Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 935
December 2, 2015
“I guess you got what you say you wanted”: Right-wingers blame gun control, lash out at Obama over San Bernardino shootings
Details on today's deadly shooting rampage in San Bernardino are just beginning to emerge, but conservatives are already responding with cookie cutter-like predictability on Twitter. As 14 people lay dead and more than a dozen are being treated for wounds, these keyboard warriors are polluting the Internet with the same kinds of ill-advised humor and crass arguments that inevitably follow America's weekly mass shooting...
Hey, I'm all for gun control for Middle Eastern men
— Patrick Howley (@PatrickHowleyDC) December 2, 2015
#YouMightBeALiberal if the NRA is evil for the endings of lives it didn't commit, but Planned Parenthood isn't for all those it did. — Razor (@hale_razor) December 2, 2015
People keep blaming the NRA for mass shootings, but they weren't so common until after Obama told people to take guns to knife fights.
— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) December 2, 2015
I’m sure the last thing any victims of any of these shootings would’ve wanted would be their own gun. — Ben Howe (@BenHowe) December 2, 2015
so now that this looks like terrorism, Obama is preparing his listless, disengaged, this-isn't-such-a-big-deal speech.
— The Scandalous DJT (@AceofSpadesHQ) December 2, 2015
Ultimate Dilemma For President Obama: If science determined more guns would end climate change. — Lee Stranahan (@stranahan) December 2, 2015
THERE'S AN ACTIVE SHOOTER SITUATION WITH GUNMEN ON THE LOOSE AND THIS IS @HillaryClinton'S FOCUS RIGHT NOW--NOTED https://t.co/3rway2jz8u
— Joel Pollak (@joelpollak) December 2, 2015
I know why you would say this, but not why you'd expect anyone to believe it. No stop & frisk, for example? https://t.co/4nP4tG06xI — Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) December 2, 2015
Watch firsthand accounts from friends and family waiting outside the scene of the San Bernadino shooting: [jwplayer file="http://media.salon.com/2015/12/sanber..." image="http://media.salon.com/2015/12/Screen...] Details on today's deadly shooting rampage in San Bernardino are just beginning to emerge, but conservatives are already responding with cookie cutter-like predictability on Twitter. As 14 people lay dead and more than a dozen are being treated for wounds, these keyboard warriors are polluting the Internet with the same kinds of ill-advised humor and crass arguments that inevitably follow America's weekly mass shooting...Well, CA's gun control laws ensured none of the victims could be armed, so I guess you got what you say you wanted. @kaitlyn_black29
— Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter) December 2, 2015
Hey, I'm all for gun control for Middle Eastern men
— Patrick Howley (@PatrickHowleyDC) December 2, 2015
#YouMightBeALiberal if the NRA is evil for the endings of lives it didn't commit, but Planned Parenthood isn't for all those it did. — Razor (@hale_razor) December 2, 2015
People keep blaming the NRA for mass shootings, but they weren't so common until after Obama told people to take guns to knife fights.
— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) December 2, 2015
I’m sure the last thing any victims of any of these shootings would’ve wanted would be their own gun. — Ben Howe (@BenHowe) December 2, 2015
so now that this looks like terrorism, Obama is preparing his listless, disengaged, this-isn't-such-a-big-deal speech.
— The Scandalous DJT (@AceofSpadesHQ) December 2, 2015
Ultimate Dilemma For President Obama: If science determined more guns would end climate change. — Lee Stranahan (@stranahan) December 2, 2015
THERE'S AN ACTIVE SHOOTER SITUATION WITH GUNMEN ON THE LOOSE AND THIS IS @HillaryClinton'S FOCUS RIGHT NOW--NOTED https://t.co/3rway2jz8u
— Joel Pollak (@joelpollak) December 2, 2015
I know why you would say this, but not why you'd expect anyone to believe it. No stop & frisk, for example? https://t.co/4nP4tG06xI — Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) December 2, 2015
Watch firsthand accounts from friends and family waiting outside the scene of the San Bernadino shooting: [jwplayer file="http://media.salon.com/2015/12/sanber..." image="http://media.salon.com/2015/12/Screen...]Well, CA's gun control laws ensured none of the victims could be armed, so I guess you got what you say you wanted. @kaitlyn_black29
— Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter) December 2, 2015
The case against Thomas Jefferson: “We have not had a public reckoning yet, with slavery and the Civil War”
Over the last few weeks, campus protests have grown around a number of figures from American history: Protestors have argued that because of a record of racism, Woodrow Wilson, John C. Calhoun, and Jeffrey Amherst should have their names removed from institutions and, in some cases, statues removed from schools they are associated with. Thomas Jefferson’s connections to racism and slavery have been known for a long time. And now a tide seems to be building against him, too. “Many observers have wondered which historical figure honored on American campuses would next capture critical attention,” a story in Inside Higher Ed reports. “The answer appears to be Thomas Jefferson. At both the University of Missouri at Columbia and the College of William & Mary, critics have been placing yellow sticky notes on Jefferson statues, labeling him -- among other things – ‘rapist’ and ‘racist.’ “ Will anti-Jefferson sentiment build, or will it be checked by his contributions, like his role in the Declaration of Independence? Are these charges fair to Jefferson? Salon spoke to Stephanie McCurry, a historian at Columbia University who specializes in the 19th century and the American South. The interview has been lightly edited for clarity. Let’s start with the charges made against Jefferson. Are they fair? Let me just say it does seem to be an extraordinary moment of national accountability for slavery and its aftermath. I’m cautiously optimistic that this moment has finally arrived, and it’s interesting why it’s coming now. There’s nothing about it I regret. What historians know turns out to be kind of explosive when it becomes a matter of public knowledge: There’s an element of, “Did they not know?” I never liked the idea of the Woodrow Wilson School; I could never separate his ideas of race from his ideas on what Progressivism was. So the idea that they were connected – that’s an important recognition. And looking at Yale, with Calhoun College, or Princeton, with the Woodrow Wilson School, and various buildings named after Wilson, and now with Jefferson, it makes it incumbent on us to sort through what we want to come out of these long, long overdue conversations. Part of what you’re saying is that educated people, including informed undergraduates, have been aware of some of this for a long time. But there wasn’t this kind of uproar? What’s changed? I wonder that this has to do with another significant public intellectual development, which is the work of people like Ta-Nehisi Coates, which brings deeply informed [ideas] to a public forum inviting people