A Last Supper

Jan1 by Marc Grober

Listening to the Alaska House Task Force squabble over their report brings back memories of that vintage Super Bowl bit of Americana evidencing that Americans are the most gullible creatures on Earth. Perhaps the cleverest application of that bit of MadAve genius might be credited to a comment by Cheryl Bezaire, “ The Lord’s Supper: Tastes Great / Less Filling”, but the leveraging of that piece of inanity is legion.

What was so ironic about the ad (and it is as chilling now as it was almost 30 years ago) is that the public is suckered into accepting that the discussion is about beer worth drinking. Likewise, whatever the take of a particular faction on the Task Force, the fight on the right takes one thing for granted; education funding must be reformed because the money we spend is not being spent well. Yes, some argue we need to cut back, and some argue we need to spend smarter, but they all agree on a matter not in evidence, which is that we need to go on a education funding diet.

It is a bit frightening to suggest that Andrew Halcro is holding down the progressive end of an argument, but that is what happens when one gets sucked into the vortex of “Tastes Great / Less Filling” – even the most self-evident of acknowledgments appears sage as compared to hysterical pronouncements of self-fulfilling prophets. If you want to avoid a budget crisis, throwing away millions for redundant playgrounds and billions to bribe oil companies will tend to sap the zest out of any savings plan…

But what the whiners and the renders fail to recall is that most Alaskans pay a NET ZERO for all their State and Municipal services. Let’s just repeat that, shall we? Most Alaskans pay a NET ZERO for all their State and Municipal services. That is because Alaskans pay no income tax and their payment in other State and Local taxes are largely offset by their receipt of a yearly payment from the State. Yes, all the gnashing of teeth and the doom and gloom is over the nightmare of the residents of Alaska actually having to assume some personal responsibility with respect to State spending.

The upshot then is that the Task Force is hustling the Alaska public like Miller Lite hustled America; excuse us while we obscure from your view the fact that funding education is really not a problem in that all we have to do is PAY FOR IT. The argument over whether public education is an investment or a cost (or vice versa) takes advantage of the same ploy; it leads one, as a sheep to slaughter, into arguing over accounting fictions and missing the fact that in the largest sense it is neither.

And therein, perhaps, lies the rub, because the subtext is that the folk driving the Alaska Legislature not only don’t want to pay for anything, they want others to pay them to do what they want. Yes, they want the State to pay parents so that parents can shield their kids from things like science. Yikes!

Meanwhile, the Administration is knee-deep in it’s own form of “education reform”, arranging for millions to be spent on outside contractors by State Districts to engage in constructivist assessments. Yes, while on the one hand teachers are advised they must engage only in research based pedagogy, the Alaska Administration of Sean Parnell has launched a mandatory attack on Districts requiring the use of expensive proprietary non-research based ideological methods as for evaluating teaching staff, which teaching staff, already overworked, is now somehow expected to find an additional 10-15 hours a week to play make believe over developmental theories that are not research based.

Are our problems so intractable? We have bozos declining revenues on the one hand, while we have other bozos wasting money on the other hand. It would seem that the easy answer (though I do NOT subscribe to easy answers) wo0uld be to get the bozos off the bus, and as those bozos all self-identify as Republicans, the choice for Alaskans would seem to be clear. Unfortunately, things are never as clear as they appear to be, which is perhaps the text of the AEA President who cautioned against suggesting that there was anything Revelatory (the topic of the Whore of Babylon having been broached) about the Task Force discussions. No, our Dems would likely be just foolish (they certainly demonstrate such foolishness in their strident whining about assessments.)

The folk gathered around the Table at the Task Force barkfest were there because, at least ostensibly, they figured that they were so bright they could see their way to a “solution” where others could not (or were intentionally obstructing.)The humorous turn here being that we are seeing a race to the bottom between the Administration (reform) and the Legislature (cut.) Great Taste. Less filling.

Under the Table things were not perhaps so civil, because the hunt has been on for ways to defund public schools, and where you can’t make that fly under the flag of religious freedom, perhaps you can make that fly under the flag of freedom of educational choice, though the intent, to allow the inculcation of children with delusional commitments to the irrational and supernatural at public expense, is the same.

