Half-useful advice

The Cleveland Clinic has a short article on Seven Early Warning Signs of a Heart Attack. It's useful, but only half-useful.

It's useful because it lists symptoms that many of us might not think of when it comes to heart attacks.

1. Pressure or tightness in your chest (rather than pain).
2. Pain in areas such as your arms, jaw, neck or back.
3. Cold sweats.
4. Heartburn or indigestion.
5. Shortness of breath.
6. Nausea or vomiting.
7. Unusual fatigue.
   

I can easily see laypeople not knowing, for example, that cold sweats, arm pain, nausea, or "unusual fatigue" might augur heart trouble. So in that sense, this article is useful.

But what I'd like to see is some sort of discussion on how to interpret these symptoms. Not all arm pain, for example, is heart related, not even most. It's unclear when to be concerned.

The article offers the advice that "[i]f there’s even a chance you think you’re having a heart attack, act quickly to get emergency care." The problem is, there's always "a chance" you're having a heart attack. How do you know when it's a big enough chance to be concerned as opposed to, say, something that theoretically could be happening but is probably not?

I don't mean to glib here. Heart attacks are scary. If someone thinks they're having one, they should call 911. I also understand that public health messaging has to look at worst case scenarios and even "most plausibly bad case scenarios." If I were writing such articles, I'd want to err on the side of encouraging readers to believe false positives than to believe false negatives.

But I'd really like some guidance on how to balance out those types of symptoms.

Unsolicited advice for pro-Palestinian activists

I have very complicated views, rational and emotional, about what's going on in Israel and Palestine. I won't detail them here. I'm not ready to. Instead, I offer advice for those who advocate for the Palestinian cause:

Dedicate the October 7 anniversary to mourning the victims of Hamas's attack. Set aside, for one day, all talk of why Israel is in the wrong. Set aside, for one day, all talk of why the US response is insufficiently pro-Palestinian or too much pro-Israeli. The day before and the day after the anniversary--discuss your critiques. But dedicate the day to mourning the violence that set off this round of the conflict.

I advise that because it's the right thing to do. We should acknowledge and mourn victims. 

But it's also tactically wise. Doing what I suggest demonstrates that the activists are not guilty of the blood lust they're so often accused of. Dedicating the day to flipping the narrative of "I don't approve of what Hamas did, but...."* to "It's wrong what Hamas did" and "The people who were murdered and kidnapped were human beings of intrinsic value, loved by others, and capable of all the good and bad anyone of us is capable of"--doing that centers the humanity of the activists and underscores the sincerity of their wish to establish a peaceful solution.

If the activists can't do that, then one might doubt their sincerity. To be clear, some lacking sincerity doesn't mean all or even most lack sincerity. And lack of sincerity doesn't necessarily mean the insincere are wrong.

*For the record, I don't necessarily criticize people for saying "I don't support x, but...." because talking any morally complicated problem sometimes requires us to say "but," "however," and "nevertheless."

The Trump verdict

A New York jury has convicted Donald Trump of 34 felony counts related to some hush money he paid some news outlets, with the goal of influencing the 2016 presidential election. Or that's the story I took from my brief perusal of some Washington Post articles and from Ken White and Josh Barro's Serious Trouble podcast.

At any rate, I'm happy to see Mr. Trump convicted of a crime. I hope, but am not very optimistic, that it will move the needle enough to ensure he won't win reelection.

However, my gladness at Mr. Trump's conviction is tempered by the fact that I simply assumed he was guilty. Since his election, many, many others in my circle of friends and acquaintances have been explaining how Mr. Trump deserves to go to jail and how they'll relish his imprisonment when it arrives. 

My acquaintances have been calling for Mr. Trump's imprisonment long before they could cite any criminal act he had allegedly done. They knew they didn't like him. The believed (as I did and do) that he was a horrible person and a dangerous president, but they didn't know of an actual crime. They made up their mind that he must be guilty of something. Or if not, he's an enemy and must be imprisoned.

