Embryology

The ‘Lifestylization’ of Politics – National Review

EDITORS NOTE: The following is Jonah Goldbergs weekly newsletter, the G-File. Subscribe here to get the G-File delivered to your inbox on Fridays.

Dear Covfefe,

I will admit upfront that I have a pretty good gig, writing-wise. No one really tells me what to write, particularly in this newsletter. I have no lane, as it were. I can go anywhere I want Alger Hiss was guilty! I like eating cold chicken over the sink! Cows, when cooked properly, are delicious! Hail Orb! Etc!

Still, even as a generalist, there are some topics that arent a natural fit for me. I rarely write about sports. I cant remember the last time I weighed-in on relations between Peru and Singapore or why I might spare One Directions lives if I were czar. I dont review video games, miniature-horse rodeos, or Canadian pornography. But I will confess that, if I wanted to, I could. And, if someone out there wants to pay me to share my musings I will be happy to discuss terms.

I bring this up for the simple reason that I want to head off a specific asinine rejoinder that is so prevalent in this remarkably stupid moment: If its okay for you to do it, why cant I?

My short response to this is: Because this is my job.

This is a long way around to get to what should have been my lede: Stay in your lanes, people.

The other day, the guy behind one of my favorite Twitter feeds, @Dog_rates, announced that he would donate half of the proceeds from a jokey anti-Trump hat to Planned Parenthood. I was among the first to criticize him. I didnt dispute his right to do what he had in mind, but I said it was a terrible business decision for the rather obvious reason that Planned Parenthood is polarizing.

Theres a reason why lots of businesses dont want to be seen as political i.e., because they want to maximize the number of their customers. If you start hawking liberal widgets, you are closing yourself off to conservative widget buyers, and vice versa. Of course, some business models involve finding market niches, but ideally you want to sell to everyone. A dog-themed Twitter account is already something of a niche, but since only monsters dont like dogs, its a pretty broad niche. Picking sides on one of the most divisive issues of our time abortion may be a principled thing to do, but purely on business terms it was a bad idea, as anyone whos watched Seinfeld could have told him.

Now, Im not going to rehash all of it here (Ian Tuttle has two good posts on the situation here and here). But I will say that I would have made the exact same argument if @Dog_Rates had promised to donate money to pro-life groups, a point my left-wing critics seem to have a very difficult time processing.

Anyway, it looks like I was right that Matt Nelson, the operator of the account, hadnt thought the whole thing through when he came up with the idea, and he tried to backpedal as best he could, which then in turn pissed off the proPlanned Parenthood crowd. As best I can tell, hes even taken down his semi-apologetic statement. Thats what happens when you blunder into a no-win situation.

Now consider this tweet rant from the ACLU:

I have no doubt the ACLU sincerely believes all of this. But you know what? Climate change isnt in the American Civil Liberties Unions portfolio. The ACLU is supposed to be concerned with wait for it civil liberties. I think it has been drifting off that beat for a long time. But this tweet is truly remarkable and remarkably dumb. The ACLU depends a great deal on its reputation as a non-partisan defender of constitutional rights. It puts that reputation at risk when it starts soapboxing about climate change. What does it gain from this as an institution? The people who already agree with these tweets dont need to be persuaded, and the people who dont will not be persuaded by them. But they will or might be further convinced that the ACLU is just another partisan political outfit. Credibility is a difficult resource to accumulate and an easy one to squander.

Maybe the ACLU is too far gone to be a good example of what Im talking about. But the problem is everywhere. From news anchors and reporters all but giving up any claims to neutrality on the issues of the day, to judges who must virtue signal their distaste for Trump, to actors who think that they are full-time pundits who play make-believe on the stage and screen as a side hobby.

Almost every morning I see this GE ad.

Ive seen nary a critical word about it, even though it is nothing more than corporate political propaganda. But since its propaganda all the right people support, they dont even pause to think about how they would respond if it pushed a political message they dont like. Its like my old rants about NBCs Green Week. Imagine if ABC came out with a pro-life week in which they incorporated positive messages about fighting for the unborn in their news broadcasts and sitcoms. The same people cheering @Dog_Rates would be burning cars in the streets.

Peanut Butter Cup America

Its a familiar conservative lament to say this is all part of the politicization of everything. And I think thats true. But you can flip it on its head, too. Everything is becoming lifestylized (I hereby decree thats a word). Its like that ancient debate between Plato and Socrates: Did Socrates get his chocolate in Platos peanut butter or did Plato get peanut butter in Socrates chocolate? (That sounds dirty The Couch.)

Scads have been written, mostly by conservatives and libertarians, about the problem of politics bleeding into the nooks and crannies of traditionally apolitical life. And I agree with much of it. But far less has been written about how lifestyle is creeping into politics. With the decline of traditional religion and other mediating institutions, the primary source of identity for ever larger numbers of people is partisan affiliation. Indeed, partisan affiliation for the first time ever is often more predictive of behavior and attitudes than race, ethnicity, religion, and gender. Thats bananas.

But its also utterly predictable. When politics becomes a secular religion, a source of meaning, or simply a lifestyle, politics will be less about arguments and tradeoffs and more about wearing ideas on your sleeve. I agree with Jonathan Last when he writes that the current hysteria over the Paris pullout is virtue signaling about virtue signaling. But what else can you expect when people start wearing their partisan affiliation the way people once wore a crucifix or Star of David?