The Table in Ms. Bezaire’s comment was set for Pesach (Passover) which strangely enough celebrates religious freedom. And ironically enough, we once again have stood the concept of religious freedom on its head as we turn the idea of freedom from theocracy into a device to secure public funding of religious education. Round and round goes the nasty beer as we offer the bracha: Great taste! Less filling!

The First Annual Anchorage Christ-off

Sep20 by Marc Grober

It is one thing to consider some apoplectic bozo sputtering about blood guilt, quite another to try to reason with someone who is ignorant of the history and theology surrounding “Jesus” yet is rabid about how they are “more Christian” than someone else (berating and verbally abusing, in the process, the other), especially when the other arguably deserves to be scorned for their heartless self-involvement and theological delusions?

Certainly, if the abuser chooses to argue that they are “true” adherents to the social gospels, then one would have to respond that their abuse is obviously inconsistent with both the “Christian” message to ‘turn the other cheek’, as well as the Muslim message (echoing the Old Testament concept) that justice is “the Lord’s” and humans should always treat other humans with patience and acceptance (see e.g. the Bee Sura.) 16_127

But for those who think that the gospels also portray Jesus as flatly revoking Deuteronomic law and rejecting the concept of a religiously ordered community, how does attempt to broaden their view of the complex issues of 2 millenia ago? And to try to address such positions in the online “press” or on Facebook, of all places? The ignorance of history and theology so often seen online is disturbing; that it feeds a rather bizarre attempt at refutation of the claims made for a particular religion by others, such as we saw this past week (Shannyn Moore: These Christian churches wouldn’t vote for Jesus Christ | Shannyn Moore | ADN.com) is simply bizarre. While the believers in the myths of Christian America are possibly delusional (reserving judgement on the mythos proposed by Jack Balkin), their despisers, relying on the same or similar myths are no worthier.

Of course, as an aside, one is reminded of what a Richard Dawkins might ask, “Why is anyone suggesting that we be guided in our modern ethical obligations solely on the basis of a deeply the massaged canon of a Roman demi-god cult which initially endorsed a continuation of stoning and other delightful practices and was largely devised as an instrument of the imperium?” Might we not come to the conclusion that putting people out to starve is wrong without trying to lift that instruction out of bizarre texts thousands of years old?

While I am indeed upset by the deplorable impact I think Jerry Prevo’s theology is haing on my community, celebrating a self-proclaimed forfeit over Dr. Prevo in a Christ-off will not have the effect of mending the ways of Prevo’s flock; just to the contrary! Dudley’s “Broken Words” is a vibrant testimony to the response of the fundamentalist evangelical right to such controversy. Nor will her screed push those in the “middle” away from the Puritanism of Prevo et al, as would any rational adult attracted by such teenage angst? Would anyone pursuing a progressive agenda wish to really be associated with this tumultuous bellowing over whose musty magician does better magic? Is this even remotely appropriate?

No, no and, no. The irony in “let my people go” is almost too much to bear… It is just so unfortunate that “Christians” have lost contact with the allegorical tradition once extent in Christian thought. And it is that kind of public diatribe that also paints agnostics in a poor light (to the extent that others see “blue domers” as agnostics.) We may be able to do without religion (and do very well, thank you) but as E. J Dionne and others have noted, we don’t do well without community, and one of the functions of religion (perhaps the most important function of Jesus’ religion — and he was certainly and unabashedly NOT Christian) is the maintenance of community.

As far as I can see, the taunters and the tauntees are tools all.

A clash of iron; a season of irony

Sep14 by Marc Grober

This is the season for vengeance, sayeth the “patriots”. Over and over again Americans are assault with some form of prescription intended to stir our military loins in recollection of a the destruction of the Trade Towers. Most recently, I saw a primary school teacher accoutred in hand printed US Flag Tees with her students. I have been thinking about that photo for almost a week now and am still not sure what the lesson was, nor am I sure that I want to know. Perhaps, in all the confusion, I am sure about one thing, that dressing kids up to wave the flag in this season is one of the most ironic images that I think I will ever live to see. How can one look at that image and not call to mind the images of children, murdered under the same flag.