Maybe not all of my acquaintances. Maybe some of them relied on actual facts. Maybe they used their deep, deep knowledge of criminal law, their years and years of legal training, and their insider familiarity with Mr. Trump's actions to arrive at the conclusions they did. But it's just quite possible that some of them didn't have that knowledge or training or insider familiarity. Maybe, just maybe, some of them were as ignorant as I was and am.

While I don't think I went as far as hoping he'd be criminally prosecuted (my memory may be faulty), I wanted him impeached from the start. Wanting impeachment isn't the same thing as wanting criminal prosecution. It's a political statement. It's like trying to remove a president for firing a cabinet member, or for undermining our justice system by lying under oath to a grand jury. But my reasoning was similar to my acquaintances'. Of course, later on, it was clear (to me) that he did things to qualify for impeachment and maybe criminal prosecution. But I started wanting impeachment long before it was clear to me he had committed any "high crime or misdemeanor." 

The truth is, the main reason I wanted Mr. Trump to be found guilty because I don't want him to be president again, and I hope a guilty verdict will prevent his winning. I suppose I have other reasons, too. And maybe one of them is the sincere desire to see justice done, even though I'm not always sure I truly, deep down want justice and even though I suspect many (maybe most) others deep down share my inclination. What they want (and probably what I want) is revenge more than justice.

(An aside: I'm also uneasy about the crime he is convicted of, assuming I understand it correctly. I'm not sure why it's a crime, and I'm not sure it should be a crime. But many of my acquaintances have known all along that he's guilty. So they must be right.)

I'm sure Mr. Trump will rely on that desire for revenge and for preventing his presidency. He will claim he's not really guilty, but merely a victim of malicious prosecution. I believe that claim is probably false, notwithstanding my (layperson's) concern about the law he was convicted of violating. But even so, Mr. Trump will have a point when he states, as he inevitably will if he hasn't already, that people have been after him from the get go.

Myth busting doesn't work: sugar and hyperactivity

I say this a lot, but beware when someone says they're busting a "myth." Whenever someone points out a myth that they're correcting, that's a sign you're highly likely to get a dishonest argument. I'm not sure why. It's not like there aren't wrong things believed by people that can and should be corrected. But for some reason, when someone identifies something as a "myth" and then goes about debunking it, they often (usually, even almost always) seem to go off the rails.

For this blog post, let's look at a Washington Post article (probably pay walled), "Does eating too much sugar really make kids hyper?" The article starts with a question: "Is it true that eating lots of sugar causes hyperactivity in kids?" It says that parents "long have blamed their children’s 'bouncing off the wall' behavior on eating too much sugar, but experts say there’s no truth to it."

The expert they consult says, "It’s a myth that sugar causes hyperactivity." How does he know this? Well, in the 1990s, he conducted studies " that disproved the notion that sugar causes attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children."

The article also cites the CDC, which the article quotes as saying, "research doesn’t support the popularly held views that ADHD is caused by eating too much sugar, watching too much television, parenting, or social and environmental factors such as poverty or family chaos."

Do you see what the did here? The article starts by asking whether sugar makes kids hyperactive and continues by explaining there's a myth that sugar makes kids "bounc[e] off the walls." Then it goes to experts who address a different question, which is whether sugar causes attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder." 

To my mind, there are two questions here, not one. One question is whether sugar causes ADHD. The other is whether sugar makes kids hyper. The experts and the article answer only the first question. But the article frames the answer as addressing both questions. 

Now, there's a little wiggle room for what the article is doing. First, the author could credibly claim that by asking whether sugar makes kids "hyperactive," they're actually asking whether sugar causes "attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder."

Sigh. Maybe. But I suspect that when a lay reader sees the term "hyperactive," they don't necessarily think of ADHD or clinical behavior, especially when "hyperactive" is followed by a sentence talking about kids "bouncing off the walls." Maybe ADHD involves kids "bouncing of the walls," but kids sometimes bounce off the walls even if they don't have ADHD. Does sugar contribute to the latter? We don't know from the article.

Second, the studies from the 1990s, from the article's reporting, found no connection between sugar consumption and "normal" behavior. And maybe that means the studies address behavior different from that typical of ADHD. Maybe? Possibly?