Disagreements become insults when politics becomes a statement about who you are. And, as I keep saying, that explains why so many now define free speech as assault and assault as free speech.

Rights and Science

What do the passionate cries of science denier and calls for prosecuting Kathy Griffin have in common? They conflate amoral processes with moral stances.

This is difficult to explain, so give me a minute. Neil deGrasse Tyson notwithstanding, science is not moral. It is not a source of values. Scientists can do extremely evil things or extremely noble things. Science is a method and a tool. But the freedom to do science is a wonderful thing because a society with healthy guardrails can harness science to wonderful ends. Think of fire. Fire has no morality. It can be used to burn down a home and it can be used to cook a meal. Our legal, cultural, and moral guardrails make these distinctions constantly. We dont let mad scientists use humans for experiments without their permission, even though I could make a perfectly rational argument that if we gave scientists a free hand, we could get more medical breakthroughs more quickly. What are a few eggs if we get a better omelet? Etc.

If you read left-wing Twitter, this is a source of remarkable confusion for many people. Every day, I see a tweet from someone saying that you must believe in science when it comes to climate change and another tweet from someone else saying that science is a tool of oppression and racism. How can science be righteously authoritative on environmental policy but cruel and bigoted when it comes to the science of embryology or sexuality?

Something similar holds for our rights. We have all manner of rights to do wrongs. For instance, as Kat Timpf and Charlie Cooke have been insisting, what Griffin did with that beheaded effigy of Donald Trump was stupid and repugnant. But at the same time, she had every right to do it, and thats a wonderful thing.

Charlie is right. But there is a tension. Just as Griffin has every right to do what she did, she was also wrong to do it. This is a distinction people get profoundly confused about on both the left and the right.

For instance, when it was reported that General Michael Flynn (Ret.) would invoke his Fifth Amendment rights, many of his defenders shrieked that we shouldnt count that against him in any way. As a legal matter, thats correct. But theres nothing wrong with making judgments about it either. It looks bad, even if Flynn is within in his rights.

If youre going to get on your high horse about how its unfair to leap to conclusions when someone pleads the Fifth, then I can only assume you condemned this:

Whats interesting to me is the way that people talk about rights as if they have moral content to them. How dare you judge me for exercising my rights!

There is an infinite menu of things I can do with my rights that would be immoral or unethical, just as there is an infinite menu of things scientists can do with science that would be immoral, unethical, and illegal.

Americans have the right to say horrible things on Twitter in response to a terrorist attack on a bunch of young girls. They have the right to associate with Klansmen. They have the right to worship Satan. They have the right to do all manner of gross, tacky, weird, and unspeakable things with their own property and in their own homes. Indeed, they have the right to sit around all day wearing Indy 500 Rompers and eating lettuce jam while watching Donnie Darko. But in these and in so many other things, I have the right to make judgments and to criticize based on those judgments. Whether my judgments are fair and my criticisms are sound has no bearing on whether I have the right to them.

Why should the Fifth Amendment be any different? The Fifth Amendment is the right that ensures a fair process. Thats all. Its not a source of meaning or moral direction outside that process.

Morality only enters the picture when you look at the system as a whole. The trees can be bad, but the forest is good. As I wrote in this much better newsletter, the essence of conservatism can be defined as comfort with contradiction. People have the right to do wrong and people have the right to condemn, shame, and boycott people who do wrong. Saying you had the right to do x is a universally valid defense in only one venue: a court of law. Outside the dock, there are higher standards or there should be.

The problem with the lifestylization of politics most acutely on college campuses is that people want to clear away the contradictions. They want a unity of goodness where all good things go together and bad things are given no quarter. This has chiefly been a problem on the left, but it has become increasingly bipartisan. Why? Because right-wing populism is a lifestyle too:

Everywhere you look, people are mistaking inconvenient facts for insults. Every single day, people are taking offense at disagreement and confusing rights (and presidential prerogatives) and science for moral authority. Its a hothouse where the air is thick with hypocrisy because arguments are downstream of feelings and where facts are so much flair to don or discard depending on what lifestyle you want to adopt and what virtues you want to signal. In short, its a very stupid time.

Various & Sundry

As Michael Knight said to Kitt, I want to change gears a little. Kevin Williamson has a very nice plea for your support today. In his own inimitable way, he corroborates the point I made above:

National Review took a principled and even at the time unpopular stand against the man who would go on to become the Republican presidential nominee and, incredibly enough, president. I was not the most restrained voice on the issue. I am sure that this resulted in some canceled subscriptions and withheld donations, but I never heard much about any of that. I get a lot of feedback on my work from the editors here Do you think this is really fair to the other sides argument? Are you sure about the numbers here? Do you really need a 121-word lead? but its never: Dont write that because it will annoy x donor or y advertiser.

If you are wondering what your donations and support go to, thats it: maintaining a conservative institution that lets a lot of different writers with a lot of different opinions write what they think without worrying about anything other than producing the best work they can. Its a big part of what allows National Review to operate as an opinion journal in which this is remarkable, if you think about it there is no party line. If theres a live political dispute that Ramesh Ponnuru, Rich Lowry, Andrew C. McCarthy, Reihan Salam, Jay Nordlinger, Mike Potemra, Rick Brookhiser, Kat Timpf, Veronique de Rugy, Ian Tuttle, Alexandra DeSanctis, and I all agree about...I cant think what it is.