Look on those kids (even the one picking his nose.) Not one of those cute children understand what took place on 9/11/73. Not one sees the stark irony in howling about the injustice of one 9/11 while ignoring the other. Of my favorite authors, perhaps Vonnegut captures the irony of this season best. Like Vonnegut we seem to be masters of temporal distortion and disorientation, accomplished at auto-hypnosis and selective amnesia. As I sneak a peak in to the future, this is what I see for future Septembers, “9/11” grief celebrations that extol military virtue not unlike Russian Mayday celebrations.

This year, the 40th anniversary of the American sponsored pusch that deposed the democratically elected President of Chile and ended with the installation of August Pinochet, takes place during ‘aseret yumei tschuvah”, the Jewish ten days of repentance between Rosh Hashana (the Jewish New Year) and Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) with Yom Kippur taking place on shabbat. Amazingly enough, while the local School district still won’t allow activities on Sunday, it made a special arrangement to move high school football games to Thursday and Friday this week, indocating that it was hopeful that the Friday night game would be over by 8:00 pm (when Shabbat and Yom Kippur start.)

The timing of the holidays this year poses much the same questions as the Holocaust did for our grandparents. Are there any innocents, and can you forgive without being forgiving; can you expect atonement from others without owning your own misconduct? What responsibility, if any, does the victim have in his own demise? In a perfect world perhaps the taunt, “You asked for it,” would lose all meaning, but in the world in which I live, a world peopled by those with long memories, simmering resentment and deep anger, owning up to one’s responsibility seems unappetizing to people who wear the red, white and blue.

There are, I suppose, quite a few ways to look at “atonement’, but I tend to see it as requiring a willingness to forgive, as well as a effort seeking forgiveness. It is a process of reconciliation that is not addressed by mailing greeting cards.

While Americans cry that they will never forget the trespasses of others, they might try remembering their own trespasses.

Not Agreeing About Much of Anything

Mar17 by Marc Grober

The title is taken from a theorem that references Aumann’s ¹ 1976 paper demonstrating the logical impossibility of agreeing to disagree, which is referenced by Eli Dourado in his piece in Ümlaut ² suggesting a theory of meta-rationality and arguing that Internet Austrians and Paul Krugman are not meta-rational. Dourado explains the meta-rational as,

honest truth-seekers who choose opinions as if they understand the problem of disagreement and self-deception. According to the theory of disagreement, meta-rational people will not have disagreements among themselves caused by faith in their own superior knowledge or reasoning ability.

relying on a paper by Cowen and Hansen ³ which argues,

honest truth-seeking agents with common priors should not knowingly disagree. Typical disagreement seems explainable by a combination of random belief influences and by priors that tell each person that he reasons better than others. When criticizing others, however, people seem to uphold rationality standards that disapprove of such self-favoring priors. This suggests that typical disagreements are dishonest. Diogenes_looking_for_a_man_-_attributed_to_JHW_Tischbein

It would seem however, that Aumann argues his paper “might be considered evidence against this view, as there are in fact people who respect each other’s opinions and nevertheless disagree heartily about subjective probabilities.” Aumann goes on to state,

It seems to me that the Harsanyi doctrine is implicit in much of this literature; reconciling subjective probabilities makes sense if it is a question of implicitly exchanging information, but not if we are talking about “innate” differences in priors.

Yet Lehrer et al ⁴ note,

Can agents have common knowledge of their beliefs? In a seminal paper Aumann (1976) demonstrates the impossibility of agreeing to disagree: For any posteriors with a common prior, if the agents’ posteriors for an event E are different (= they disagree), then the agents cannot have common knowledge (= agreeing) of these posteriors. Thus, the short answer to our opening question is that agents cannot have common knowledge of their beliefs when they are different.

What does all this mean for Dourado’s application of Cowen and Hanson’s argument about meta-rationality?

First we must address the underlying matter of whether irrational equates with illogical (and vice versa.) Then we must consider the difference between rhetoric and logic. And lastly we need to consider whether Homo sapiens can have common knowledge. Quite a tall order, when Dourado simply wants to point out that Krugman is not fully addressing counterarguments, but then, might Dourado be meta-irrational?