to learn with him to understanding our past, other racist and imperialist regimes. Part of it is connected to what African-American citizens, African-American students on campus, think is bearable… I’m not at all disturbed by this conversation: I think they’re fully entitled to have their say. Some of these things are very easy calls: Students should not be forced to live in a residence hall named for John C. Calhoun. I know the complications of this, involving alumni giving, for instance… But I don’t think African-American students should be required or even invited to live in a residence hall named after Woodrow Wilson. There was [an op-ed] in the New York Times about a man [whose ancestor] had a very direct and personal experience with [Wilson’s] segregation of the civil service. These are things that need to be known… To ask that man to live in a residence hall… “Congratulations, you have been admitted to Princeton University, you are now a resident of Woodrow Wilson Hall!” How does Jefferson fit into all this? To get back to Jefferson: When I go to [the University of Virginia] to do research, I’m always profoundly uncomfortable with the reverence for Jefferson on that campus. It’s just inappropriate. I teach about Jefferson… I find Jefferson compelling as a historical figure, precisely because of the very knotted relationship between ideas of America. I’m a foreigner – I’m Irish. My route into American history was Jefferson, and the shocking ethical dilemma posed when I understood that the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence was a slaveholder: This was not something I knew until I was an undergraduate. That to me is the nub of one of the great ethical challenges of American history. So was Jefferson a racist? Yes, but as I tell my students, sometimes the more salient question is, Who’s an anti-slavery racist and who’s a pro-slavery racist? In the 19th century world I teach, there’s a world of difference between those two things. In the end, Jefferson created a more profound pro-slavery America… But at the same time, he did write the Declaration of Independence. The question of his sexual predatory character: Is it a profoundly uncomfortable fact that he appears to have initiated a sexual relationship with a child [Sally Hemings] who was, what, 15-and-a-half years old when she was attending his daughter in Paris and seems to be initially in a sexual relationship with Jefferson? You’d have to check Annette Gordon-Reed’s book [“The Hemingses of Monticello”], but she was very young. A child, alone, on the other side of the Atlantic, enslaved – it just evacuates any question of consent, it seems to me. So then do you want to make the move of calling him a rapist? Well, I haven’t. But I don’t really mind if someone puts a post-it note on Jefferson’s statue asking that question. It sounds like you think the debate is healthy. Is the best way to deal with this kind of thing to take down statues and rename institutions? I’ve just begun to try to work through this myself. The question of taking down statues and obliterating their history and our veneration of it – that really requires some thought. In this country, far less than other countries with traumatic pasts, we have not had a public reckoning yet, with slavery and the Civil War, in a way that we need to. It’s astonishing the extent in this country the way the Civil War is regarded as the moment of redemption: We’re probably the only nation that commemorates its Civil War as a celebration. So these projects on universities and racism and slavery – these are really important developments. I don’t think we should all eradicate [statues and names], but when people like Brian Stevenson manage to do more on their own, with a philanthropic organization, to mark the sites of slave sales and markets than any government or public historical unit, than something is wrong. It’s kind of shameful, actually, that that was left to the labor of an individual. So this is not just a matter of tearing things down as much as putting things up.
Mike Huckabee rushes to blame gun free zones for San Bernardino mass shooting
The San Bernardino Police Department is still searching for up to three shooters who opened fire on a center for the developmental disabled this afternoon, killing at least twelve and shooting upwards of twenty others, but already, at least one GOP presidential candidate is out blaming a lack of guns for America's latest deadly mass shooting. Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee tweeted his prayers today much sooner than he had for Friday's shooting at a Planned Parenthood in Colorado but he just couldn't leave it at that: https://twitter.com/GovMikeHuckabee/s... CBS reports that Huckabee then made further comments to reporters while on the campaign trail in Iowa, arguing that without knowing the motives for this latest mass shooting he knew that nearly every such incident involves "a mentally unstable person" and "a gun free zone": https://twitter.com/alanhe/status/672... Huckabee's fellow GOP presidential long shot aspirant, Rick Santorum, similarly argued that if the nurses at Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs had been armed they could have prevented Robert Dear from murdering three people last Friday. “Where do you think these people commit crimes?” Santorum said. “They go to places — these people who are ill, they go to places where they know no one’s going to have a gun.” Watch firsthand accounts from friends and family waiting outside the scene of the San Bernadino shooting: [jwplayer file="http://media.salon.com/2015/12/sanber..." image="http://media.salon.com/2015/12/Screen...] The San Bernardino Police Department is still searching for up to three shooters who opened fire on a center for the developmental disabled this afternoon, killing at least twelve and shooting upwards of twenty others, but already, at least one GOP presidential candidate is out blaming a lack of guns for America's latest deadly mass shooting. Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee tweeted his prayers today much sooner than he had for Friday's shooting at a Planned Parenthood in Colorado but he just couldn't leave it at that: https://twitter.com/GovMikeHuckabee/s... CBS reports that Huckabee then made further comments to reporters while on the campaign trail in Iowa, arguing that without knowing the motives for this latest mass shooting he knew that nearly every such incident involves "a mentally unstable person" and "a gun free zone": https://twitter.com/alanhe/status/672... Huckabee's fellow GOP presidential long shot aspirant, Rick Santorum, similarly argued that if the nurses at Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs had been armed they could have prevented Robert Dear from murdering three people last Friday. “Where do you think these people commit crimes?” Santorum said. “They go to places — these people who are ill, they go to places where they know no one’s going to have a gun.” Watch firsthand accounts from friends and family waiting outside the scene of the San Bernadino shooting: [jwplayer file="http://media.salon.com/2015/12/sanber..." image="http://media.salon.com/2015/12/Screen...]