Now, if youre like me, you may be wondering why he left me off that list. Maybe Kevin knows something I dont know? But putting that aside, hes making an important point. National Review has writers who exult in Donald Trump and it has writers who dont. I dont think we have any writers who take a position of blanket opposition to him. There are no members of the resistance here. But there are plenty of people who understand that conservatism is more than a lifestyle, better than pure team partisanship. In short, we believe in making arguments, standing athwart GroupThink. And the fact that so many friends and readers have trouble with this is a testament, at least in some small part, to the extent of the lifestylization of American politics. If you feel that way, youre probably not reading this anyway.

But if you appreciate it, if you think America needs more institutions that think arguments and facts matter even when they are insulting to people on the left or the right then we would be extremely grateful if you could show your appreciation. If you cant, we understand. Life is complicated, which is sort of the whole point.

Canine Update: Things have been a bit complicated on the dog front this week. Pippa developed a bad limp earlier in the week, but seems to be on the mend. Its a sign of how traumatized my wife and I were by the Late Great Cosmo The Wonderdogs medical troubles that we greet every limp as a potential crisis. Cosmo was beautiful, tough, and smart, but he was also built like an East German car. Before he died, Cosmo was about two surgeries shy of being fully bionic. We dont know how the Spaniel hurt herself, but we fear it might be that Zo and Pippa might play too rough when the humans are gone. My wifes new job has necessitated a lot more alone time, and theres evidence to believe that Zo takes out her boredom on Pippa much like Ramsay Bolton did on Reek. We hope thats not the case. But Im sorely tempted to get a nanny cam to get to the bottom of it. Meanwhile, it means that when were home, Zo is far needier.

In other news, Zo is fascinated by turtles and covfefe. In feline news, when the Fair Jessica and I were in New York over Memorial Day, our dogwalker/sitter/aunt reported that around 11:00 oclock at night, Zo went bonkers and started barking out an open window. Kirsten looked outside and saw that Gracie, the Good Cat, was staring down a fox in the middle of the street. Between Zos barking and Gracies willful glare, the fox turned tail (literally!) and ran away. It could have ended very badly. But now Zo and Pippa look upon Gracie as a kind of folk hero.

Heads Up: Ill be on ABCs This Week on Sunday.

ICYMI...

Last weeks G-File.

My short (mostly negative) review of Alien: Covenant.

My response to Dennis Pragers take on Trumps right-leaning critics.

Why government-provided health care doesnt necessarily lead to better health.

Laffaire covfefe.

My Special Report appearance from Wednesday night.

Why cant Hillary accept blame for her 2016 loss?

And now, the weird stuff.

Debbys Friday links

Two mating camels cause a traffic jam in Dubai

Little girl rescues runaway dog with love

When deja vu is strong enough that you dont know whats real

A garden of poison plants

When Nazis tried to bring extinct animals back to life

Behold: a new species of carnivorous sponge

Great White shark launches itself into Australian fishermans boat

Science: Your meanest friend just wants the best for you

School in France testing facial recognition tech to keep students paying attention

Love-hormone injections turn gray seals into best friends

What does the edge of the universe look like?

The strange and surprising second life of Harambe

Five hundred years after the Protestant Reformation began...a robot priest

The most misspelled words in every state

Mathematical proof that your life is interesting

Newborn walks minutes after being born

Read the original here:
The 'Lifestylization' of Politics - National Review

Anatomy

Why ‘Grey’s Anatomy’ Jaggie Is the Worst Idea Ever – BuddyTV (blog)

The Grey's Anatomy Season 13 finale introduced us to the world of Jaggie. Apparently this had been teased for a while, but honestly I never saw it. For those who aren't quite sure about shipper names, Jaggie is Jackson and Maggie, who are step-siblings through their parents' (Catherine and Richard) marriage. It's been two weeks since the Grey's Anatomy season finale and fans are still discussing the idea, with the majority agreeing that this is the worst relationship Shonda Rhimes and her writers have ever come up with. I, for one, fully agree with these fans. Jaggie is the worst idea ever for Grey's. The Relationship Came out of Nowhere

I know a lot of fans discussed the idea of Jaggie happening weeks before the season finale. I remember soon after Maggie's mom died and fans said there were hints that they were getting together in those moments of the two together.

Now, fans do have a habit of seeing things that aren't always there. This is the beauty of TV. It's possible to pick up on sly looks or the way someone says a line but have completely different opinions about what the characters actually meant. That scene of Jackson sharing the photos he'd found of Diane with Maggie never looked like a hint of a relationship to me. It looked like a hint of friendship, something that both characters have needed for a very long time.

When April told Maggie that Jackson liked her in the season finale, it felt rushed and unnecessary. The whole idea of Jaggie came out of the blue -- even Maggie didn't realize Jackson had feelings for her.

Jackson and April Had Just Reconnected

Grey's Anatomy fans had been waiting for Japril to happen again for a long time. There have been hints for months that they would find their way back to each other, and then in Montana it finally happened. Jackson and April fans danced around with glee at the idea of this couple finally rekindling their romance.

It's clear that April still has feelings for her ex-husband and vice versa. April is still living with Jackson as they raise their baby together. Bringing Maggie into the mix just complicates matters.