A discussion of whether rational equates with logical, reason with logic, might well start with Max Weber, if for no other reason than Weber described no less than four types of rationality, none of which were mathematically (i.e. logically) defined. Kant argued for two types of rationality (theoretical and practical.) Certainly Douglas Hofstadter, in Gödel, Escher, Bach suggests rather eloquently that logic and reason may easily be contrarian. In other words, Hofstadter suggests that logic is not necessarily meta-rational. Strike one.

The trivium was the introductory medieval course of university study, comprising logic, rhetoric and grammar. Sister Miriam Joseph ⁵ is instructive:

Grammar is concerned with the thing as-it-is-symbolized,
Logic is concerned with the thing as-it-is-known, and
Rhetoric is concerned with the thing as-it-is-communicated.

Need we look further to acknowledge that rhetoric and logic are not congruent, must as logic and reason are no congruent? The point to be taken here is, as Miriam puts it, “Grammar is the art of inventing symbols and combining them to express thought; logic is the art of thinking; and rhetoric, the art of communicating thought from one mind to another, the adaptation of language to circumstance.” Strike two!

And now we must return to Aumann et al., and it would seem that logic tells us that Dourado struck out, as it is unlikely, if not impossible, that Homo sapiens, engaged in argument, can have common knowledge. It would seem that the basis for Dourado’s argument is illogical, but is there rhyme to his reason, rhythm in his rhetoric? Perhaps the reason that we see the concept of meta-rationality promoted are the problems of self-reference and uncommon priors.

“Internet Austrians”, besides assuming that Homo sapiens acts rationally for rational purposes. assume that there can be a state of perfect knowledge and that this state can be obtained naturally by virtue of the population acting rationally for rational purposes, which it is assumed, what the population in fact does. The basis of Austrian thought then is tautological in the sense that according to that School, there being no way to empirically test the assumptions made, the arguments must be a matter of faith.

Of course, the fact that this state has never been observed is attributed to “the venality of Man’s desire to defeat the free market for their own advantage.” ⁶ In other words, the alleged beauty of the wholly free market, the mechanism by which perfect knowledge would be obtained, will ever be defeated by the natural proclivities of Man. Ouroborous; need one say more?

Now we come to the question of uncommon priors which brings us full circle to the question of logic vs rhetoric. While Cowen and Hansen promote theory of logic, as we have noted, logic need not be rational, and it may not be the tool of choice depending on the purpose., as rhetoric is arguably more appropriate to persuasion than logic.

Krugman opens himself to Dourado’s analysis because Krugman, unlike Austrians, argues for external and testable priors, but as Dourado argues (as well as Syll ⁷ and Keen ⁸ , the noted instances just examples of criticism), Krugman does seem to engage in the practices to which Dourado objects. No, Krugman does not do it all the time, but he has been criticized in this vein by other than a young PhD student (who doesn’t, in his piece, connect all the dots to actually demonstrate the “truth” of the criticism he makes.) So, from a gross perspective, Dourado is correct, in that, whether or not he proffers adequate evidence of his points, Krugman’s own peers (and Krugman himself, as we see in his criticism of Stiglitz earlier this year, touted here by David Henderson) engage in such criticism, arguing that various perspectives are or are not accurate, and the basis (or lack thereof) for the criticism.

We have to inquire, though, whether what we are witnessing is a logical academic effort, or a rhetorical policy directed effort, and it would appear that on the face of it, we must agree to agree that the arena Dourado is examining is one of public opinion, where rhetoric holds sway. Does rhetoric render a speaker dishonest? This is where the “theory” becomes unusable in that the theory would require agreement on “facts” and process, and as we have seen, “fact” is illusory and there is no agreement on rhetorical process.

And here is the cross that social science must bear; the elite must, in Cowen & Hansen’s terms, clear a meta-rational space for the discipline, free of the static of “ceteris parabus” and other nonsense. But the academic space is a separate domain from the forum of public opinion, whether that is problematic or not. In the forum of public opinion, Dourado’s criticism may be well placed, but with respect to academics, he has made no case. The rhetorical effort to promote rational policy based on an argument of economic analysis in the public square is a far cry from the court of academe, and in this situation, as in so many others today, we seem to be losing those distinctions; we are in a 21st Century Reformation where any internet blogger presumes himself to have an opinion as valuable as any Nobel Laureate professor.