I wouldn’t vote for Dick Cheney, so I won’t vote for Hillary Clinton: An unrepentant only-Sanders voter fires back at critics
The memo must have circulated throughout America's political establishment that Hillary Clinton is once again inevitable, even though a September NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll had Bernie Sanders just 7 points behind the former secretary of state nationally. Since then, Joe Biden voters who value honesty have miraculously flocked to Clinton, even though a CNN/ORC poll found that 57% of voters "say she is not honest and trustworthy." Clinton is unelectable with negative favorability numbers, however there are bigger issues with choosing Clinton over Sanders. If the DNC wants to risk future Supreme Court nominees or getting stuck with a neon-lit Trump sign atop the White House in 2016, then ignoring negative favorability ratings, in addition to an expanding FBI investigation, will result in defeat. In reality, even the prospect of a Trump victory, or a conservative Supreme Court, aren't enough to make many progressives support someone with a "neocon" foreign policy (advised by neoconservatives) also funded by prison lobbyists. It's difficult to hate Dick Cheney yet drive to the polls and vote for Hillary Clinton when both pushed for the Iraq invasion. Also, when Vox writes Hillary Clinton will pull the Democrats — and the country — in a hawkish direction, many Democrats simply won't vote for a Republican on foreign policy. Democrats will lose in 2016 with low voter turnout, and only Bernie Sanders ensures that progressive voters in aggregate don't struggle to get to the polls. First, Hillary Clinton is a polarizing figure, even for progressives. Thus far, 25,000 progressives have already pledged to write in Sanders if he's not the nominee. This number could grow exponentially, especially with questions about the DNC's handling of debates and the validity of polls dominated by landlines. I heard the next debate is at 3 a.m. in the morning, on a Sunday, but again, I need to check the latest revised schedule from the DNC. Most importantly, CBS News explains in a piece ironically titled "Poll: Hillary Clinton still leads Democratic race," that among Democrats, "Fourteen percent would not support her in a general election" and "under half" would enthusiastically support Clinton:
Just under half of Democratic primary voters nationwide say they would enthusiastically support Clinton if she became the party's nominee. Twenty-seven percent would support her with some reservations and another 11 percent would only back her because she is the nominee. Fourteen percent would not support her in a general election. Democratic voters currently backing Clinton are especially likely to be enthusiastic about her. Those not supporting Clinton are less fervent- only about a quarter would enthusiastically support her if she became the party's nominee.In addition to the 14% of Democrats who won't support Clinton, 27% would "support her with some reservations" and 11% would "only back her because she is the nominee." Based on the CBS News findings, around 52% of Democrats will either stay home or reluctantly drive to the polls. That's not the recipe to beat a Republican, who if Clinton is the nominee, will have millions of new conservatives/independents doing everything possible in order to ensure Hillary Clinton doesn't get elected. Sadly, I've been disparaged by critics for hating Clinton, but this couldn't be further from the truth. I respect Hillary Clinton a great deal, especially for her courage in battling New Gingrich and the GOP in the early '90s over healthcare reform. I honestly feel that without Hillary Clinton, we don't have Obama's Affordable Care Act. However, people change with time and Hillary Clinton has leaned to the right (all the way to neoconservative territory) on a number of issues, especially foreign policy. I wouldn't vote for Dick Cheney, therefore I'm not voting for Hillary Clinton. As for her appeal to Democrats, even the Iowa Caucus isn't safe from a controversy. According to a recent NBC News article titled Did Hillary Clinton Diss the Iowa Caucuses in Private Email?, Clinton stated the caucuses were "creatures of the parties' extremes" to a confidant:
The latest State Department release of Hillary Clinton emails contained this message from Clinton to friend Sidney Blumenthal: "If Mittens [Mitt Romney] can't beat Grinch [Gingrich] in Florida, there will be pressure on state Republican parties to reopen or liberalize ballot access especially in the caucuses, which as we know are creatures of the parties' extremes." Clinton's remark shouldn't be too surprising given that she lost caucuses contests -- including Iowa's -- to Barack Obama in 2008.While some might not think the email scandal is an issue, an email from Clinton referring to the Iowa Caucus as part of the Democratic Party's "extremes" hurts a candidate's ability to generate enthusiasm. Voters don't want their candidate to be cynical of the electorate, much less discuss political matters with a person who isn't a government employee. Regarding the notion of Clinton defeating Sanders, it would be a Pyrrhic victory in the long run; the only way Trump wins is with low voter turnout. As for my recent Huffington Post and Salon articles, and video, on why I'll only vote for Bernie and won't support Clinton, other progressives agree. Walker Bragman in a brilliant Salon piece titled More like Reagan than FDR: I'm a millennial and I'll never vote for Hillary Clinton writes that "Choosing Hillary threatens the future of the Democratic Party." Ultimately, Hillary Clinton would move the Democratic Party so far to the right that it might eventually be renamed the Moderate Republican Party. There's a reason the former Secretary of State waited almost three weeks to address Ferguson and dodged questions about Keystone XL. A genuine Democratic candidate would have been at the forefront of both issues. While Bernie Sanders has a comprehensive Racial Justice Platform (and the only Democrat to mention
December 1, 2015
10 supposedly bad habits that are surprisingly beneficial — yes, even those cat videos you can’t resist
Everyone has, at one time or another, been admonished for their bad habits. Childhood is our training ground for trying and developing habits that society has deemed obnoxious, dangerous or annoying. But that has never stopped us from carrying on, try as we might to discard bad behavior. Science, however, has a way of validating the most interesting things, including bad habits. It turns out that some of these habits are actually good for us. Here are 10 supposedly bad habits that yield surprising benefits. 1. Fidgeting As kids, our parents and out teachers told us countless times to stop fidgeting. The inability to sit still is a habit that can drive people around us crazy. In many cases, fidgeting is pathologized, diagnosed as a disorder like attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, and medicated. But sometimes fidgeting is just fidgeting, an effort to find optimal comfort. As it turns out, fidgeting can actually be a good thing for adults. It has long been established that being deskbound for long periods of time can have detrimental effects on health, including increased risk of cardiovascular disease and even early mortality. Efforts to mitigate these risks are behind the latest office craze, the standing desk. It turns out that, according to the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, being a fidgeter can afford you some of the same benefits as having a standing desk. In the study, women subjects were divided into three groups, low-, medium- and high-level fidgeters. The study found that medium- and high-level fidgeters did not suffer the 30 percent rise in mortality risk that the low-level fidgeters did. As an extra added bonus, fidgeting can burn up to 350 calories a day. So for all those deskbound workers who can’t seem to stop crossing their legs, tapping their toes and drumming their pencils, keep up the good work! 2. Daydreaming Watching a daydreamer at her desk as she stares off into space can be an amusing experience. Often, the somewhat obnoxious response is to snap your fingers and call her back to Earth. But the common belief that a daydreamer is lazy or procrastinating or just not up to the task she is being asked to do may not be correct. A study at the University of British Columbia found that the brain is actually quite active when it is daydreaming, particularly in the area associated with complex problem-solving. “When you daydream, you may not be achieving your immediate goal—say reading a book or paying attention in class—but your mind may be taking that time to address more important questions in your life, such as advancing your career or personal relationships,” said Kalina Christoff, the lead author of the study. 