customers of Humana of Louisville, Ky., reported increases of 29%.
In California, WellPoint subsidiary Anthem Blue Cross planned increases as high as 39% earlier this year. (The company later scaled them back, acknowledging errors in its rate-setting).
Industry officials have said the rate hikes are necessary because of rising medical costs, but insurance companies have faced added scrutiny as executive pay grows. After UnitedHealth CEO Stephen Hemsley cashed in nearly $99 million worth of stock options last year, a group of shareholders launched a bid to expand shareholder input on executive pay.
"It creates a culture of over-compensation," said Lance E. Lindblom, president of the Nathan Cummings Foundation, which led the ultimately unsuccessful effort to increase oversight at UnitedHealth. "That takes eyes off the ball of performance."
Leaders of Cigna, Humana, UnitedHealth, WellPoint and Aetna received nearly $200 million in compensation in 2009, according to a report, while the companies sought rate increases as high as 39%.
By Noam N. Levey, Los Angeles Times
The top executives at the nation's five largest for-profit health insurance companies pulled in nearly $200 million in compensation last year — while their businesses prepared to hit ratepayers with double-digit premium increases, according to a new analysis conducted by healthcare activists.
The leaders of Cigna Corp., Humana Inc., UnitedHealth Group and WellPoint Inc. each in effect received raises in 2009, the report concluded, based on an analysis of company reports filed with the Security and Exchange Commission.
H. Edward Hanway, former chief executive of Philadelphia-based Cigna, topped the list of high-paid executives, thanks to a retirement package worth $110.9 million. Cigna paid Hanway and his successor, David Cordani, a total of $136.3 million last year.
Only one executive in the list actually saw his paycheck shrink last year: Ron Williams, the CEO of Hartford, Conn.-based Aetna Inc., earned nearly $18.2 million in total compensation, down from $24.4 million in 2008.
"Most families are struggling to hang on. Employers are struggling to stay in business. And these guys were giving themselves huge raises," said Ethan Rome, executive director of Health Care for America Now, a coalition of advocacy groups that prepared the report.
A spokeswoman for WellPoint said executives' compensation reflects their effort to improve care and hit corporate goals. Representatives of the other four insurers either declined to comment Tuesday on the report or did not respond to questions.
The executive packages were calculated by adding base salaries, bonuses, stock awards and other compensation reported on company financial statements. It did not include the value of exercised stock options.
Last year was highly profitable for most of the country's big publicly traded insurers. In the first two quarters of this year, profits for many insurers have continued to soar more than 20%.
Aetna's net income jumped more than 40% in the second quarter of 2010 compared with a year earlier. Indianapolis-based WellPoint recorded a 51% increase in its profit in the first quarter compared with the same period in 2009.
At the same time, the companies have sought major premium hikes. In Rhode Island, UnitedHealth of Minnetonka, Minn., this spring sought increases of up to 15.5%. In Utah, some customers of Humana of Louisville, Ky., reported increases of 29%.
In California, WellPoint subsidiary Anthem Blue Cross planned increases as high as 39% earlier this year. (The company later scaled them back, acknowledging errors in its rate-setting).
Industry officials have said the rate hikes are necessary because of rising medical costs, but insurance companies have faced added scrutiny as executive pay grows. After UnitedHealth CEO Stephen Hemsley cashed in nearly $99 million worth of stock options last year, a group of shareholders launched a bid to expand shareholder input on executive pay.
"It creates a culture of over-compensation," said Lance E. Lindblom, president of the Nathan Cummings Foundation, which led the ultimately unsuccessful effort to increase oversight at UnitedHealth. "That takes eyes off the ball of performance."
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Got a Tattoo? Get a Hepatitis C Test
Got a Tattoo? Get a Hepatitis C Test
Having a Tattoo Associated With Tripled Risk of Dangerous Disease
The global fad for tattoos, particularly among young people, is growing -- and along with it the risk of acquiring hepatitis C, according to a multinational study.
A systematic review of 124 published studies from 30 countries found that people with tattoos were almost three times as likely to have hepatitis C as those without tattoos, according to Dr. Jane Buxton of the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control in Vancouver and colleagues.
But in some subgroups -- particularly non-injection drug users -- the odds of having the virus were almost six-fold, Buxton and colleagues wrote online in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases.
Read this story on www.medpagetoday.com.
In recent years, tattoos have become increasingly popular. An estimated 36 percent of Americans under 30 have the skin designs, the researchers wrote. In Canada, they added, around 8 percent of high school students have at least one tattoo. Among those without a tattoo, 21 percent are eager to get one.
Since tattoo instruments come in contact with blood and bodily fluids, infection is possible if instruments are used on more than one person without being sterilized or without proper hygiene, the researchers noted. Additionally, tattoo dyes are not kept in sterile containers and may also transmit infections, they wrote
To help quantify the risks, the researchers reviewed and analyzed 124 studies from 30 countries -- including Canada, Iran, Italy, Brazil and the United States. Of those, 83 studies were included in the meta-analysis.
Based on these studies, those who had tattoos were 2.74 times as likely to have hepatitis than those who had no tattoos.
However, among certain groups the risk could go much higher, they found. For example, non-injection drug users with tattoos were 5.74 times as likely to have hepatitis than their non-tattooed counterparts.
One limitation of the analysis is the observational nature of the studies included in this review, the researchers wrote.
What's needed, the researchers concluded, are infection-control guidelines for tattoo artists and clients, and enforcement through inspections, reporting of adverse events and record keeping. Also, they wrote, prevention programs should focus on young people -- those most likely to get tattoos -- and among prison inmates -- who live in environments with a higher prevalence of hepatitis C.
