Democratic Congress candidate now suing a man to whom he made Gay advances

Posted on by

From Cliff Thies:

David R. Fox, an attorney who has repeatedly shown up on the police blotter during the past year - for sexual harrassment, duriving under the influence, and other such offenses - is now suing a man for assault to whom he made gay advances.

Concerning his DUI arrest, a Seattle newspaper reports:

In June, Fox was arrested by Port of Seattle police after a ticket agent called authorities to report that a man wearing a floppy hat, khaki shorts and a Hawaiian shirt repeatedly pulled out a knife and asked "weird questions."

The driver was unsteady on his feet and kept repeating the same questions, telling me over and over that I need to call the Clallam County Sheriff's Office so they could tell me who he was and that he was running for office," the Port of Seattle police report said. "He told me over and over that he is an attorney, and that I have no right to stop him."

Another officer spotted a marijuana pipe on the passenger's seat, and a search turned up a bag of marijuana and prescription pills for which Fox had no prescription, the report said.

Concerning his gay advances, he claims he has "fallen victim to a 'gay witch hunt,' and that his clients often fall in love with him."

According to a county sheriff, the man demanded that a client expose himself in the police station during a consultation and admitted masturbating in the interview room.

In the end, he took a plea deal.

Other run-ins with the law including boucing checks and being a public neuisance.

With his backround, this guy is sure to fit right in with the House Democratic Leadership team!

Democrat raised the Jew question about his Republican challenger

Posted on by

by Clifford F. Thies

According to a New York newspaper, first term Congressman Mike McMahon (D-NY13) has accused his Republican challenger, Mike Grimm, of raising money from Jewish donors. Supposedly, this is to show that the Republican has little support within the district, which covers Staten Island and part of Brooklyn.

From CNN's Political Ticker:

Staten Island Rep. Mike McMahon (D-NY) moved into damage-control mode Thursday, firing the communications director for his re-election bid Thursday night after she gave a reporter a breakdown of a Republican rival's "Jewish money" contributions. McMahon announced he was firing spokeswoman Jennifer Nelson after she provided a New York Observer reporter with a breakdown of Republican rival Michael Grimm's second-quarter financial haul donations from Jewish donors, in an apparent effort to show the former FBI agent has little financial support within the district. In an astonishing move – putting such a statement on paper – the file the reporter was given was titled "Grimm Jewish Money Q2."

And how did McMahon identify these donors as Jewish? Were they wearing armbands???

Phyllis Schlafly an Economic libertarian?

Posted on by

Stop the Moochers, even if they're Female

Staunch Social Conservative Phyllis Schlafly made an extremely economic libertarian statement at a recent fundraiser.

From InstaPundit:

“One of the things Obama’s been doing is deliberately trying to increase the percentage of our population that is dependent on government for their living. For example, do you know what was the second-biggest demographic group that voted for Obama? . . . Unmarried women. Seventy percent of unmarried women voted for Obama. And this is because, when you kick your husband out, you’ve got to have Big Brother government to be your provider. . . .”

Libertarian Party of Texas running a Rick Perry-like Conservative for Gov.

Posted on by

Libertarian: Secure the Border, at the Border

From Eric Dondero:

The Libertarian Party of Texas may have chosen a libertarian-conservative as their nominee for Governor. Oddly, Kathie Glass appears closer to Rick Perry in ideology than some more purist Libertarians may be comfortable with.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram is reporting that Glass has taken what could be described as more of a Jan Brewer approach to border security.

Glass, a Houston lawyer, is the Libertarian Party's candidate for governor. At a meeting of local Libertarians on Thursday night, she presented herself as the ideal replacement for Gov. Rick Perry.

Yet earlier this year, Glass and her husband were staunchly backing Medina, a Republican candidate for governor who earned almost 19 percent of the vote.

"We were very hopeful that she would win, and if she had, I wouldn't be running this race," Glass said.

Speaking to about 30 people in the backroom of Billy Miner's in downtown Fort Worth, Glass, 56, touched on the themes that allowed Medina to strike a chord with many Republican voters, including nullifying intrusive federal legislation, protecting the border and preserving property rights.

On Illegal Immigration from Glass's campaign website:

Secure the border at the border by using the Texas State Guard. No one will cross the border other than at a valid U.S. port of entry where they can be assessed by U. S. immigration officials.

No sanctuary cities, no refusal to process those accused of crimes based on their illegal status, and no more looking the other way when an uninsured illegal alien is involved in a traffic accident.

Illegal aliens commit a form of theft when they receive taxpayer-funded benefits such as food stamps, health care services, and education... Illegal immigration dramatically increases the cost of education. 20% of Texas students are here illegally.

Perry briefly supported Seccesion, Libertarian Glass opposed

The Star-Telegram goes on to report on a confrontation later in the meeting with known Texas Seccesionist Larry Kilgore. Ironically, Glass took a more "conservative" approach to the matter than incumbent Rick Perry. Sounding like a true blue Reagan Conservative she expressed her love of country and said forthrightly that she would not support seccesion under any circumstances.