Sure, this can mimic real life, but this just doesn't sit right. There was a big thing about April and Jackson rekindling their relationship and then the idea was just abandoned. April is brushed to one side, as if she never even meant anything to Jackson at all. There Are Too Many Characters to Develop This Relationship

Grey's Anatomy took a lot on in season 13. We saw the relationship between Meredith and Riggs develop (with the problem of Maggie liking Riggs.) Fans had to deal with the Minnick/Webber drama, while trying to support the idea of Arizona finding love with the unlikeable Minnick. On top of that we had the Alex court case problem, mixed with Stephanie being written out of the show.

There is something about Grey's Anatomyseason 13 that just didn't work. There were far too many storylines over the space of 24 episodes, leaving some unfulfilling moments, abandoned/forgotten storylines and difficult-to-follow moments.

Bringing in another couple just doesn't work. Season 14 is already going to have multiple storylines to run. Megan is back, causing all types of drama for Owen and Riggs. Amelia and Owen are still getting through their rough patch, and Bailey needs to reverse the mess she caused by hiring Minnick. There just isn't room for a new (out of the blue) relationship to be introduced.

To top this off, fans just don't want it. They want to see Jackson and April together. Fans want to see the two raise their daughter together.

Do you think Grey's Anatomy's Jaggie will work? What were your thoughts in the first moment you found out Jackson really does have feelings for Maggie? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

Grey's Anatomyseason 14 returns in the fall on Thursdays at 8/7c on ABC. Don't forget to like our Grey's AnatomyFacebook page to get the latest updates and articles straight to your newsfeed.

(Image courtesy of ABC)

Original post:
Why 'Grey's Anatomy' Jaggie Is the Worst Idea Ever - BuddyTV (blog)

Anatomy

Style Anatomy: Palwasha Yousuf – The Express Tribune

The style-savvy fashion and hair stylist at Mehers Salon breaks down her personal style for us

The style-savvy fashion and hair stylist at Mehers Salon breaks down her personal style for us. She shares the styling rules she always abides by and the styles she would avoid

Understanding your body is the key to looking good and a trait found amongst all impeccably dressed fashionistas. While people shy away from talking about their bodies, these brave souls explain how they work their anatomies to their advantage

How would you describe your body type?

I would say my body type is a mesomorph with a prominent bone structure and an athletic physique, its easy for me to lose and gain weight if I work on it.

Has your body type changed over the last five years?

Yes, thats a natural process that happens to everybody. Some people are lucky and blessed with great genes to remain a certain size but I have felt the need to exercise in order to keep my body toned.

How has your style changed over the years?

As the world of fashion has evolved, everyones sense of style also changes with time. I would still stick to a classic and chic look. The simpler, the better!

In your opinion what is your most troublesome area?

My legs!

How do you dress your body according to your body type?

In my opinion, I look better in a structured look rather than going with the frills and too much draping, keeping in mind that my shoulders are slightly broad. Too much cloth can make me look bigger than my size.

In your opinion what is the biggest mistake a person can make while dressing here?

Everyone has their own sense of style and you cant take that away from them. But at the same time I do feel that people love to follow whats trending, not keeping their body type or personality in mind. One has to go with a sense of comfort and ease when it comes to dressing up and I truly am a big believer of being comfortable in your skin rather than going with the trend. Another place where people go wrong here is being too loud with their hair and makeup.

Which silhouettes suit your body the most?

High-waisted pants suit my body type; they definitely make my legs look longer. A structured top always gives me an edgier look which I love and jumpsuits definitely suit my body type, with a pair of good heels, it automatically adds height to the look.

What is the one piece of clothing that you shy away from wearing and why?

I definitely shy away from wearing figure-hugging dresses, it makes me very uncomfortable.

View post:
Style Anatomy: Palwasha Yousuf - The Express Tribune

Neuroscience

How does neuroscience impact leadership? – Human Capital

In a world full of change, just keeping up has become a full-time occupation, according to Dr Jenny Brockis, medical practitioner and author of the book Future Brain.

Rapid technological advance requires us to incorporate new ways of thinking and doing, and has led to the automation of many tasks.

This can result in the generation of an undercurrent of anxiety and fear, of losing our job, of becoming irrelevant, and fearing the future, she said.

According to Dr Brockis, looking beyond potential threat and towards potential opportunity is where the adaptive leader can exert significant influence.

Influence comes from understanding how the brain perceives novelty; its preference being to seek familiar patterns, she said.

While curious, the brain has to decide very quickly whether this poses a potential threat or reward.

Dr Brockis added that because our evolution has depended on our ability to stay alive, the brains default setting is to assume danger first and ask questions later.

The brain savvy leader looks for ways to minimise the threat response and promote the towards-state of possible reward, she said.

The importance of this lies in the findings of neuroscience that shows how a towards-state promotes a more positive mood and better access to the pre-frontal cortex, helping us to think well, learn effectively and get on better with others.

"Reducing threat influences our level of adaptability, boosting resilience and capability."

Dr Brockis outlined how adaptability includes three core components: curiosity, mindset, and emotional regulation.

Curiosity

Curiosity is the enquiring mind, asking how things can be done differently, improved upon and corrected if necessary. The curious leader recognises they dont have all the answers and is willing to ask questions, listen and ask for help. Curiosity contributes to critical thinking, examining the information available, checking its validity, and our own biases and assumptions to facilitate the best decision.