And this all begs the question presented by Luther some 600 years ago (and in a larger sense presented by Rushdie and Kazantzakis), how does one decide? Dourado promotes Luther’s argument and that having been disastrous once before, I see no reason it wouldn’t be disastrous again, but more on that in the next post…..

Aumann, Robert J. “Agreeing to Disagree.” The Annals of Statistics 4.6 (1976): 1236–1239. JSTOR. Web http://www.jstor.org/stable/2958591 . 17 Mar. 2013. Citing, Harsanyi, J. (1967-1968). Games of incomplete information played by Bayesian players, Parts I-III. Management Sci. 14 159-182, 320-334, 486-502.
“Paul Krugman Is Brilliant, but Is He Meta-Rational?” The Ümlaut. Web http://theumlaut.com/2013/03/13/paul-krugman-is-brilliant-but-is-he-meta-rational/ . 17 Mar. 2013.
Cowen, Tyler, and Robin Hanson. “Are disagreements honest.” Journal of Economic Methodology (2002). Web http://www.mercatus.org/uploadedFiles/Mercatus/Publications/Are%20Disagreements%20Honest%20-%20WP.pdf 17 March 2013.
Lehrer, Ehud, and Dov Samet. “Agreeing to Agree.” Theoretical Economics 6.2 (2011): 269–287. Wiley Online Library. Web http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3982/TE578/abstract . 17 Mar. 2013.
Joseph, Sister Miriam. The Trivium: The Liberal Arts of Logic, Grammar, and Rhetoric : Understanding the Nature and Function of Language. Paul Dry Books, 2002. Print.
Wingo, Gregory Allen Facebook rant. One might inquire whether it’s more accurate to say “the venality of Man in promoting the free market”…..
“Krugman’s Vindication of Neoclassical Macroeconomics – Brilliantly Silly.” LARS P SYLL. Web http://larspsyll.wordpress.com/2012/07/14/krugmans-vindication-of-neoclassical-macroeconomics-brilliantly-silly/. 17 Mar. 2013.
“Steve Keen: How Krugman Lost Equilibrium (Part 2) « Naked Capitalism.” Web http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/03/steve-keen-how-krugman-lost-equilibrium-part-2.html . 17 Mar. 2013.

Other references:
Hofstadter, D.R. Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. Basic Books, 1999. Art of Mentoring Series.

“You’re not the boss of me!”

Mar9 by Marc Grober

It occurred to me, on the occasion of re-reading, of all things, one of The Economist’s blogs on President Obama’s State of the Union Message (and the blog is well worth reading) that Rawls is an unknown quantity to most Americans. This is not unexpected as so many in the US are under the spell of the credible, but inconsistent (blame Bertand Russell for that) John Locke. Many, if not most, in the US are repelled by the name Machiavelli, but hold as the source of their highest moral authority the concept that they own themselves. Me. Me, of course, leads to Mine. And as the high priest of acquisition, Locke insists that More is a moral imperative.

A major focus of the campaigns against Obama was based on a deliberate effort to misconstrue and misrepresent the President’s speech in which he pointed out that what private business does is based on public infrastructure. The result was the “we built that” flag waving and the accompanying entrepreneurial chest beating that the country endured. What appeared to most Americans as either shallow campaign drivel or at most a principled disagreement on the nature of the welfare state vs personal liberty (though few of those engaging in such discussion really understood those concepts), also offered a third level.

Rawls argues for a collective ownership. You may own property, but your ownership of that property is not absolute in that you could not have obtained it without the assistance of the collective, assistance that from the perspective of the Lockean is at best a beneficial externality if considered at all. Hence, in claiming that “I built that” the Lockean’s unstated claim that he built that on his own, the American entrepreneur is engaging in a deception that Rawls would lay bare.

In suggesting a “just” society, Rawls is doing in a broader sense what we have legislated in the narrower sense with regard to the numbers racket. And as the anarcho-capitalism of the Mafia is arguably the love-child of Austrian economics, Rawls just state offers equality, a value that Locke would have us waive.

So how would that sit with those worshiping at Locke’s altar of Dominionism? They are of course outraged that their authority is not absolute, and just as you would expect from any child confronted with some limitation as to their behavior, they stomp their feet and issue juvenile challenge we all know so well…….