Glass chimed in. "I was born in America and I intend to die here. And I'm not leaving her in her hour of need. I'm not turning my back. She's not going to fall. Not on my watch."

Glass tried to keep speaking, but Kilgore hollered over her.

"Will you sit down and shut up for a minute?" Glass finally yelled.

Perry in 2009 flirted with the seccsion idea at a Tea Party rally in Austin. Though, later on he also rejected the proposal.

Note - Kilgore was a candidate for Governor himself briefly last year, and then backed off and endorsed Medina

A Libertarian opposed to Gay Marriage?

On another issue which divides most Libertarians - Gay Marriage - Glass has come out on the conservative side.

Dave Jennings of BigJollyPolitics described meeting Glass at a small function in June:

Where she came up short was on the issue of gay marriage, saying that while it isn't important to her, marriage is between a man and a woman and she would veto any legislation that came across her desk stating otherwise. Again, although I would agree with her, that is more of a Republican position than a classical libertarian one.

Of course, there's a down-side for Perry. Kathie Glass's vote total will come straight out of the GOP column.

In an article July 15, at Burnt Orange, "Libertarian Gubernatorial Nominee Kathie Glass Chasing Tea Party Voters" Glass's strategy for reaching more conservative voters is outlined:

Texas Libertarians have a decent amount of overlap with the Tea Party. The concept of limited taxes, small government, and states rights blend into both "party" platforms. And politically it makes sense for Glass to try to tap these voters... if Glass manages to get some of these voters as well as Debra Medina Republicans, she very well may be able to increase the statewide Libertarian share by a couple points at the expense of Rick Perry.

However, there's an upside for Republicans, as well. Having her in the race will force Democrat Bill White to defend his rely on government for everything approach against not one but two hardened limited government advocates.

“Hard science” and medical school

Posted on by

One of the recurring themes of this blog, not surprisingly given its name, is the proper role of science in medicine. As Dr. Novella has made clear from the very beginning, we advocate science-based medicine (SBM), which is what evidence-based medicine (EBM) should be. SBM tries to overcome the shortcomings of EBM by taking into account all the evidence, both scientific and clinical, in deciding what therapies work, what therapies don’t work, and why. To recap, a major part of our thesis is that EBM, although a step forward over prior dogma-based medical models, ultimately falls short of making medicine as effective as it can be. It worships clinical trial evidence above all else and completely ignores basic science considerations, relegating them to the lowest form of evidence, lower than even small case series. This blind spot has directly contributed to the infiltration of quackery into academic medicine and so-called EBM because in the cases of ridiculously improbable modalities like homeopathy and reiki, deficiencies in how clinical trials are conducted and analyzed can make it appear that these modalities might actually have efficacy.

Given this thesis, if there’s one aspect of medical education that I consider to be paramount, at least when it comes to understanding how to analyze and apply all the evidence, both basic science and clinical, it’s a firm grounding in the scientific method. Unfortunately, in medical school there is very little, if any, concentration on the scientific method. In fact, one thing that shocked me when I first entered what is one of the best medical schools in the U.S., the University of Michigan, was just how “practical” the science taught to us as students was. It was very much a “just the facts, ma’am,” sort of presentation, with little, if any, emphasis on how those scientific facts were discovered. Indeed, before I entered medical school, I had taken graduate level biochemistry courses for a whole year. This was some truly hard core stuff. Unfortunately, I couldn’t get out of taking medical school biochemistry my first year, but taking the course was illuminating. The contrast was marked in that in medical school there was very little in the way of mechanistic detail, but there was a whole lot of memorization. The same was true in nearly all the other classes we took in the first two years. True, for anatomy it’s pretty hard not to have to engage in a lot of rote memorization, but the same shouldn’t necessarily be true of physiology and pharmacology, for example. It was, though.

Over time, I came to realize that there was no easy answer to correcting this problem, because medical school is far more akin to a trade school than a science training school, and the question of how much science and in what form it should be taught are difficult questions that go to the heart of medical education and what it means to be a good physician. Clearly, I believe that, among other things, a good physician must use science-based practice, but how does medical education achieve that? That’s one reason why I’m both appalled and intrigued by a program at the Mt. Sinai School of Medicine for humanities majors to enter medical school without all the hard sciences. It’s a program that was written up in the New York Times last Wednesday in an article entitled Getting Into Med School Without Hard Sciences, and whose results were published in Medical Academia under the title Challenging Traditional Premedical Requirements as Predictors of Success in Medical School: The Mount Sinai School of Medicine Humanities and Medicine Program.

Let’s first take a look at how the NYT described the program:

For generations of pre-med students, three things have been as certain as death and taxes: organic chemistry, physics and the Medical College Admission Test, known by its dread-inducing acronym, the MCAT.

So it came as a total shock to Elizabeth Adler when she discovered, through a singer in her favorite a cappella group at Brown University, that one of the nation’s top medical schools admits a small number of students every year who have skipped all three requirements.

Until then, despite being the daughter of a physician, she said, “I was kind of thinking medical school was not the right track for me.”