We make sense of our world using our own set of lenses, filtering information against the backdrop of our values and belief systems that evolve during our childhood and are carried forward into adulthood. The attitudes we adopt whilst deeply embedded can be altered thanks to our wonderfully plastic brain that enables us to develop new patterns of thinking and habits to supersede those we identify as being less helpful.

Working in an environment where thats the way we do things here is great for consistency and worked well in previous eras where employees expected to work according to a set of rules. However, it leaves little room for innovation or adoption of new technologies.

Mindset

A fixed mindset means we see the world in a black or white dimension with no room for any shades of grey. Being content with the status quo means theres no incentive to do things differently and avoids that nasty risk of failure.

The adaptive leader with an open mindset looks beyond the boundaries of their own knowledge and experience to seek new challenges and possibility, comfortable with the notion that failure simply reflects what didnt work and provides the opportunity to improve next time.

Emotional regualtion

The ability to regulate emotion is a skillset frequently underestimated in its power to influence good decision-making and faster problem solving. Emotion underpins our best cognition. The adaptive leader looks to promote a positive workplace atmosphere that enhances collaboration, contribution and creativity. Adaptive leadership is the continuum that effectively navigates resistance to change and promotes possibility thinking by disrupting the status quo.

Related stories:

Why are older workers so happy?

Five tips to boost employees mental energy

View post:
How does neuroscience impact leadership? - Human Capital

Human Behavior

New Season Three Of Invisibilia – Thursday Nights In June 2017 – Valley Public Radio

Invisibilia, Latin for "the invisible things," explores the invisible forces that shape human behavior things like ideas, beliefs, assumptions and emotions. In Season 3 premiering in June hosts Alix and Hanna will delve into the ways our concepts shape our worldviews and how we mold our own reality. You can hear the new season of InvisibiliaThursday nights in June at 8:00 PM, starting June 1, 2017.

Episode 1: Emotion(airing Thursday, June 1) How real and inevitable are our emotions? In the first stories of the new season, we're giving emotions a similar treatment to the one we gave to thoughts in the very first episode of Invisibilia (The Secret History of Thoughts). Where do our emotions come from? How seriously should we take them? Do they tell us truths about the world that should guide our behavior or should we be more skeptical about them? To explore these questions, we look at an unusual case in the American justice system. Then we follow a man as he discovers a new emotion that no one in western culture has experienced before.

Episode 2: Reality Check(airing Thursday, June 8) How real is our own reality? What happens when people can't agree on reality? Many in our increasingly polarized society confront this question every day. In this episode we meet Umpires in training who have a lock on what's really happening and visit a small town in Minnesota, called Eagle's Nest, that has a unique experience with the reality divide: some of the people in the town believe that wild black bears are gentle animals to be fed and befriended, while many others take a more traditional view on the human-bear relationship. This leads to conflict and, ultimately, a tragic death. Then we meet a young man who is taking extraordinary steps to break himself out of his own reality bubble.

Episode 3: The Other Self(airing Thursday, June 15) How does the culture help shape the reality each of us lives in? In this episode we explore a theory about prejudice that has taken hold in recent years: implicit bias. The rise of this concept was facilitated by the public release of a psychological test that can be done online called the Implicit Association Test, which purports to measure a secret, hidden part of ourselves that most of us can't directly access: our racism. Although embraced by many as an incredible breakthrough in our understanding of the human psyche, it has also received pushback from groups and individuals who don't believe that it is accurately measuring bias. In this story we follow the development of the test and theory of implicit bias and talk to several people who are trying to confront and change their other self.

Episode 4: True You(airing on Thursday, June 22) What realities should we entertain for ourselves? In this episode we pose one of our favorite questions to ask children: What do you want to be when you grow up? Many people have these visions of their future selves; fantasies of a smarter, better, richer, more successful version of the people they are today. In many ways these future selves motivate us, pushing us to improve ourselves as we seek to achieve our dreams. But they can also be dangerous, mocking us for everything we have failed to become. Our stories take us into the life of a Syrian orphan who forged a new identity and life despite all odds and we go to North Port, Florida, where the principal of a high school did something unusual, and pretty extreme, to try and help his students reach their full potential, in an experiment that went horribly wrong. Then we travel to another world entirely; the dream world, where a woman is seeking answers from within.

Visit link:
New Season Three Of Invisibilia - Thursday Nights In June 2017 - Valley Public Radio

Human Behavior

KPCC reporters fact-check Rep. Dana Rohrabacher and Tom Steyer’s climate claims – 89.3 KPCC

(Above) Tom Steyer introduces a panel during the National Clean Energy Summit 6.0 at the Mandalay Bay Convention Center on August 13, 2013 in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Below) Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of California speaking at CPAC 2011 in Washington, D.C. Isaac Brekken/Getty Images and Gage Skidmore/Flickr/Creative Commons

On June 1, KPCC produced a live on-air special on President Trump's decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement. We interviewed U.S. Representative Dana Rohrabacher, R-Orange County, and investor and environmental philanthropist Tom Steyer about their views on the decision. Afterwards, we received many comments from listeners who felt we did not sufficiently challenge their claims. KPCC environment reporter Emily Guerin and correspondent Matt Bloom have this fact-check.

Rep. Dana RohrabacherI have no doubt that there are these climate cycles and we go through them and it's only been until recently that the politicians have tried to claim that we have to control people's behavior in order to control those climate cycles. And so I disagree with the theory that CO2, done by mankind, is a major cause for climate change.