3. Sunbathing The dangers of too much sun are well known, and the incidence of skin cancer has been climbing for many decades. We have all been told to stay out of the sun, slather on the sunscreen, and wear our sun hats and sunglasses. All of this is good advice—to a degree. It turns out that the flip side is that too little sun can result in a deficiency of vitamin D, which increases the risk of osteoporosis, cardiovascular disease and some cancers. Experts are now loosening the “No sun under any circumstances” prescription. In order to assure that the body manufactures enough vitamin D, it is now recommended that we get out in the midday sun for 10 minutes or so every day, sans protection, preferably exposing more than just our face to the rays. It’s not quite a day at the beach, and we are still warned not to allow the skin to turn red, and to cover up afterward, but to those sun demons out there, the door is open just a crack to enjoy some basking. 4. Skipping the shower One thing that was drummed into our heads growing up was the need to shower every day, to be clean, and to avoid at all cost smelling bad. It is a habit a lot of Americans have taken a little too much to heart. Most of us wouldn’t think of not bathing every day. But it is actually a good thing to skip the shower once or twice a week. Most of us don’t work in the mines or plow the fields anymore. We are not out there getting dirt under our fingernails or digging ditches. Those who do these things can skip this suggestion, but for the rest of us, skipping a shower does wonders for the skin. Soap strips the skin of its natural oils and causes it to dry out. It also washes off a lot of good surface bacteria that helps prevent some skin diseases. If you are worried about smell, you can get by washing your armpits and genital areas with a washcloth at the sink, add a quick spritz of underarm deodorant (we’re not Neanderthals, after all), and you are good to go. While we're at it, your hair does not need to be washed every day either. In fact, your hair will be much healthier if washed only once or twice a week. More than that strips out the oils that give hair its shine and suppleness. 5. Gossiping Being the subject of cruel gossip is never a good thing—ask any high school girl. Back in the 16th and 17th century in Britain, gossipers were actually punished severely, and made to wear iron cages on their heads. But that was then and this is now. As far as bad habits go, gossiping can actually be healthy, at least for the gossiper. Gossip helps us learn more about ourselves, formulates general lessons that help us navigate the world, and protects us from harmful situations, according to a study in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. “While there are those who love to dismiss gossip, it actually does have a value,” Jodi R.R. Smith, a human resources professional, told NBC’s "Today" show. “Gossip tells members of a group what behaviors are acceptable and what behaviors are not acceptable. As a new member of a group, such as when you start a new job, listening to what your new co-workers are chatting about can provide you with really valuable information about how to act on your new job.” For women in particular, a University of Michigan study showed that gossiping can release progesterone, a hormone shown to help reduce stress and anxiety. 6. Losing your temper Constantly throwing temper tantrums is definitely not advisable and is unlikely to win you many friends if you are over the age of 5 (maybe not even then). But it can also be a good thing to have an occasional barnburner of a fit and let out all that pent-up negative feeling. A Swedish study showed that men who failed to express their frustrations and anger to their colleagues in the workplace were two to five times more at risk for a heart attack versus those who expressed themselves. What’s being recommended here is not bullying people, and certainly not scaring them with loud outbursts, but it is healthier to stand up for yourself, even if it means losing your cool. “It’s not good to go away and just leave the conflict if you feel you have been badly treated,” said Constanze Leineweber, lead researcher for the study in Stockholm. 7. Cocktail hour You can stop thinking of yourself as an alcoholic if you stop by the corner bar after work every day or head to the liquor cabinet when you get home. Unless you are overindulging (i.e., more than two drinks a day), that beer or cocktail is doing you way more good than harm. The ethanol in a cocktail increases your HDL (the good cholesterol), decreases the LDL (the bad stuff), and helps keep the arteries flowing. Your evening constitution helps lowers your risk of heart disease and stroke. As for beer, a Japanese study found that flavonoids in hops increase muscle mass, and the antioxidants in beer can help prevent heart disease. There are caveats: if you are on medication that is affected by alcohol, don’t drink. Likewise if you have a medical condition, like diabetes, that is worsened by alcohol. Stay away from the car if you’ve had a couple, and if you can’t stop at two, see a doctor. Otherwise, bottoms up! 8. Thumbsucking No. Really. Early thumbsucking is not the disaster many parents were once taught it was. Thumbsucking for the very young serves a positive purpose and only becomes a problem as a child reaches the toddler stage. Continued thumbsucking after the toddler age can lead to orthodontia issues, and no one wants to see adults sucking their thumbs (although bad habits like smoking and overeating are often direct adult substitutes). Children can be seen sucking their thumbs even in the womb. Premature infants who suck their thumbs have, on average, shorter hospital stays, and thumbsucking children are less emotionally dependent than non-thumbsuckers. They play by themselves better and have more self-confidence. 9. Skipping your workout Let’s face it. You are never going to play in the NBA, and unless you are a professional athlete, working out every single day is not essential. Being active, walking and biking are all important to do every day, but serious workouts at the gym, not so much. In fact, skipping a day between workouts can actually be better for you by allowing your muscles to recover and repair themselves. The repair process is actually what makes them bigger and stronger. So go ahead and veg out occasionally, guilt-free. 10. Watching cat videos online Can’t resist taking a few minutes at work to watch the latest cute kitty video on Facebook? Don’t worry about it. In fact, your boss should encourage it. Studies have shown that watching cute animal videos online actually enhances productivity at work. After viewing them, we are more focused and careful in performing our work tasks. It seems that cute animals trigger the parts of our brains that control our caregiving instincts, making us focus better on the job at hand. Larry Schwartz is a Brooklyn-based freelance writer with a focus on health, science and American history.