Ms. Adler became one of the lucky few in one of the best kept secrets in the cutthroat world of medical school admissions, the Humanities and Medicine Program at the Mount Sinai medical school on the Upper East Side of Manhattan.

The program promises slots to about 35 undergraduates a year if they study humanities or social sciences instead of the traditional pre-medical school curriculum and maintain a 3.5 grade-point average.

I first became aware of this program four years ago, when the NYT ran a story about how art appreciation was being taught as part of the curriculum at Mt. Sinai. At the time, I was puzzled why such courses were being offered in medical school when there is so little time and so much to teach. Don’t get me wrong. I wish I had taken more humanities and arts classes during my undergraduate years. My not having done so is one of the great regrets of my life, truly a missed opportunity. However, in medical school, unless one is going into medical illustration, my thought at the time was that such a program was all very well and good, but medical school is not a liberal arts school; it is, as I have pointed out, more or less a specialized school, an advanced program of education designed to inculcate into students the basic knowledge and skills that all physicians should have.

But who knows? I might be wrong.

Humanities versus basic science in a cage match for pre-med

Let’s look at the study itself. Basically, it’s pretty thin gruel whose only findings the authors, Dr. David Muller and Dr. Nathan Kase (the latter of whom is the founder of Mount Sinai’s Humanities in Medicine Program), extrapolate far beyond what is justified. It amazes me, in fact, that Academic Medicine would allow so much data-free speculation and pontification in the discussion section of this study. Let’s put it this way. There are really only three findings in this study regarding the Humanities in Medicine (HuMed) students. Basically, Muller and Kase looked at the outcomes of HuMed students from 2004 to 2009 and compared them to the outcomes of medical students on the “traditional” track and found that:

  • There was a trend among HuMed students toward residencies in primary care and psychiatry and away from surgical subspecialties and anesthesiology.
  • There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in clerkship honors other than psychiatry (HuMed students outperformed their peers, P < .0001) or in commencement distinctions or honors. Although HuMed students were significantly more likely to secure a scholarly-year mentored project (P = .001), there was no difference in graduating with distinction in research (P = .281).
  • HuMed students were more likely to have lower United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 scores (221 ± 20 versus 227 ± 19, P = .0039) and to take a nonscholarly leave of absence (P = .0001).

The wag in me can’t resist wondering whether the way HuMed students apparently excelled in psychology says anything about the scientific basis of psychiatry, but that’s just the nasty, reductionistic cancer researcher in me. The most important point of this study is that, for the most part, the HuMed students don’t appear to do significantly differently than students in the traditional medical education track other than a tendency towards more “touchy-feely” specialties. This result doesn’t actually surprise me much, given that it is the mission of medical schools to teach the common knowledge and skills that all doctors require. One would expect that, if the medical school curriculum is constructed to provide adequate “catch up” instruction to students whose background in the basic sciences is somewhat…lacking, then most students, particularly students who are highly motivated, as medical students tend to be, should be able to keep up. And HuMed students do get a bit of a catch up course in the form of a “summer boot camp,” described thusly by the NYT:

The students apply in their sophomore or junior years in college and agree to major in humanities or social science, rather than the hard sciences. If they are admitted, they are required to take only basic biology and chemistry, at a level many students accomplish through Advanced Placement courses in high school.

They forgo organic chemistry, physics and calculus — though they get abbreviated organic chemistry and physics courses during a summer boot camp run by Mount Sinai. They are exempt from the MCAT. Instead, they are admitted into the program based on their high school SAT scores, two personal essays, their high school and early college grades and interviews.

I must admit that I’m a bit disturbed by some of this, and here’s why. The reason we know that, for example, homeopathy is incredibly–nay, monumentally–implausible is based primarily on basic science, specifically very basic physics and chemistry. It is chemistry and Avagadro’s number that tell us that a 30C homeopathic dilution almost certainly has not a single molecule of original remedy left. It is basic physics and chemistry that tell us that water doesn’t have “memory,” at least not the way that homeopaths tell us. It is basic chemistry that tells us that, even if water did have “memory,” there’s no known mechanism by which such “memory” could be transmitted to cells for therapeutic effect. In other words, I worry that science-based medicine is in danger if future generations of physicians eschew the hard sciences and elect to “get by” on the bare minimum that they can get by with. Worse, the attitude that seems to be underlying the entire HuMed program is that science is an obstacle to becoming a physician.

Science: An “obstacle” rather than a prerequisite?

From my perspective, science and medicine should go hand in hand. Science informs what is good medicine, and physicians should have a sufficient grounding in the scientific method to be able to recognize what is and is not good scientific and clinical evidence for a therapy. EBM only goes part of the way to reaching that goal. SBM, properly applied, is what EBM could and should be were it not for its devaluation of basic science. Now that devaluation appears to be evident in medical education. Witness some of the quotes from the NYT story and Muller and Kase’s article. For example, from the NYT:

“You have to have the proper amount of moral courage to say ‘O.K., we’re going to skip over a lot of the huge barriers to a lot of our students,’ ” said Dr. David Battinelli, senior associate dean for education at Hofstra University School of Medicine.