KPCCNinety-seven percent of scientists are in agreement that human activities are responsible for global warming trends over the past 100 years. Most of the leading scientific organizations in the world have made public statements in support of this consensus, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union and the National Academy of Sciences.

Rohrabacher I think the CEOs [Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Disney CEO Bob Igner, who both condemned the President's decision], they don't have to worry about the unemployment the Paris agreement would cause.

The notion that the Paris climate agreement will cause anything is misleading, because the agreement is voluntary. Each country pledges to cut its emissions by a certain amount by a certain year. Every five years, each country reviews where its at and explains why it has or has not hit its targets. But the targets are not legally enforceable. Vox has a great explainer on this topic.

RohrabacherThe people of the Paris accord were insisting on things like the ending of frequent flyer miles, because they see the airplanes just the worst violators.

KPCC cannot find any evidence that the Paris accord mentions ending frequent flyer miles.

Rohrabacher We've had the most incredible, for the last 30 years, how do you say, political campaign to set a mindset in people's consciousness that some way every time there's some problem with the climate and you see a cycle going through, that that in some way has to do with human behavior, and thus there's an excuse to control human behavior. But I know a lot of people have looked into it who have come to this conclusion, and I certainly have, that there is a small impact of the manmade CO2 on the climate.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the body of international scientists that regularly scrutinizes climate research, Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.

RohrabacherAl Gore said global warming was going to dramatically increase the sea level. And of course that never happened.

According to the IPCC, sea level rose seven inches between 1901 and 2010. Not only is the sea level rising, but its rising faster than at any time over the past two thousand years. And the rate is only expected to increase in the future.

Tom SteyerI think the president is attempting to make a winner out of the fossil fuel industry when it's in decline.

KPCCSteyer lumps all fossil fuels together here, but its a bit more complicated than that. Coal production is in decline, in part due to the lower costs of natural gas generation and growing market share of wind and solar power, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Last year, the EIA said natural gas provided 33 percent of U.S. energy generation while coals share fell to 32 percent, making 2016 the first year that natural gas-fired generation exceeded coal generation on an annual basis.

Meantime, EIA says production of both natural gas and oil in the U.S. is booming. Since 2012, the U.S. has pumped more oil and gas than any other country in the world.

SteyerI think what we've seen in the marketplace is that renewables plus storage is cheaper than fossil fuels.

When Steyer says "storage," he means the ability to store the electricity produced by solar or wind generation in massive batteries so that the energy is available later, when the wind is no longer blowing or it's cloudy.

The REN21 Renewables Global Futures Report from the United Nations says that renewables are now the least expensive option for new power generation in almost all countries. Butthe limitations of existing infrastructure are abarrier to further expansion.

Steyer It's unrealistic to think that the federal government doesn't have a role to play in our economy. For one thing, they fund an awful lot of research.

A lot of federal research and development grants jump start businesses here in Southern California. For example, the Department of Energys Advance Research Projects Agency-Energy, also known as ARPA-E, gave $2 million to Marine BioEnergy Inc. in La Caada to develop a system for turning kelp into fuel. Other federally funded programs include $1 million for UCLAs effort to build a better battery for electric vehicles. The Trump administration has signaled that it wants to eliminate ARPA-E funding next year.

SteyerBut the fact of the matter is number one, you have to acknowledge the problem (climate change) before you talk about solving it. And number two, we believe that solving it will create better jobs, better paying jobs, and will help the health of Americans. So we not only solve a huge threat to America but we make ourselves better off and healthier.

A 2017 report from the U.S. Department of Energy found that California was home to 40 percent of the country's solar energy jobs, a number that could rise as the state moves toward ambitious renewable energy goals. Since 2004, greenhouse gas emissions in California declined over nine percent while the state's GDP grew 28 percent, according to the California Air Resources Board.

Follow this link:
KPCC reporters fact-check Rep. Dana Rohrabacher and Tom Steyer's climate claims - 89.3 KPCC

Human Behavior

Policies are hurting our children – Foster’s Daily Democrat

June 1 - To the Editor:

A number of years ago I was given a T-shirt from New Hampshire Healthy Kids, which I wore proudly. On the back of the shirt was written, "A hundred years from now it will not matter what my bank account was, the sort of house I live in, or the kind of car I drove. But the world may be a different because I was important in the life of a child."

In a hundred years, but most likely much sooner, children will find out that the world they live in is quite different from that of their ancestors, unfortunately, not in a positive way. The actions and policies of Donald Trump's administration, supported by their accomplices in Congress will negatively impact the lives of today's children, and their children for generations to come.

In the short-term, children will be greatly harmed by the health care, educational, nutritional, environmental, economic, anti-science, gun violence and diplomatic policies of Mr. Trump and the Republicans. In almost every department of the federal government, policies have been initiated that will negatively impact the health and safety of children, as well as their economic futures. Polices that limit nutritional support, reduces control of toxins in our environment, cutting scientific research, cutting health care coverage, promoting more guns, even in schools, and cutting drug addition treatment services, to name some of the most obvious. Trump's proposed budget reflects a philosophy that is anti-child and only serves the interest of the very wealthy.