The Horse Behind the Cart

Feb26 by Marc Grober

Some weeks ago, Kathleen McCoy spent not a few column inches of the local rag in her puff piece lauding UAA’s Terry Kelly, “Ethicist handles heavy issues with a light touch.” Unfortunately, one can only conclude that this is further evidence that UAA is not a real educational destination.

UAA’s Terry Kelly must be more a stand-up comic than an ethicist. According to McCoy, he argued, in the most bizarre example of political correctness to date, that if you act in such a way as to make some one else be suspicious of you, you have acted unethically. Yes, you heard me. By way of example, Kelly offered a homily where a husband and wife pledge to be sexually faithful, and then hubbie goes off to spend Friday nights reading at the whorehouse. Kelly claimed that hubbie is acting unethically because his pathetically insecure wife is banging her head against a wall. Really?

Kelly then went on to confuse matters with a retelling of the Clinton/Lewinsky gaffe, misrepresenting the facts and of course drawing the wrong conclusion. He finally tackled his real target (after an unfortunate attempt to hijack the theory of cognitive dissonance), which appeared to be the impact of government officials receiving gifts. He apparently closed with something along the lines of “trustworthy behavior is persuasive behavior, and untrustworthy behavior is unethical.”

Yes. Instead of arguing that trust is based on ethical behavior, he argues that ethical behavior is based on trust. Very inventive. Or delusional. The word trust comes from the Norse “traust” and is defined by the Cambridge dictionary as “to have belief or confidence in the honesty, goodness, skill or safety of a person, organization or thing.” Trustworthy of course is to be worthy of trust. Ethics, per the Oxford Dictionary, are, “moral principles that govern a person’s behaviour or the conducting of an activity”, and the entry goes on to explain:

Schools of ethics in Western philosophy can be divided, very roughly, into three sorts. The first, drawing on the work of Aristotle, holds that the virtues (such as justice, charity, and generosity) are dispositions to act in ways that benefit both the person possessing them and that person’s society. The second, defended particularly by Kant, makes the concept of duty central to morality: humans are bound, from a knowledge of their duty as rational beings, to obey the categorical imperative to respect other rational beings. Thirdly, utilitarianism asserts that the guiding principle of conduct should be the greatest happiness or benefit of the greatest number

So we can take ethical to mean, depending on the system to which you subscribe, compliance with some code of conduct. In sum, we may have confidence that others may conduct themselves ethically, but if we lack confidence how can that possibly change whether the erstwhile target of out attentions is ethical or not?

What Terry Kelly has proposed is nothing less than a feedback loop, a neurotic echo chamber where what is real is not what you do, but what someone perceives you to do. While in a very primitive form this may hearken back to the social psychology of the ’70s and the concept of the social construction of reality, it beggars the concept of ethics, for it renders ethics dependent on the feedback loop and enables insecurity. You can only be as ethical as you convince your observer you are. He has turned philosophy into advertising, for under his rules, one becomes ethical not by adhering to a code, but by convincing others that one does, and after all, that is what our politicians try to do today, and is exactly opposite of the point we think Kelly was trying to argue. Kelly has shifted the subjective lens, and lost sight of the situation entirely.

Only His Hairdresser Knows for Sure…..

Feb24 by Marc Grober

A year or so ago UAA Nursing Students decided to put the question of whether the recommended daily allowance (RDA) of Vitamin D would produce adequate blood levels to the test and found that the RDA came nowhere close to ensuring adequate Vitamin D. Alaskan doctors are now suggesting 4000 IU daily (combined with Magnesium and Calcium) while many foolish Alaskans complain or suffer from the conditions listed below and do nothing about it.

Now a Republican Alaska State Senator has announced he is interested in doing something about this. Senator Seaton wants to test newborns for Vitamin D, while the Republican Administration dismisses concerns over the impact of inadequate Vitamin D. HB90 would create a “temporary” program for testing newborns at delivery. The text of the Bill and the Sponsor statement (available here) is well worth the read.

A big problem, however, is that Alaska hospitals have made a habit out of turning parents of newborns into criminals as they surreptitiously turn maternal blood test results over to OCS and State police over even the legal presence of anything “suspicious” in the blood, and let’s face it, Seaton’s colleagues seem much more interested in regulating wombs and criminalizing female behavior than in addressing any health care issue. Moreover, it would clearly be more important from all perspectives to have pre-natal data from pregnant mothers than on new born children, but Alaska is certainly not interested in ensuring that all women have adequate prenatal care.