And, from Muller and Kase’s study:

The HuMed program at Mount Sinai was designed to determine the extent to which the MCAT and traditional premed courses in organic chemistry, physics, and calculus are necessary for successful completion of a medical school curriculum. It was also designed to encourage students interested in the humanistic elements of medicine to seriously consider pursuing a medical career. Many of these students are initially reluctant to pursue medicine because they are uncertain about their interest in science, they are concerned about their ability to meet the high scholastic expectations of admissions committees,15 or they are unwilling to divert the time and effort required to meet standard medical school admission requirements.

And, from Dr. Kase himself, as quoted in the NYT:

“There’s no question,” Dr. Kase said. “The default pathway is: Well, how did they do on the MCAT? How did they do on organic chemistry? What was their grade-point average?”

“That excludes a lot of kids,” said Dr. Kase, who founded the Mount Sinai program in 1987 when he was dean of the medical school, and who is now dean emeritus and a professor of obstetrics and gynecology. “But it also diminishes; it makes science into an obstacle rather than something that is an insight into the biology of human disease.”

Is anyone else disturbed at how apparently Dr. Battinelli characterizes the basic sciences as “barriers” to medical students, rather than reasonable prerequisites that try to ensure a knowledge base necessary to succeed in medical school? Or how Muller and Kase seem to dismiss science as relatively unimportant in medicine to the point that they seriously argue that, just because some students are discouraged from a medical career because they fear the science? Or how Kase seems to think of basic science as more of an “obstacle” than anything else? Or how Muller and Kase seem want to bend over backwards to admit students who can’t be bothered to “divert the time and effort required to meet standard medical school admissions requirements”?

I would counter that pretty much every prerequisite and requirement to be admitted to medical school and then complete its curriculum are “barriers” and “obstacles”–yes, even any new set of prerequisites that Muller and Kase might come up with to replace the currently existing paradigm. They’re supposed to be barriers! That’s what maintaining standards is all about: Excluding those who can’t make the cut and making sure that the educational curriculum gives those who do make the cut the knowledge and skill base to be at least competent physicians, preferably excellent physicians. What is being argued is what is the proper nature and difficulty of these barriers? Should there be more basic science? Are we demanding too much basic science? Is it enough to have a humanities degree and “fill in” later the science? Certainly this study doesn’t answer any of these questions. Even Dr. Batinelli points out that the more important question is how graduates of Mt. Sinai’s HuMed program do 5 and 10 years down the road, after they’ve completed their residency training and entered practice. What I do not like to see are students who voice attitudes like this student in the NYT article:

Among the current crop is Ms. Adler, 21, a senior at Brown studying global political economy and majoring in development studies.

Ms. Adler said she was inspired by her freshman study abroad in Africa. “I didn’t want to waste a class on physics, or waste a class on orgo,” she said. “The social determinants of health are so much more pervasive than the immediate biology of it.”

My suggestion to Ms. Adler is that if she doesn’t want to “waste” time on physics or especially organic chemistry, then perhaps she shouldn’t become a physician. Social determinants of health are indeed very important, but in actually treating a patient you still need to understand the biology of disease and the treatment used to combat the disease. I suppose I’ll be labeled “arrogant” for being so blunt in saying that, but I don’t care.

What is the proper role of science in medical education?

Proving once again that everything old is new again, this study and entire discussion remind me that this sort of debate has been going on over 100 years, since before Abraham Flexner published the Flexner Report in 1910. Even now, on the 100th year since ithe release of that report, it is not a debate that is likely to go away. For one thing, as Muller and Kase point out, there has been opposition to the ideas embodied in the Flexner Report that medical schools require at least two years of college- or university-level basic science education grounded in basic sciences like physics, chemistry, and biology, characterizing as such opposition as falling into three categories, as they describe in their study:

According to Gross and colleagues,9 critics of premed requirements fall into three categories: those who would eliminate all requirements,10 those who advocate for continuously updating the premed science curriculum,5–7 and those who believe that the premed curriculum must broadened to reflect a richer liberal arts education.5,6,8

Personally, my view would probably fall between the last two categories: I believe that the premed science curriculum should be continuously updated based on the latest science but see room for a richer liberal arts educations. The two are not necessarily incompatible. However, such a fusion is not what I see happening in Mt. Sinai’s HuMed program. Rather, what I see is a fusion of numbers one and three, meeting halfway, so to speak, between eliminating all requirements and requiring a richer liberal arts education.

In fact, I would go further than that. What bothers me about Muller and Kase’s thesis is, as I have said before, the way that it seems to view science as an obstacle to getting into medical school and becoming a doctor, as opposed to being a necessary prerequisite to being able to put the flood of information taught in medical school into context. The humanistic part of medicine is very important to being an effective, but if those humanistic elements are not also wedded to a firm understanding of the science of clinical practice, we risk producing a generation of physicians who are very good at holding their patients’ hands and offering encouragement to them but not so good at actually treating their medical problems.

In other words, I fear a generation of physicians perfectly suited to “integrate” so-called “complementary and alternative medicine” (CAM) into their practices.