However, the most dangerous act of Mr. Trump was his decision to withdraw the United States from the landmark Paris Climate Accord. This action will place us in a class with the likes of Syria and Nicaragua, the only other non participants in the Paris Climate Accord. Trump and Republicans have long totally denied or have greatly minimized the reality and extent that human behavior is responsible for the warming of the planet, despite the overwhelming consensus of the world's scientific community that human behavior is causing climate change and immediate action is needed to slow the process. As one of the largest polluters in the world, the U.S. is doing huge harm to the planet by withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord. The message Trump is sending to our people and the world is that we do not believe in science, and we are wiling to gamble the future of our children and our planet for ideological political and destructive economic gains.

Obviously, Trump and his fellow Republicans care much more about the size of their bank accounts, the size of the house they live in and the type of car they drive, than what is important to the health and security of our children and future generations. Their short-term, immediate gratification self interest, "greed is good" mentality will have long-term destructive consequences for generations to follow. Shakespeare wrote, "The evil that men do oft lives after them, the good is interred with their bones." In Trump's and his allies case, their bones will be accompanied by little good, but the world's children will long suffer from the consequences of their evil actions that will live long after them. Their scornful place in history will be appropriately recorded.

Rich DiPentima

Portsmouth

Read the original:
Policies are hurting our children - Foster's Daily Democrat

Genetics

Myriad Genetics’ EndoPredict Test Receives New Coverage From 17 Insurance Plans – GenomeWeb

NEW YORK (GenomeWeb) Myriad Genetics announced late Friday afternoon that 17 new insurance plans have released positive coverage policies for its EndoPredict breast cancer test.

The plans include Blue Shield of California, Humana, and multiple regional plans. Further, Myriad said, Highmark Blue Cross Blue Shield, Independence Blue Cross, and Health Care Service Corporation have posted positive coverage policies which take effect in July 2017. These plans altogether represent more than 35 million covered lives raising the total of lives covered for EndoPredict to 109 million.

Registering provides access to this and other free content.

Already have an account? .

Read more:
Myriad Genetics' EndoPredict Test Receives New Coverage From 17 Insurance Plans - GenomeWeb

Genetics

Kyle Busch says his emotional outbursts are caused by genetics – SB Nation

Kyle Busch says genetics are to blame as to why he occasionally has emotional outbursts, like the one he had last weekend where he angrily dropped the mic in a post-race press conference at Charlotte Motor Speedway.

In a video that instantly went viral, Busch conducted a terse press conference after finishing second in the Coca-Cola 600 to Austin Dillon, who gambled on fuel mileage to score his first Monster Energy Cup Series win. Buschs decorum in losing has been debated on social media, talk radio, and daily television shows throughout the week.

Different people show their emotions in different ways, Busch said Friday after winning the pole for Sundays race at Dover International Speedway. Unfortunately for me, mine has never been very gracious I dont know that it ever will be.

Im kind of learning that as the days go on. My son is 2 years old, I see where it came from. Its genetics. Im sorry, its just who I am. Thats what I was given. If there is anybody to blame, its probably the guy upstairs.

Busch calmly explained Friday why he was so upset late Sunday night. After passing Martin Truex Jr., he thought he was well-positioned to take the Coca-Cola 600, one of NASCARs four majors, and expected Dillon to eventually run out of fuel. But when the Richard Childress Racing driver was able to make it to the checkered flag, Busch was left having to accept defeat in a race he badly wanted to win.

Initially, Busch was able to harness his frustration. He conducted a national television interview with Fox Sports on pit road, giving no indication he was upset with what had transpired. But by the time he reached the media center, his frustration got the best of him. Compounding matters, Busch hasnt won a Cup race since the Brickyard 400 in July, a 28-race winless drought for the 2015 series champion.

"That's a marquee event, and a big one to win and I've won two of them and that would have been third. And that would have only left me with the Daytona 500," Busch said. "The other aspect that I looked at was we won the All-Star Race and we were going for the sweep of Charlotte.

"There were a lot of things kind of riding on the line that meant a lot to me and would have been special to me. I guess I should care less about those sort of things and not show that sort of emotion."

Don't change @KyleBusch

The sport needs personalities. All types.

Busch has had numerous transgressions throughout his career, including intentionally crashing Ron Hornaday Jr. under caution in a 2011 Truck Series race at Texas Motor Speedway. That act prompted NASCAR to prohibit Busch from competing in the Xfinity and Cup Series races the remainder of the weekend.

But excluding a post-race pit road altercation with Joey Logano earlier this season, Busch, 32, has largely avoided any controversial incidents.

I can probably get better and go to training and classes and everything else, Busch said. But I dont know, it is the way it is. Ive been fortunate enough to have been blessed to be in the opportunity that Im in. Ive got great sponsors and partners that are with me, and theyve stuck with me through a lot worse than what happened this week and thats through relationships.

Those people that are close to me, understand me and know me and know who I am outside the race track as a personable person, as a friend. Thats why Im able to continue to have the relationships and that sponsorships that I do.

Follow this link:
Kyle Busch says his emotional outbursts are caused by genetics - SB Nation

Genetics

Reliance on Foreign Tech Puts Strain on China’s Genetics Market – Sixth Tone

In 2007, Shanghai launched a project called Eastern Scholars, which provided funding to lure distinguished academics to the city to reinvigorate academic programs at top universities. The program provided the impetus for my 2009 move to Fudan University, where I ran the nanofabrication lab. Now, however, my goal is to provide the technology necessary to treat diseases using DNA sequencing. In the next couple of years, I hope to make this a viable option for the majority of Chinese patients, and as quick and easy as drawing blood.