The wing nut right fail to see this as one might argue the GOP caucus does (as a way to seize further control of women) and look at it instead through delusional Lockean glasses, arguing that Seaton is intruding into the individual’s privacy and that the legislature has no business addressing public health issues (except when it is someone else.) Of course, this is in no small part because though they scream and yell that we should be complying with the Constitution, they have never read that document (save perhaps to support amending same to fund religious schools.) The Constitution mandates ¹ that the Legislature must address the general health and welfare, which is clearly challenged by the gross inadequacy of Vitamin D.

What a mess! We seem to have an unholy alliance of liberals and conservatives to wrest control of pre and post natal care from parents while failing to really acknowledge the underlying health issues facing Alaskans and the need to boldly address same (Governor Sean Parnell, is even an embarrassment to Governor Brewer, who finally admitted that her state needs to get onboard with the ACA.) The GOP legislative caucuses are VERY busy rushing ALEC based repressive legislation in to law, and really can’t be bother with health policy.

So we all have a dilemma, here in the far north. Is Senator Seaton et al really concerned about the health of Alaskans, or are they merely looking for a way to ensure that all mothers get drug tested? The shortsighted nature of the policy and the questionable ethics of the caucus suggests that one look beyond the purported purpose of the Bill, but is Seaton really that much of a prat? Well…….

Impacts of a Vitamin D deficiency ²
1.) The flu – In a study published in the Cambridge Journals, it was discovered that vitamin D deficiency predisposes children to respiratory diseases. An intervention study conducted showed that vitamin D reduces the incidence of respiratory infections in children.

2.) Muscle weakness – According to Michael F. Holick, a leading vitamin D expert, muscle weakness is usually caused by vitamin D deficiency because for skeletal muscles to function properly, their vitamin D receptors must be sustained by vitamin D.

3.) Psoriasis – In a study published by the UK PubMed central, it was discovered that synthetic vitamin D analogues were found useful in the treatment of psoriasis.

4.) Chronic kidney disease – According to Holick, patients with advanced chronic kidney diseases (especially those requiring dialysis) are unable to make the active form of vitamin D. These individuals need to take 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 or one of its calcemic analogues to support calcium metabolism, decrease the risk of renal bone disease and regulate parathyroid hormone levels.

5.) Diabetes – A study conducted in Finland was featured in Lancet.com in which 10,366 children were given 2000 international units (IU)/day of vitamin D3 per day during their first day of life. The children were monitored for 31 years and in all of them, the risk of type 1 diabetes was reduced by 80 percent.

6.) Asthma – Vitamin D may reduce the severity of asthma attacks. Research conducted in Japan revealed that asthma attacks in school children were significantly lowered in those subjects taking a daily vitamin D supplement of 1200 IU a day.

7.) Periodontal disease – Those suffering from this chronic gum disease that causes swelling and bleeding gums should consider raising their vitamin D levels to produce defensins and cathelicidin, compounds that contain microbial properties and lower the number of bacteria in the mouth.

8.) Cardiovascular disease – Congestive heart failure is associated with vitamin D deficiency. Research conducted at Harvard University among nurses found that women with low vitamin D levels (17 ng/m [42 nmol/L]) had a 67 percent increased risk of developing hypertension.

9.) Schizophrenia and Depression – These disorders have been linked to vitamin D deficiency. In a study, it was discovered that maintaining sufficient vitamin D among pregnant women and during childhood was necessary to satisfy the vitamin D receptor in the brain integral for brain development and mental function maintenance in later life.

10.) Cancer – Researchers at Georgetown University Medical Center in Washington DC discovered a connection between high vitamin D intake and reduced risk of breast cancer. These findings, presented at the American Association for Cancer Research, revealed that increased doses of the sunshine vitamin were linked to a 75 percent reduction in overall cancer growth and 50 percent reduction in tumor cases among those already having the disease. Of interest was the capacity of vitamin supplementation to help control the development and growth of breast cancer specially estrogen-sensitive breast cancer.