I understand that much of the basic science that we learn in prerequisites for medical school (i.e., the “premed” curriculum) is not strictly necessary to be a good physician. However, I would argue that learning the scientific method and, even better, internalizing it as part of one’s being, is critical to being a good physician. Consider, for example, EBM. In EBM, science matters almost not at all. Basic science considerations are in fact relegated to the lowest form of evidence for or against a treatment, even below small case series (i.e., anecdotes). Under normal circumstances, such a ranking of basic science considerations may not seem particularly unreasonable. After all, many are the treatment modalities that seem as though they should work on the basis of science alone but turn out not to work when tested in clinical trials, thus showing us either that our understanding of the science of disease is not as strong as we think or that there are other considerations that we have not taken into account. Either way, it’s not unreasonable in general not to rely on basic science alone–with one exception. That exception, as regular readers of this blog no doubt can guess, is when a treatment proposes a mechanism that is not just implausible based on basic science but so implausible that for all intents and purposes it can be considered impossible because for it to work large swaths of well-established science would have to be not just in error but spectacularly and outrageously wrong.

Think homeopathy. Think reiki. Think “therapeutic touch.”

Even leaving aside the question of distinguishing quackery from science, science is important in medicine, as Dr. RW pointed out four years ago:

It’s probably a waste for most of us to memorize the chemical structure of amino acids, but it may be important to know enough about their structure and properties to understand that some are hydrophobic and comprise membrane lipid bilayers while others are hydrophilic and form hydrogen bonds, the basis for the secondary structure of proteins. Memorizing all the steps in the glycolytic sequence and the Krebs cycle won’t make you a better doctor but it could be important to understand how those reactions yield energy, why a molecule of glucose yields only a couple of ATPs in the glycolytic sequence, but an additional 30 some odd in the Krebs cycle, a fact that explains the difference between aerobic and anaerobic metabolism and why folks have to breathe. It’s all about the how and why of health and disease.

Or, as I would put it, physicians need to have a firm grounding in basic science for two reasons. First, as my professors used to reiterate almost ad nauseam, a significant fraction of what we learn in medical school and residency will be obsolete in a decade, and one of the main purposes of medical school is to give us sufficient background knowledge and understanding to be able to keep up with new developments, understand them, and incorporate them into our practices. A strong basic science background makes it easier for physicians to adapt to changes in knowledge leading to changes in recommended therapy and provides the conceptual framework against which to evaluate new scientific and medical findings. As Mark Crislip put it in his usual inimitable sarcastic fashion, if you want job that requires no constant reevaluation of what we do for patients based on new science, perhaps you should be a naturopath or homeopath. Physicians we must be constantly learning, from training all the way to retirement, and that learning is much easier if we have a firm background the physiological, biochemical, and anatomical principles involved, even if we quickly forget details like the structures of various amino acids or where Rotter’s nodes are (although as a breast surgeon, I’ll never forget this; that’s why I chose Rotter’s nodes as an example). Second, as I have argued before, a firm grounding in science helps us to recognize pseudoscience when we see it. A poor scientific understanding of one area that leads to credulity towards a pseudoscience is all too often a marker for or harbinger of a tendency to accept other pseudoscience uncritically.

I would agree with Dr. RW that no one knows for sure what the optimal amount of basic science education should be a prerequisite to be admitted to medical school. Similarly, no one knows what the optimal mix between basic science and clinical instruction is to produce the best possible physicians. Certainly I don’t. These are questions for legitimate debate. What worries me is that the role of science in medicine has, ever since I finished medical school, appeared to be continually under siege. The science that is taught in medical school appears to be purely practical in nature. Memorize this. Memorize that. Apply that equation. Don’t think too deeply about it; a superficial knowledge is fine. A survey course in organic chemistry over the summer is just fine. Never mind that one of the key aspects of organic chemistry that most challenged me and made me understand is that you can’t just memorize things. You have to understand reaction mechanisms and how to apply them. You have to be able to use that understanding to design plans to synthesize chemicals. It’s really cool and fun stuff. And I say this even though the lowest grade I ever got in an undergraduate science class was in my second term honors organic chemistry class.

The ideas being pushed by academics like Muller and Kase also strike me as a false dichotomy. Either we require a ridiculous amount of science as prerequisites or we in essence require almost no basic science, supplemented with survey courses that can’t convey the richness of science or emphasize the scientific method at the heart of the sciences that underlie medical knowledge. As Dr. RW also pointed out, it’s perfectly possible to major in the humanities and take sufficient prerequisite science courses to be accepted into medical school. Students have been doing it for generations.

Perhaps what concerns me the most is not so much the deemphasis of science in medicine but rather the deemphasis of the scientific method and the critical thinking that underlies the scientific method. Teaching science to premed and medical students isn’t necessarily going to innoculate them against pseudoscientific ideas, such as many of the aspects of CAM that have infiltrated medicine over the last 20 years. A broader approach is needed. Teaching critical thinking skills, a subset of which is the scientific method, would represent a powerful strategy to keep medicine science- and evidence-based. If we could wed a strong understanding of the scientific method with a broader understanding of critical thinking, the latter of which could certainly be taught as part of a humanities curriculum, it would be a powerful weapon against quackademic medicine. Unfortunately, I fear we’re going in exactly the wrong direction, wedding a watered down science curriculum with postmodernist nonsense.