Everyone has, at one time or another, been admonished for their bad habits. Childhood is our training ground for trying and developing habits that society has deemed obnoxious, dangerous or annoying. But that has never stopped us from carrying on, try as we might to discard bad behavior. Science, however, has a way of validating the most interesting things, including bad habits. It turns out that some of these habits are actually good for us. Here are 10 supposedly bad habits that yield surprising benefits. 1. Fidgeting As kids, our parents and out teachers told us countless times to stop fidgeting. The inability to sit still is a habit that can drive people around us crazy. In many cases, fidgeting is pathologized, diagnosed as a disorder like attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, and medicated. But sometimes fidgeting is just fidgeting, an effort to find optimal comfort. As it turns out, fidgeting can actually be a good thing for adults. It has long been established that being deskbound for long periods of time can have detrimental effects on health, including increased risk of cardiovascular disease and even early mortality. Efforts to mitigate these risks are behind the latest office craze, the standing desk. It turns out that, according to the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, being a fidgeter can afford you some of the same benefits as having a standing desk. In the study, women subjects were divided into three groups, low-, medium- and high-level fidgeters. The study found that medium- and high-level fidgeters did not suffer the 30 percent rise in mortality risk that the low-level fidgeters did. As an extra added bonus, fidgeting can burn up to 350 calories a day. So for all those deskbound workers who can’t seem to stop crossing their legs, tapping their toes and drumming their pencils, keep up the good work! 2. Daydreaming Watching a daydreamer at her desk as she stares off into space can be an amusing experience. Often, the somewhat obnoxious response is to snap your fingers and call her back to Earth. But the common belief that a daydreamer is lazy or procrastinating or just not up to the task she is being asked to do may not be correct. A study at the University of British Columbia found that the brain is actually quite active when it is daydreaming, particularly in the area associated with complex problem-solving. “When you daydream, you may not be achieving your immediate goal—say reading a book or paying attention in class—but your mind may be taking that time to address more important questions in your life, such as advancing your career or personal relationships,” said Kalina Christoff, the lead author of the study. 3. Sunbathing The dangers of too much sun are well known, and the incidence of skin cancer has been climbing for many decades. We have all been told to stay out of the sun, slather on the sunscreen, and wear our sun hats and sunglasses. All of this is good advice—to a degree. It turns out that the flip side is that too little sun can result in a deficiency of vitamin D, which increases the risk of osteoporosis, cardiovascular disease and some cancers. Experts are now loosening the “No sun under any circumstances” prescription. In order to assure that the body manufactures enough vitamin D, it is now recommended that we get out in the midday sun for 10 minutes or so every day, sans protection, preferably exposing more than just our face to the rays. It’s not quite a day at the beach, and we are still warned not to allow the skin to turn red, and to cover up afterward, but to those sun demons out there, the door is open just a crack to enjoy some basking. 4. Skipping the shower One thing that was drummed into our heads growing up was the need to shower every day, to be clean, and to avoid at all cost smelling bad. It is a habit a lot of Americans have taken a little too much to heart. Most of us wouldn’t think of not bathing every day. But it is actually a good thing to skip the shower once or twice a week. Most of us don’t work in the mines or plow the fields anymore. We are not out there getting dirt under our fingernails or digging ditches. Those who do these things can skip this suggestion, but for the rest of us, skipping a shower does wonders for the skin. Soap strips the skin of its natural oils and causes it to dry out. It also washes off a lot of good surface bacteria that helps prevent some skin diseases. If you are worried about smell, you can get by washing your armpits and genital areas with a washcloth at the sink, add a quick spritz of underarm deodorant (we’re not Neanderthals, after all), and you are good to go. While we're at it, your hair does not need to be washed every day either. In fact, your hair will be much healthier if washed only once or twice a week. More than that strips out the oils that give hair its shine and suppleness. 5. Gossiping Being the subject of cruel gossip is never a good thing—ask any high school girl. Back in the 16th and 17th century in Britain, gossipers were actually punished severely, and made to wear iron cages on their heads. But that was then and this is now. As far as bad habits go, gossiping can actually be healthy, at least for the gossiper. Gossip helps us learn more about ourselves, formulates general lessons that help us navigate the world, and protects us from harmful situations, according to a study in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. “While there are those who love to dismiss gossip, it actually does have a value,” Jodi R.R. Smith, a human resources professional, told NBC’s "Today" show. “Gossip tells members of a group what behaviors are acceptable and what behaviors are not acceptable. As a new member of a group, such as when you start a new job, listening to what your new co-workers are chatting about can provide you with really valuable information about how to act on your new job.” For women in particular, a University of Michigan study showed that gossiping can release progesterone, a hormone shown to help reduce stress and anxiety. 6. Losing your temper Constantly throwing temper tantrums is definitely not advisable and is unlikely to win you many friends if you are over the age of 5 (maybe not even then). But it can also be a good thing to have an occasional barnburner of a fit and let out all that pent-up negative feeling. A Swedish study showed that men who failed to express their frustrations and anger to their colleagues in the workplace were two to five times more at risk for a heart attack versus those who expressed themselves. What’s being recommended here is not bullying people, and certainly not scaring them with loud outbursts, but it is healthier to stand up for yourself, even if it means losing your cool. “It’s not good to go away and just leave the conflict if you feel you have been badly treated,” said Constanze Leineweber, lead researcher for the study in Stockholm. 7. Cocktail hour You can stop thinking of yourself as an alcoholic if you stop by the corner bar after work every day or head to the liquor cabinet when you get home. Unless you are overindulging (i.e., more than two drinks a day), that beer or cocktail is doing you way more good than harm. The ethanol in a cocktail increases your HDL (the good cholesterol), decreases the LDL (the bad stuff), and helps keep the arteries flowing. Your evening constitution helps lowers your risk of heart disease and stroke. As for beer, a Japanese study found that flavonoids in hops increase muscle mass, and the antioxidants in beer can help prevent heart disease. There are caveats: if you are on medication that is affected by alcohol, don’t drink. Likewise if you have a medical condition, like diabetes, that is worsened by alcohol. Stay away from the car if you’ve had a couple, and if you can’t stop at two, see a doctor. Otherwise, bottoms up! 8. Thumbsucking No. Really. Early thumbsucking is not the disaster many parents were once taught it was. Thumbsucking for the very young serves a positive purpose and only becomes a problem as a child reaches the toddler stage. Continued thumbsucking after the toddler age can lead to orthodontia issues, and no one wants to see adults sucking their thumbs (although bad habits like smoking and overeating are often direct adult substitutes). Children can be seen sucking their thumbs even in the womb. Premature infants who suck their thumbs have, on average, shorter hospital stays, and thumbsucking children are less emotionally dependent than non-thumbsuckers. They play by themselves better and have more self-confidence. 9. Skipping your workout Let’s face it. You are never going to play in the NBA, and unless you are a professional athlete, working out every single day is not essential. Being active, walking and biking are all important to do every day, but serious workouts at the gym, not so much. In fact, skipping a day between workouts can actually be better for you by allowing your muscles to recover and repair themselves. The repair process is actually what makes them bigger and stronger. So go ahead and veg out occasionally, guilt-free. 10. Watching cat videos online Can’t resist taking a few minutes at work to watch the latest cute kitty video on Facebook? Don’t worry about it. In fact, your boss should encourage it. Studies have shown that watching cute animal videos online actually enhances productivity at work. After viewing them, we are more focused and careful in performing our work tasks. It seems that cute animals trigger the parts of our brains that control our caregiving instincts, making us focus better on the job at hand. Larry Schwartz is a Brooklyn-based freelance writer with a focus on health, science and American history. 