1 Alaska Constitution Article 7 http://ltgov.alaska.gov/treadwell/services/alaska-constitution/article-viiA096A0health-education-and-welfare.html

2 Geib, Aurora. “The 10 symptoms of vitamin D deficiency you need to recognize” Natural News, 2/10/2012 Web http://www.naturalnews.com/035089_vitamin_D_deficiency_signs_symptoms.html

Mediating Self Medication

Feb20 by Marc Grober

Dr. Gabor Maté argued to Alaska that, “The first question in addiction is not why the addiction, but why the pain? And if you understand a human being’s pain, you cannot look at their genes.” You can listen to his presentation at http://www.alaskapublic.org/2013/02/15/addiction-from-heroin-to-workaholism/ . While the proposed historical basis for his arguments are dubious, and the jargon makes one shudder to think of Fritz Perl voodoo and the modern profit center of “mental health”, there is a good deal to be said for a functional approach to addiction, and under the patina of the sloppy academics and loose jargon, that is, after all, what the good doctor is talking about.

Maté, like some medical analog of D’Souza’s “nemesis”, argues that western imperialism is responsible for “addiction”, in that while tribal people may use psychoactive substances, they do so reverently and with cultural approval, and therefore not addictively. Apparently the pervasive and ubiquitous use of betel nut, coca leaf and other similar substances (Sullivan and Hagen), are overlooked by Maté. Maté only has eyes for noble savages, while Anthropology retired that trope years ago (Ellingson, Grinde et al., Hames.)

But the presentation, ”The Hungry Ghost: A Biospsychosocial Perspective on Addiction, from Heroin to Workaholism” based on the book “In The Realm of Hungry Ghosts: Close Encounters with Addiction“, can be forgiven the blood libel. The important bit is that Maté effectively makes the case that addicts are not necessarily the insane and mentally ill, nor deviant fiends bent on breaking the law; they are as likely to be persons doing their best to essentially self-medicate themselves to states in which they can survive.

And THAT serves as an excellent indictment of both the criminal justice approach to addiction AND the mental health approach to addiction. The former punishes the addict for attempting to comply with other’s rules, and the latter denies the rationality of the user.

I don’t want to sink in to some ridiculous libertarian rant about natural rights; that is not what this is about. What we have done, though, is created a religion in which the MDs are high priests and BigPharma are the keepers of the sacraments. If I can manage what ails me through moderate use of caffeine and marijuana, why should I not be permitted to do so? Is the threat of societal implosion from a 7% solution so extraordinary that we must so vehemently denounce so much of our world?

Perhaps what we need more of are not the empty chairs of Gestalt Therapy (yes, Clint was engaging in classic Gestalt therapy during the GOP convention) nor private prison beds (rendering Puritanism a profit center), but effective mediators. Once upon a time I think we called such people social workers; persons who went out in to the community and assisted others in coping with a society whose demands were in some respect more than one might be able to manage. We don;t need to talk about defective genes; we need to talk about a dysfunctional society, and what we can do to recognize and perhaps moderate the responses of some to that dismal fact of life. No, there are no silver bullets, but having some understanding of the underlying circumstances, and abandoning the Puritan intolerance that drives even those who deny same, will be a start.

Work Cited

Ellingson, Ter. The Myth of the Noble Savage. University of California Press, 2000. Print.

Grinde, Donald A., Bruce Elliott Johansen, and University of California, Los Angeles American Indian Studies Center. Exemplar of Liberty: Native America and the Evolution of Democracy. American Indian Studies Center, University of California, Los Angeles, 1991. (http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/EoL/index.html)

Raymond, Hames. “The Ecologically Noble Savage Debate.” Annual Review of Anthropology 36.1 (2007): 177–190. Web http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123321. 20 Feb. 2013.

M.D, Gabor Mate. In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts: Close Encounters with Addiction. North Atlantic Books, 2011. Print.

Sullivan, R. J., and E. H. Hagen. “Psychotropic Substance-seeking: Evolutionary Pathology or Adaptation?” Addiction 97.4 (2002): 389–400. Web http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1360-0443.2002.00024.x/full. 20 Feb. 2013.

Pardon me, but….

A serious place for some serious discussion

Category Archives: Authored

Not Agreeing About Much of Anything