[Slashdot]
[Digg]
[Reddit]
[del.icio.us]
[Facebook]
[Technorati]
[Google]
[StumbleUpon]

NASA’s Hibernating Mars Rover May Not Call Home

Posted on by

Last year, Spirit became partially embedded in the loose sand seen around its left-front wheel in this image. Mobility problems prevented getting the rover to a sun-facing tilt for the current Martian winter. Image Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech - Larger image

NASA mission controllers have not heard from the Mars Exploration Rover Spirit since March 22, and the rover is facing its toughest challenge yet - trying to survive the harsh Martian winter.

The rover team anticipated Spirit would go into a low-power "hibernation" mode since the rover was not able to get to a favorable slope for its fourth Martian winter, which runs from May through November. The low angle of sunlight during these months limits the power generated from the rover's solar panels. During hibernation, the rover suspends communications and other activities so available energy can be used to recharge and heat batteries, and to keep the mission clock running.

On July 26, mission managers began using a paging technique called "sweep and beep" in an effort to communicate with Spirit.

"Instead of just listening, we send commands to the rover to respond back to us with a communications beep," said John Callas, project manager for Spirit and its twin, Opportunity, at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. "If the rover is awake and hears us, she will send us that beep."

Based on models of Mars' weather and its effect on available power, mission managers believe that if Spirit responds, it most likely will be in the next few months. However, there is a very distinct possibility Spirit may never respond.

"It will be the miracle from Mars if our beloved rover phones home," said Doug McCuistion, director of NASA's Mars Exploration Program in Washington. "It's never faced this type of severe condition before - this is unknown territory."

Because most of the rover's heaters were not being powered this winter, Spirit is likely experiencing its coldest internal temperatures yet -- minus 55 degrees Celsius (minus 67 degrees Fahrenheit). During three previous Martian winters, Spirit communicated about once or twice a week with Earth and used its heaters to stay warm while parked on a sun-facing slope for the winter. As a result, the heaters were able to keep internal temperatures above minus 40 degrees Celsius (which is also minus 40 degrees on the Fahrenheit scale).

Spirit is designed to wake up from its hibernation and communicate with Earth when its battery charge is adequate. But if the batteries have lost too much power, Spirit's clock may stop and lose track of time. The rover could still reawaken, but it would not know the time of day, a situation called a "mission-clock fault." Spirit would start a new timer to wake up every four hours and listen for a signal from Earth for 20 minutes of every hour while the sun is up.

The earliest date the rover could generate enough power to send a beep to Earth was calculated to be around July 23. However, mission managers don't anticipate the batteries will charge adequately until late September to mid-October. It may be even later if the rover is in a mission-clock fault mode. If Spirit does wake up, mission managers will do a complete health check on the rover's instruments and electronics.

Based on previous Martian winters, the rover team anticipates the increasing haziness in the sky over Spirit will offset longer daylight for the next two months. The amount of solar energy available to Spirit then will increase until the southern Mars summer solstice in March 2011. If we haven't heard from it by March, it is unlikely that we will ever hear from it.

"This has been a long winter for Spirit, and a long wait for us," said Steve Squyres, the principal investigator for NASA's two rovers who is based at Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. "Even if we never heard from Spirit again, I think her scientific legacy would be secure. But we're hopeful we will hear from her, and we're eager to get back to doing science with two rovers again."

Spirit and its twin, Opportunity, began exploring Mars in January 2004 on missions planned to last three months. Spirit has been nearly stationary since April 2009, while Opportunity is driving toward a large crater named Endeavour. Opportunity covered more distance in 2009 than in any prior year. Both rovers have made important discoveries about wet environments on ancient Mars that may have been favorable for supporting microbial life.

NASA's JPL, a division of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, manages the Mars Exploration Rover project for NASA's Science Mission Directorate in Washington.

For More information visit http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2010-252

NASA-Funded Apologist Blames Media for Kepler’s Botched PR

Posted on by

Did Kepler Astronomer Realy Jump The Gun?, Ray Villard, Discovery News

"Science reporters were primed for this "shoot-ready-aim" response because they are growing impatient with one of NASA's most exciting and inspiring space observatory missions."

Keith's note: Gee Ray, I suppose you have data to back up this wacky claim. Could it be that the media reacted to what Sasselov actually said?

"The semantics over "Earth-like" and "Earth-sized" got confused in stories. Let's set the record straight. Kepler will never find an Earth-like planet. All Kepler is seeing is the shadows of planets as they pass in front of their star (transits). .... Once on the Internet, Sasselov's lecture was translated by reporters. Important ideas got misinterpreted in the translation. This was due in part to the fact that no press conference or substantive press release accompanied the June publication of some of the data."