Having a Tattoo Associated With Tripled Risk of Dangerous Disease
The global fad for tattoos, particularly among young people, is growing -- and along with it the risk of acquiring hepatitis C, according to a multinational study.
A systematic review of 124 published studies from 30 countries found that people with tattoos were almost three times as likely to have hepatitis C as those without tattoos, according to Dr. Jane Buxton of the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control in Vancouver and colleagues.
But in some subgroups -- particularly non-injection drug users -- the odds of having the virus were almost six-fold, Buxton and colleagues wrote online in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases.
Read this story on www.medpagetoday.com.
In recent years, tattoos have become increasingly popular. An estimated 36 percent of Americans under 30 have the skin designs, the researchers wrote. In Canada, they added, around 8 percent of high school students have at least one tattoo. Among those without a tattoo, 21 percent are eager to get one.
Since tattoo instruments come in contact with blood and bodily fluids, infection is possible if instruments are used on more than one person without being sterilized or without proper hygiene, the researchers noted. Additionally, tattoo dyes are not kept in sterile containers and may also transmit infections, they wrote
To help quantify the risks, the researchers reviewed and analyzed 124 studies from 30 countries -- including Canada, Iran, Italy, Brazil and the United States. Of those, 83 studies were included in the meta-analysis.
Based on these studies, those who had tattoos were 2.74 times as likely to have hepatitis than those who had no tattoos.
However, among certain groups the risk could go much higher, they found. For example, non-injection drug users with tattoos were 5.74 times as likely to have hepatitis than their non-tattooed counterparts.
One limitation of the analysis is the observational nature of the studies included in this review, the researchers wrote.
What's needed, the researchers concluded, are infection-control guidelines for tattoo artists and clients, and enforcement through inspections, reporting of adverse events and record keeping. Also, they wrote, prevention programs should focus on young people -- those most likely to get tattoos -- and among prison inmates -- who live in environments with a higher prevalence of hepatitis C.
Newt Gingrich's Ex Speaks Out
Newt Gingrich's Ex Speaks Out, And It's Ugly
Amoral, bigoted Newt Gingrich is the subject of a new Esquire profile in which his second wife (he's on the third now) dishes about their 2000 divorce. Shorter version: Newt Gingrich is a special kind of asshole.
Gingrich finally admitted what everyone already knew, a couple of years ago: He had been having an affair on his second wife, Marianne, during the Clinton impeachment hearings, while speaking out about Republicans being the party of family values. Newt had also cheated on his first wife and discussed divorce terms with her while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery.
Marianne Gingrich agreed to be interviewed for this new Esquire feature about Newt's life, which is pretty rare. Apparently Newt had asked her to "tolerate" the affair he'd been having. Ugh:
He wanted to talk in person, he said.
"I said, 'No, we need to talk now.' "
He went quiet.
"There's somebody else, isn't there?"
She kind of guessed it, of course. Women usually do. But did she know the woman was in her apartment, eating off her plates, sleeping in her bed?
She called a minister they both trusted. He came over to the house the next day and worked with them the whole weekend, but Gingrich just kept saying she was a Jaguar and all he wanted was a Chevrolet. " 'I can't handle a Jaguar right now.' He said that many times. 'All I want is a Chevrolet.' "
He asked her to just tolerate the affair, an offer she refused.
He'd just returned from Erie, Pennsylvania, where he'd given a speech full of high sentiments about compassion and family values.
The next night, they sat talking out on their back patio in Georgia. She said, "How do you give that speech and do what you're doing?"
"It doesn't matter what I do," he answered. "People need to hear what I have to say. There's no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn't matter what I live."
Yeah, divorce was probably a good idea. Even the whole cheating/asshole aspect aside, who'd want to be married to someone who uses a car-fucking metaphor to describe anything?
Amoral, bigoted Newt Gingrich is the subject of a new Esquire profile in which his second wife (he's on the third now) dishes about their 2000 divorce. Shorter version: Newt Gingrich is a special kind of asshole.
Gingrich finally admitted what everyone already knew, a couple of years ago: He had been having an affair on his second wife, Marianne, during the Clinton impeachment hearings, while speaking out about Republicans being the party of family values. Newt had also cheated on his first wife and discussed divorce terms with her while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery.
Marianne Gingrich agreed to be interviewed for this new Esquire feature about Newt's life, which is pretty rare. Apparently Newt had asked her to "tolerate" the affair he'd been having. Ugh:
He wanted to talk in person, he said.
"I said, 'No, we need to talk now.' "
He went quiet.
"There's somebody else, isn't there?"
She kind of guessed it, of course. Women usually do. But did she know the woman was in her apartment, eating off her plates, sleeping in her bed?
She called a minister they both trusted. He came over to the house the next day and worked with them the whole weekend, but Gingrich just kept saying she was a Jaguar and all he wanted was a Chevrolet. " 'I can't handle a Jaguar right now.' He said that many times. 'All I want is a Chevrolet.' "
He asked her to just tolerate the affair, an offer she refused.
He'd just returned from Erie, Pennsylvania, where he'd given a speech full of high sentiments about compassion and family values.
The next night, they sat talking out on their back patio in Georgia. She said, "How do you give that speech and do what you're doing?"
"It doesn't matter what I do," he answered. "People need to hear what I have to say. There's no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn't matter what I live."
Yeah, divorce was probably a good idea. Even the whole cheating/asshole aspect aside, who'd want to be married to someone who uses a car-fucking metaphor to describe anything?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)