Larry Wilmore’s gutsiest moment yet: Pins Planned Parenthood shooter’s hate squarely on Fox News
Just in time for Thanksgiving, a Fox News host asked a black colleague if she drank Kool-Aid at her Thanksgiving meal with her family, clearly missing that the question was incredibly racist. But, Larry Wilmore said Monday on "The Nightly Show" that the question is ironic since it's what Fox News has been serving its audience for years. "Fox and the GOP love making up a big batch of Kool-Aid and doling it out like it's Jonestown," Wilmore said. "They start by pouring a pitcher of factless accusations, add a splash of fearmongering, and then they just stir up the base." While Ted Cruz has his own facts, the truth is, Planned Parenthood shooter Robert Lewis Dear was arrested while spouting hate about President Obama and according to reports, saying "no more baby parts." Wilmore says that could just be taken as the ramblings of a crazy man, but "that sounds very specific.... almost as if it was served up in a nice cold pitcher of Fox and Friends Kool-Aid." Wilmore then ran a collection of Fox News clips talking about the "baby parts" in the now debunked Planned Parenthood videos. "Since the summer, Fox and the GOP has ramped up their rhetoric about baby body parts being sold from Planned Parenthood: the Kool-Aid. Cut to, a guy shoots up a Planned Parenthood then rants about baby parts," Wilmore said. "Now, you guys know what Occam's Razor is, right? The simplest explanation's probably the correct one? So, do I feel comfortable saying that he was at least partially motivated by the right's demonization of Planned Parenthood?" Then Wilmore had a sound effect screaming "OH YEAH!" like the Kool-Aid man. You've got to see this video below:
The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore Get More: The Nightly Show Full Episodes,The Nightly Show on Facebook,The Nightly Show Video Archive
Hillary the Hawk does it again: Asked about her Wall Street ties, Clinton again invoked 9/11
Hillary Clinton is by far the most hawkish of the Democratic presidential candidates. She supported the internationally illegal Iraq War; helped lead the NATO bombing of Libya, famously remarking "We came, we saw, he died" when Muammar Qadhafi was killed; oversaw the U.S. drone war, in which targets are assassinated without charge or trial; previously defended torture; and said in her 2007 campaign for president she would consider dropping nuclear bombs on militants in South Asia. In the first Democratic presidential debate, Clinton's hawkishness was made loud and clear. She boasted about being an enemy of Iran, and about having imposed harsh sanctions on the Islamic Republic. She also called for a military-backed no-fly zone in Syria. In the second debate, Clinton stood behind her hard-line militarist stance. Perhaps the most controversial moment of the night was when Clinton, when asked about her close ties to Wall Street, from which she has received millions of dollars in contributions and speaking fees, responded by invoking the September 11, 2001 attacks. "I have never heard of a candidate, never, who has received huge amounts of money from oil, from coal, from Wall Street, from the military-industrial complex, not one candidate say, oh, these campaign contributions will not influence me," remarked fellow presidential candidate Bernie Sanders in the debate. "Why do they make millions of dollars of campaign contributions? They expect to get something. Everybody knows that." Clinton immediately replied, "I represented New York on 9/11, when we were attacked. Where were we attacked? We were attacked in downtown Manhattan, where Wall Street is. I did spend a whole lot of time and effort helping them rebuild. That was good for New York. It was good for the economy, and it was a way to rebuke the terrorists who had attacked our country." Watch Clinton's belligerent response here, from CNN: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uc9ld... The response was widely recognized as the worst gaffe of the night. Many of Clinton's supporters admitted it was a mistake -- but only that, a mere mistake -- and moved on. Although Clinton's campaign and advocates may have tried to reduce the hawkish Freudian slip to a slip of the tongue, however, Hillary has yet again fallen back on the 9/11 attacks when asked about her ties to Wall Street. In an interview with CBS released today, her first TV interview since the November 13 Paris attacks, Clinton defends both her hawkish positions and her closeness to Wall Street. Host Charlie Rose asks, "Have you suffered from the fact that they say you are too close to Wall Street? Has that hurt your image, in your judgement, running for president?" "I have stood for a lot of regulation on big banks and on the financial services sector. I also represented New York and represented everybody from the dairy farmers to the fishermen," Clinton replied, adding, "And did I help rebuild after 9/11? Yes, I did." Clinton's latter response is not as angry and belligerent as her former answer in the debate, but she still resorted to base jingoism to justify her political record and to distract from her close ties to Wall Street -- which has made her a multimillionaire. You can watch the aforementioned clip from the exclusive CBS interview here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGaHF...