Keith's note: These are after the fact attempts at spinning things on your part, Ray. Sasselov said "Earth-like". Its on his charts as well. So if these worlds are not "Earth-like" then it is the fault of the media and the general public for not knowing that "Earth-like" does not really mean "Earth-like"? If so, then why did Sasselov say "Earth-like" in the first place? As for your suggestion that media "translated" his comments (anyone can watch the video by the way) - they didn't translate them at all. Sasselov used the words "Earth-like" - and so did the media.

At no point in this article (or at the link to his other articles) does Ray Villard bother to mention that he works at the Space Telescope Science Institute as News Chief (villard@stsci.edu). STSCI operates NASA's Hubble Space Telescope and funds for Villard's salary come from ... NASA. 

The Blunders of ObamaCare – Carolina Journal

Posted on by

Kansas City Star
The Blunders of ObamaCare
Carolina Journal
Those who favored increasing the federal government's control over health care financing and medical decisions intended to make them more political, ...
Will the Show-Me State Show Us How to Nullify ObamaCare?The New American
Missourians want choice on health insuranceSt. Louis Business Journal
Ballot measure tests federal health care lawDaily Dunklin Democrat
New York Times
all 21 news articles »

NeoCon writer for David Frum rants against Ayn Rand’s growing influence on Conservatives

Posted on by

by Eric Dondero

One of the iconic figures of the Libertarian Right has become an icon of the Conservative Right, as well, since the Obama administration. And at least one prominent "Conservative" writer from the NeoCon wing is not happy about the development.

At Frum Forum, NeoCon writer Noah Kristula-Green, formerly with the New Republic writes, "Tea Party Embraces Ayn Rand."

He admits that for conservatives Rand is now "the prophetic writer on the Obama Presidency."

He goes on to express dismay that the Individualist extremist now heavily influences the views of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.

Rand’s popularity tells us two things about the state of modern conservatism.

First, it suggests that Rand’s atheism and permissive social views are no longer deal-breakers among conservative thought leaders. Jennifer Burns, the author of Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right, has explored Rand’s influence through the years. She told FrumForum that while religion had been a crucial issue for William F. Buckley and the conservatives of the 1970s, “someone like Glenn Beck isn’t going to argue about the existence of God or the need for religion. Beck and Limbaugh can use the parts of Rand they want to use and not engage the rest.”

Second and more troubling, the conservative rediscovery of Rand signals an increasing conservative divergence from mainstream America. Conservatives falsely assume that because more copies of Rand’s books are being sold, that everyone who reads them agrees with her. Conservatives are buying into Rand’s extreme views without understanding why many people—and not only liberals—revile her.

As Conservatives are moving more towards Libertarianism, it's becomming clear that NeoConnism is increasingly out of step with the rest of the Right. That is, if NeoCons were ever Right to begin with.

BREAKTHOUGH IN THE NETHERLANDS! Dutch Peoples Party and Christian Democrats to form center-right government with Geert Wilder’s Freedom Party

Posted on by

All agree to austeririty measures to solve Budget Crisis

by Clifford F. Thies

In a third attempt to form a government following this year's parliamentary election, the three main center-right parties appear to have joined into a so-called Danish Solution: A minority government consisting of the market-liberal Dutch Peoples Party and the center-right Christian Democrats supported by Geert Wilder's populist-right Freedom Party. This is called the Danish Solution since the government in Denmark is, similarly, a minority center-right coalition supported by a populist-right party. The big difference is that the populist-right party of the Netherlands is a big party.

Together, these three parties have a bare majority (76 seats) of the national parliament (150 seats). We would presume that the leader of the People Party (with 31 seats), Mark Rutte, a former corporate executive, will be prime minister, and the leader of the Christian Democrats (21 seats), Maxine Verghagen, will be foreign minister. The leader of the Freedom Party (24 seats), the flamboyant Geert Wilders, will not have a formal post in the government, but will have to be consulted on all major decisions.

The parties are agreed to austerity measures to quickly reduce the deficit in the Netherlands from 6 to 3 percent of GDP (as compared to the current U.S. deficit of 11 percent of GDP), and to policies concerned with the integration of immigrants into Dutch life, including work and language requirements. Beyond these things, it may be best to simply say they have agreed to disagree. Much of the Freedom Party's manifesto concerning Islam and immigrants from the Muslim world and from eastern Europe is simply incompatible with the commitment of center-right parties and classical liberals to social tolerance, civil liberties and freedom of religion. And, besides, there is a question as to whether the relevant sections of the Freedom Party manifesto were merely political rhetoric, or just initial bargaining positions to be easily discarded upon the start of negotiations to form a ruling coalition.

UK Muslim Cleric threatens West’s destruction after Comedian cracks G-String joke

Posted on by

From Eric Dondero:

Londoner Jeremy Clarkson cracked on Muslim women in a recent TV appearance. He said that one had fallen over on the street in front of his Taxi at Picadilly, and showed she was wearing G-String undies.

This brought a death threat from famed Muslim cleric Anjem Choudary. From the Daily Star Aug. 1:

“He has angered many young believers of Islam and he may face repercussions.