After three years as an Eastern Scholar, I decided in April 2015 to start my own gene sequencing company, Turtle-Tech. The name is a play on words: In Chinese culture, turtles are symbols of longevity; in Chinese language, the word for turtle haigui can also refer to someone who returns to China after studying abroad. This reflects my own experience as a student in Sweden, where I worked on a project to develop a gene sensor using semiconductors.

Genetic testing allows scientists to examine a persons DNA from, say, a blood sample. In addition to providing medical diagnoses, it can also be used to see how likely it is that someone will contract a given disease in their lifetime. It can even be used in cancer screenings, to test a patients susceptibility to certain types of cancer, and thereby help them to prolong their life. Currently, there are over 1,000 diseases that can be diagnosed using genetic technologies.

The DNA sequencing industry has grown rapidly in recent years, with the global market for sequencing services growing from $7.94 million in 2007 to a predicted $11.7 billion by next year. It is estimated that this market will continue to grow by more than 20 percent annually over the next 10 years.

In China, DNA sequencing services began popping up onlineas early as 2006. Since 2009, health management centers at some of the countrys top-ranked provincial and municipal hospitals have offered genetic testing as part of physical examinations. The barriers for clinical application remain high, however, due to the fact that the genetic testing industry and its products still constitute medical instruments requiring supervision. In practice, this means they are required to pass clinical trials and be approved by the China Food and Drug Administration (CDFA) before they can be used for medical purposes.

People soon discovered, however, that although the barriers to clinical use are quite high, DNA sequencing holds a potentially vast commercial value. In advertising, such technology is frequently portrayed as having almost miraculous effects: It can prevent illness, help you lose weight, unearth hidden talents, even trace your ancestry. The fact that current technology is not mature enough to guarantee these benefits does little to persuade people that a product this impressive wont be in high demand in the future.

In China, there are currently two main types of sequencing companies in the industry. Most of the first kind entered the market more than five years ago; they include companies like BGI, NovoGene, Berry Genomics, and BasePair. These companies largely emerged out of the scientific research industry, and are primarily focused on offering medical testing services. The second kind consists of companies that have entered the market in the past two years. This group, which includes the likes of WeGene, G-Cat, Somur, M+ Gene, and QuantiHealth, primarily market their technology to ordinary consumers.

Recently, in the battle for market share, the second set of companies have started diversifying their products. Now, in addition to letting consumers test their own DNA, they are also engaged in a major price war, with tests costing only 300 to 400 yuan ($43 to $58). They also offer products aimed at weight loss, nutrition, fitness, and early education.

Against this background, newcomers to the market immediately find themselves on their heels. First, if you want access to the medical testing market, your product must win approval from the CFDA, after which you still need to come up with a way to persuade hospitals to buy your products. If the commercial market tickles your fancy, you have to face up to a nagging doubt at the back of consumers minds: Is genetic testing actually of any use to me?

The number-one barrier to the growth of the genetic testing industry is one of knowledge. While China has made impressive strides in the field of DNA sequencing, its data capabilities have yet to catch up to more developed countries, and China still lacks a national DNA database. This data is important for carrying out research and developing our overall knowledge of genetics. Those of us involved in bioinformatics essentially turn that raw data into knowledge, then use this knowledge to make inferences and deductions about human health.

But certain limitations are keeping genetic testing from living up to its full potential. At present, DNA testing kits run anywhere from a few hundred to a few thousand yuan, but according to some radical viewpoints, they should be made totally free to anyone who wants them. The problem is that the exact implications of genetic testing results are not yet clear. While gene editing technology makes for enticing headlines, it is not ready for widespread use as an method for curing disease.

As a leader in DNA sequencing, China began adopting the precision medicine model which focuses on making health care customizable and personalized only a few months after the United States. Currently, the two countries are keeping pace with one another in this field. However, due to an effective duopoly on key technologies by American companies Illumina and Life Technologies, China is restricted in its research into DNA sequencing and treatments involving genetic manipulation.

The development of DNA sequencers and their accompanying chemical reagents is largely dependent on foreign capital, with the two aforementioned American firms having achieved dominant positions within the industry. Their market dominance is compounded by the continuous rise in prices of key materials and reagents. The price of a single gram of imported polymerase the enzyme that builds DNA is comparable to that of gold. Creating a domestic variant of polymerase, however, would mean Chinese companies could lower this price significantly. By developing homemade versions of the necessary machine components, sequencers could be produced for around one-third of what they cost to make overseas, and possibly even less.

The initial wave of startups since 2015 has now receded, and the Chinese genetics industry is undergoing a lull in investor interest. DNA testing itself has also entered an awkward phase, with domestic and foreign research organizations having hit a technological plateau. Given the inherent limits of genetic technology, it may be necessary to wait until both it and the market has matured further before it can reach its full potential. For me, personally, I hope that my little Turtle-Tech can stay afloat through these rougher waters, and that we will be ready to offer competitive products to the Chinese genetic testing industry when the tide finally does come back in.

Translator: Kilian ODonnell; editors: Lu Hongyong and Matthew Walsh.

(Header image: A laboratory technician transfers a sample for a genetic test in Chongqing, April 9, 2015. VCG)

View post:
Reliance on Foreign Tech Puts Strain on China's Genetics Market - Sixth Tone