David Brooks has lost it: His bizarre “Hamilton”-infused climate change column is the worst yet
The New York Times columnist David Brooks often has smart things to say about politics, culture, and human motivation. Sometimes he’s tough on his own tribe – conservatives – and calls out extremism and ignorance on the right. (He once called Sarah Palin a "fatal cancer to the Republican party.") Lately, he seems to be drifting to the center a bit, and has denounced right-wing intolerance. Other times, though, his writing can be a bit bizarre. Today’s column saw a mix of all of the above. Here’s the way the column – “The Green Tech Solution” -- starts:
I’ve been confused about this Paris climate conference and how the world should move forward to ameliorate climate change, so I séanced up my hero Alexander Hamilton to see what he thought. I was sad to be reminded that he doesn’t actually talk in hip-hop, but he still had some interesting things to say.Now, besides the fact that it’s hard to imagine Brooks having anything to do with hip hop, this is a pretty terrible idea. To be fair, he’s been an admirer of the conservative Founding Father since before the musical “Hamilton.” But how often do these columns – by Brooks or anyone else – that turn on a pretend dialogue with a departed figure succeed at anything besides seeming cutesy? They’re about as successful as Tom Friedman’s open letters to world leaders. Even weirder is that the Hamilton that Brooks summons seems to read National Affairs, is familiar with Weight Watchers, and knows what the Soviet Union was. (Brooks writes, aptly, that “a vast majority of Republican politicians can’t publicly say what they know about the truth of climate change because they’re afraid the thought police will knock on their door and drag them off to an AM radio interrogation.”) Why build your column around an 18th century figure if you are going to pepper your piece with contemporary references? The most frustrating thing about the column, though, had more to do with Brooks’s Reaganesque ideology and less to do with the onetime Secretary of the Treasury. Here’s Brooks on what the Paris conference was discussing:
You’re asking people to impose costs on themselves today for some future benefit they will never see. You’re asking developing countries to forswear growth now to compensate for a legacy of pollution from richer countries that they didn’t benefit from. You’re asking richer countries that are facing severe economic strain to pay hundreds of billions of dollars in “reparations” to India and such places that can go on and burn mountains of coal and take away American jobs.Well, this is about as grim and pessimistic an assessment of coming up with limits for carbon as anyone could dream up. There’s no question that there’s sacrifice involved, but isn’t Brooks the communitarian conservative who often talks about shared purpose, national service, and building your life around deep meaning rather than selfish acquisition? Doesn’t saving the world from heat death and constant flooding fit most of those categories? Can’t we reframe just about everything we’ve ever done as a nation in these terms if we’re similarly glib, including wars, like World War II, that most of us favor to the riskier Middle Eastern excursions that Brooks himself endorsed? Don’t we spend money on people in other parts of the world, because it’s the right thing to do? Don’t politicians on both sides talk about our debt to the generations that will follow? (For a story that faces up to the challenges of the Paris meeting, try this.) Brooks makes a good point when he writes that governments cannot fix the environment on their own. “The larger lesson is that innovation is the key. Green energy will beat dirty energy only when it makes technical and economic sense.” Well, yes – but was anyone really contesting that? And a bunch of boutique green firms are not going to solve this on their own, either. The most substantial recent environmental action in the country has taken place in California, where the effects of a multi-year drought have been reduced because of government restrictions. Innovation will help, but you need a basis on which it can operate. Brooks seems to be nodding in that direction near the end of his column, but he’s still stacking the decks a bit. The column’s conclusion -- “Sometimes like your country you got to be young, scrappy and hungry and not throw away your shot.” – is an attempt to nod in the direction of Lin-Manuel Miranda’s show. Okay, that’s nice. But the next time David Brooks starts to write the phrase “you got to be,” can someone please save him from himself?The New York Times columnist David Brooks often has smart things to say about politics, culture, and human motivation. Sometimes he’s tough on his own tribe – conservatives – and calls out extremism and ignorance on the right. (He once called Sarah Palin a "fatal cancer to the Republican party.") Lately, he seems to be drifting to the center a bit, and has denounced right-wing intolerance. Other times, though, his writing can be a bit bizarre. Today’s column saw a mix of all of the above. Here’s the way the column – “The Green Tech Solution” -- starts:
I’ve been confused about this Paris climate conference and how the world should move forward to ameliorate climate change, so I séanced up my hero Alexander Hamilton to see what he thought. I was sad to be reminded that he doesn’t actually talk in hip-hop, but he still had some interesting things to say.Now, besides the fact that it’s hard to imagine Brooks having anything to do with hip hop, this is a pretty terrible idea. To be fair, he’s been an admirer of the conservative Founding Father since before the musical “Hamilton.” But how often do these columns – by Brooks or anyone else – that turn on a pretend dialogue with a departed figure succeed at anything besides seeming cutesy? They’re about as successful as Tom Friedman’s open letters to world leaders. Even weirder is that the Hamilton that Brooks summons seems to read National Affairs, is familiar with Weight Watchers, and knows what the Soviet Union was. (Brooks writes, aptly, that “a vast majority of Republican politicians can’t publicly say what they know about the truth of climate change because they’re afraid the thought police will knock on their door and drag them off to an AM radio interrogation.”) Why build your column around an 18th century figure if you are going to pepper your piece with contemporary references? The most frustrating thing about the column, though, had more to do with Brooks’s Reaganesque ideology and less to do with the onetime Secretary of the Treasury. Here’s Brooks on what the Paris conference was discussing:
You’re asking people to impose costs on themselves today for some future benefit they will never see. You’re asking developing countries to forswear growth now to compensate for a legacy of pollution from richer countries that they didn’t benefit from. You’re asking richer countries that are facing severe economic strain to pay hundreds of billions of dollars in “reparations” to India and such places that can go on and burn mountains of coal and take away American jobs.Well, this is about as grim and pessimistic an assessment of coming up with limits for carbon as anyone could dream up. There’s no question that there’s sacrifice involved, but isn’t Brooks the communitarian conservative who often talks about shared purpose, national service, and building your life around deep meaning rather than selfish acquisition? Doesn’t saving the world from heat death and constant flooding fit most of those categories? Can’t we reframe just about everything we’ve ever done as a nation in these terms if we’re similarly glib, including wars, like World War II, that most of us favor to the riskier Middle Eastern excursions that Brooks himself endorsed? Don’t we spend money on people in other parts of the world, because it’s the right thing to do? Don’t politicians on both sides talk about our debt to the generations that will follow? (For a story that faces up to the challenges of the Paris meeting, try this.) Brooks makes a good point when he writes that governments cannot fix the environment on their own. “The larger lesson is that innovation is the key. Green energy will beat dirty energy only when it makes technical and economic sense.” Well, yes – but was anyone really contesting that? And a bunch of boutique green firms are not going to solve this on their own, either. The most substantial recent environmental action in the country has taken place in California, where the effects of a multi-year drought have been reduced because of government restrictions. Innovation will help, but you need a basis on which it can operate. Brooks seems to be nodding in that direction near the end of his column, but he’s still stacking the decks a bit. The column’s conclusion -- “Sometimes like your country you got to be young, scrappy and hungry and not throw away your shot.” – is an attempt to nod in the direction of Lin-Manuel Miranda’s show. Okay, that’s nice. But the next time David Brooks starts to write the phrase “you got to be,” can someone please save him from himself?The New York Times columnist David Brooks often has smart things to say about politics, culture, and human motivation. Sometimes he’s tough on his own tribe – conservatives – and calls out extremism and ignorance on the right. (He once called Sarah Palin a "fatal cancer to the Republican party.") Lately, he seems to be drifting to the center a bit, and has denounced right-wing intolerance. Other times, though, his writing can be a bit bizarre. Today’s column saw a mix of all of the above. Here’s the way the column – “The Green Tech Solution” -- starts:
I’ve been confused about this Paris climate conference and how the world should move forward to ameliorate climate change, so I séanced up my hero Alexander Hamilton to see what he thought. I was sad to be reminded that he doesn’t actually talk in hip-hop, but he still had some interesting things to say.Now, besides the fact that it’s hard to imagine Brooks having anything to do with hip hop, this is a pretty terrible idea. To be fair, he’s been an admirer of the conservative Founding Father since before the musical “Hamilton.” But how often do these columns – by Brooks or anyone else – that turn on a pretend dialogue with a departed figure succeed at anything besides seeming cutesy? They’re about as successful as Tom Friedman’s open letters to world leaders. Even weirder is that the Hamilton that Brooks summons seems to read National Affairs, is familiar with Weight Watchers, and knows what the Soviet Union was. (Brooks writes, aptly, that “a vast majority of Republican politicians can’t publicly say what they know about the truth of climate change because they’re afraid the thought police will knock on their door and drag them off to an AM radio interrogation.”) Why build your column around an 18th century figure if you are going to pepper your piece with contemporary references? The most frustrating thing about the column, though, had more to do with Brooks’s Reaganesque ideology and less to do with the onetime Secretary of the Treasury. Here’s Brooks on what the Paris conference was discussing:
You’re asking people to impose costs on themselves today for some future benefit they will never see. You’re asking developing countries to forswear growth now to compensate for a legacy of pollution from richer countries that they didn’t benefit from. You’re asking richer countries that are facing severe economic strain to pay hundreds of billions of dollars in “reparations” to India and such places that can go on and burn mountains of coal and take away American jobs.Well, this is about as grim and pessimistic an assessment of coming up with limits for carbon as anyone could dream up. There’s no question that there’s sacrifice involved, but isn’t Brooks the communitarian conservative who often talks about shared purpose, national service, and building your life around deep meaning rather than selfish acquisition? Doesn’t saving the world from heat death and constant flooding fit most of those categories? Can’t we reframe just about everything we’ve ever done as a nation in these terms if we’re similarly glib, including wars, like World War II, that most of us favor to the riskier Middle Eastern excursions that Brooks himself endorsed? Don’t we spend money on people in other parts of the world, because it’s the right thing to do? Don’t politicians on both sides talk about our debt to the generations that will follow? (For a story that faces up to the challenges of the Paris meeting, try this.) Brooks makes a good point when he writes that governments cannot fix the environment on their own. “The larger lesson is that innovation is the key. Green energy will beat dirty energy only when it makes technical and economic sense.” Well, yes – but was anyone really contesting that? And a bunch of boutique green firms are not going to solve this on their own, either. The most substantial recent environmental action in the country has taken place in California, where the effects of a multi-year drought have been reduced because of government restrictions. Innovation will help, but you need a basis on which it can operate. Brooks seems to be nodding in that direction near the end of his column, but he’s still stacking the decks a bit. The column’s conclusion -- “Sometimes like your country you got to be young, scrappy and hungry and not throw away your shot.” – is an attempt to nod in the direction of Lin-Manuel Miranda’s show. Okay, that’s nice. But the next time David Brooks starts to write the phrase “you got to be,” can someone please save him from himself?The New York Times columnist David Brooks often has smart things to say about politics, culture, and human motivation. Sometimes he’s tough on his own tribe – conservatives – and calls out extremism and ignorance on the right. (He once called Sarah Palin a "fatal cancer to the Republican party.") Lately, he seems to be drifting to the center a bit, and has denounced right-wing intolerance. Other times, though, his writing can be a bit bizarre. Today’s column saw a mix of all of the above. Here’s the way the column – “The Green Tech Solution” -- starts:
I’ve been confused about this Paris climate conference and how the world should move forward to ameliorate climate change, so I séanced up my hero Alexander Hamilton to see what he thought. I was sad to be reminded that he doesn’t actually talk in hip-hop, but he still had some interesting things to say.Now, besides the fact that it’s hard to imagine Brooks having anything to do with hip hop, this is a pretty terrible idea. To be fair, he’s been an admirer of the conservative Founding Father since before the musical “Hamilton.” But how often do these columns – by Brooks or anyone else – that turn on a pretend dialogue with a departed figure succeed at anything besides seeming cutesy? They’re about as successful as Tom Friedman’s open letters to world leaders. Even weirder is that the Hamilton that Brooks summons seems to read National Affairs, is familiar with Weight Watchers, and knows what the Soviet Union was. (Brooks writes, aptly, that “a vast majority of Republican politicians can’t publicly say what they know about the truth of climate change because they’re afraid the thought police will knock on their door and drag them off to an AM radio interrogation.”) Why build your column around an 18th century figure if you are going to pepper your piece with contemporary references? The most frustrating thing about the column, though, had more to do with Brooks’s Reaganesque ideology and less to do with the onetime Secretary of the Treasury. Here’s Brooks on what the Paris conference was discussing:
You’re asking people to impose costs on themselves today for some future benefit they will never see. You’re asking developing countries to forswear growth now to compensate for a legacy of pollution from richer countries that they didn’t benefit from. You’re asking richer countries that are facing severe economic strain to pay hundreds of billions of dollars in “reparations” to India and such places that can go on and burn mountains of coal and take away American jobs.Well, this is about as grim and pessimistic an assessment of coming up with limits for carbon as anyone could dream up. There’s no question that there’s sacrifice involved, but isn’t Brooks the communitarian conservative who often talks about shared purpose, national service, and building your life around deep meaning rather than selfish acquisition? Doesn’t saving the world from heat death and constant flooding fit most of those categories? Can’t we reframe just about everything we’ve ever done as a nation in these terms if we’re similarly glib, including wars, like World War II, that most of us favor to the riskier Middle Eastern excursions that Brooks himself endorsed? Don’t we spend money on people in other parts of the world, because it’s the right thing to do? Don’t politicians on both sides talk about our debt to the generations that will follow? (For a story that faces up to the challenges of the Paris meeting, try this.) Brooks makes a good point when he writes that governments cannot fix the environment on their own. “The larger lesson is that innovation is the key. Green energy will beat dirty energy only when it makes technical and economic sense.” Well, yes – but was anyone really contesting that? And a bunch of boutique green firms are not going to solve this on their own, either. The most substantial recent environmental action in the country has taken place in California, where the effects of a multi-year drought have been reduced because of government restrictions. Innovation will help, but you need a basis on which it can operate. Brooks seems to be nodding in that direction near the end of his column, but he’s still stacking the decks a bit. The column’s conclusion -- “Sometimes like your country you got to be young, scrappy and hungry and not throw away your shot.” – is an attempt to nod in the direction of Lin-Manuel Miranda’s show. Okay, that’s nice. But the next time David Brooks starts to write the phrase “you got to be,” can someone please save him from himself?