“There are a growing number of young Islamic fundamentalists in this country and many are ready to cause violence to protect Islam.

“I would urge Clarkson to make a full and public apology to those he has mistakenly offended. Otherwise his safety could be at risk.”

Choudary went on to predict the eventual downfall of the West under Muslim domination.

“Clarkson has stirred a hornets’ nest among young Islamic fundamentalists. He has fanned the flames of their cause. I believe that one day Britain, and indeed every part of the world, will be governed by and under the authority of the Muslims implementing Islamic Law.

“And it will happen. It may come peacefully. But it may come through a holy war that will see rivers of blood on the streets. Clarkson has brought this day closer.”

(H/t Weasel Zippers)

Saturn!

Posted on by

Cassini gives a look at Saturn. Click for larger. Credit: NASA/JPL/Space Science Institute

Cassini took this great picture of Saturn in late June.  The shadows of the rings on the planet are getting wider since it has been almost a year since the equinox when they appeared to be pretty much a thin line.

There is a moon in the image.  Pandora is just below the rings on the left side, you might have to click the image for the larger version to make it out even though it was brightened by a factor of 1.3 relative to the planet.

Cassini was 1.3 million miles (2.1 million km) from Saturn when it took the image.

If you want to see the original release click here.

Credit: NASA/JPL/Space Science Institute

NCBI ROFL: Science proves women who wax have better sex. | Discoblog

Posted on by

barbiesPubic Hair Removal among Women in the United States: Prevalence, Methods, and Characteristics

“Introduction. Although women’s total removal of their pubic hair has been described as a “new norm,” little is known about the pubic hair removal patterns of sexually active women in the United States. Aims. The purpose of this study was to assess pubic hair removal behavior among women in the United States and to examine the extent to which pubic hair removal methods are related to demographic, relational, and sexual characteristics, including female sexual function. Methods. A total of 2,451 women ages 18 to 68 years completed a cross-sectional Internet-based survey. Main Outcome Measures. Demographic items (e.g., age, education, sexual relationship status, sexual orientation), cunnilingus in the past 4 weeks, having looked closely at or examined their genitals in the past 4 weeks, extent and method of pubic hair removal over the past 4 weeks, the Female Genital Self-Image Scale (FGSIS) and the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI). Results. Women reported a diverse range of pubic hair-grooming practices. Women’s total removal of their pubic hair was associated with younger age, sexual orientation, sexual relationship status, having received cunnilingus in the past 4 weeks, and higher scores on the FGSIS and FSFI (with the exception of the orgasm subscale). Conclusion. Findings suggest that pubic hair styles are diverse and that it is more common than not for women to have at least some pubic hair on their genitals. In addition, total pubic hair removal was associated with younger age, being partnered (rather than single or married), having looked closely at one’s own genitals in the previous month, cunnilingus in the past month, and more positive genital self-image and sexual function.”

hair

Thanks to Barking up the wrong tree for today’s ROFL!

Photo: flickr/littlepomegranate

Related content:
Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: Scientific analysis of Playboy centerfolds reveals Barbie-like vulvas.
Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: The G-Spot: nature vs. nurture
Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: A woman’s history of vaginal orgasm is discernible from her walk.

WTF is NCBI ROFL? Read our FAQ!


Today’s Demonstration: How to Hack an ATM—With Video! | Discoblog

Posted on by

ATMAlthough money may not grow on trees, it can spew from an ATM–at least if you’re computer security expert Barnaby Jack. He demonstrated recently at a security conference in Las Vegas how to get an ATM to spit money for minutes on end. Jack purchased the ATMs online, and says the tools required to hack them cost less than $100, according to Technology Review:

“After studying four different companies’ models, he said, “every ATM I’ve looked at, I’ve found a ‘game over’ vulnerability that allowed me to get cash from the machine.” He’s even identified an Internet-based attack that requires no physical access.”

Of course, Jack didn’t reveal how exactly he hacked the machines… but he came pretty close. In one demonstration Black explained:

“The device’s main circuit, or motherboard, is protected only by a door with a lock that is relatively easy to open (Jack was able to buy a key online). He then used a USB port on the motherboard to upload his own software, which changed the device’s display, played a tune, and made the machine spit out money [for several minutes].”

Some ATMs remain very vulnerable to remote attacks as well, Jack explained, such as those designed to accept software upgrades over the Internet. For example, a hacker can circumvent an ATM authentication system by installing his or her own software, which the hacker could then exploit using someone else’s information or a fake card.

Jack said he hoped the demonstration would spur manufacturers to make ATMs more secure. Maybe we’re just cynical, but with every new lock or security measure, won’t new hackers arise to bypass them?

Check out Tech Review’s video about Jack’s demonstration. The best bit—hacked ATM plays silly music and spits out money—starts at 1:15:

Related content:
Discoblog: iCop: Police to Use Facial Recognition App to Nab Criminals
Discoblog: Crime-Fighting Kitties: Cat Hair Could Be the Next Forensic Tool
Discoblog: True Crime, Real-Time: Live Streaming Mugshots to Your iPhone

Image: flickr / thinkpanama