Later in the article, we find that certain chemicals kids are exposed to, such as red dye no. 3, may, according to some studies, contribute to "hyperactivity and other behavioral problems in children." (I assume they're referring to ADHD and not just "hyperactivity" in general.) But that point seems to contradict the earlier statement I quoted from the CDC that I'll requote, with bold added by me: "research doesn’t support the popularly held views that ADHD is caused by eating too much sugar, watching too much television, parenting, or social and environmental factors such as poverty or family chaos." Red dye no. 3 seems like an environmental factor to me, as in, something in the child's environment that contributes to their condition.

So the "myth" is busted only if it states that ADHD is caused by too much sugar. But I don't think that "myth" is typically what people mean when they posit a relationship between sugar and "hyperactivity." They typically just mean that when kids eat sugar, they get more energetic and rambunctious than when they don't. They probably don't usually mean to insist that sugar itself is the cause of a clinical condition.

Maybe sometimes they do mean that. If so, fine. The article can debunk that "myth." But why not just clarify that's the "myth" it's debunking?

A real apology

In Cook County, Illinois, the race for the Democratic nominee for state's attorney (pretty much the same thing as a district attorney in other places), is very narrow. The primary was held a week ago (Tuesday, March 19, 2024) and the mail-in ballots are still being counted. 

There's been some confusion on when the mail-in ballots were counted and when they should have been. Some ballots apparently were received the day before the actual primary day. The chair of the board chose to postpone counting those ballots, presumably because he believed counting them would have slowed the process and that those ballots probably wouldn't have determined the outcome of the race. In other words, he didn't think the race would be as close as it was.

Here is the Chicago Sun-Times quoting him:

"'I traded speed for accuracy in reporting out numbers this week as quickly as I could,' Bever [Election Board Chair] said. 'I truly regret this error on my part and for the confusion that it has caused the voters of Chicago.'"

Assuming there's nothing more to the context that the Sun-Times has left out, that's quite a good apology. Short, to the point, and taking responsibility for a decision that turned out to be wrong.  

I'm sometimes critical of demands for "real apologies" and of criticisms against alleged "non-apology apologies." The people who make those demands tend to be very selective in how they apply those demand, and they often don't practice what they preach. The alleged "non-apology apologies" are very often more sincere than they're given credit for. Or the same people calling for sincere apologies would denounce actually sincere apologies. Or the alleged "non-apology apologies" still serve a very useful, sometimes more useful purpose than a "real apology" would have been.

But it's refreshing to see a real apology when it's actually made.

IVF is different

[Note: I edited this post substantially on March 8, 2024]

You may have heard of the recent Alabama Supreme Court case that identifies embryos, created through the in-vitro fertilization process (IVF) and then frozen, as children. At least, that's how the Washington Post describes the decision [paywall]. I haven't read the actual case and am prepared for it to have said something a little different. But the gist appears to be that the court recognizes IVF embryos as human and states people can be sued for wrongful death if they mishandle the embryos.

With that decision comes the usual concern about the courts' ever stronger restrictions against abortion rights. I understand that concern. But I see an important distinction here. In cases of unwanted pregnancies, the zygote/embryo is enmeshed with the body of the woman. Whether it is a human life or not, its existence is so implicated with the woman's body, that it is a part of her body. 

I believe someone can accept that view and can believe that therefore the woman has the moral prerogative to abort and ought to have the legal right to do so--all the while believing, as I do, that life begins at conception. One can hold both those views consistently.

IVF is different.

I don't like Dr. Strangelove (the film)

(Note: I edited this post on January 23, 2024. Most of my edits were to clarify or fix typos or bad phrasings. But I also added an explanatory sentence to one of my paragraphs.)

I'm not a fan of the film Dr. Strangelove. I don't like it. I'm supposed to like it. I'm supposed to find it hilarious. But I don't like it. 

I don't find it funny, certainly not laugh-out-loud funny. To be clear, when I saw it, I chuckled at a few things. But I didn't find any of the jokes "side-splitting" and I didn't start "crying with laughter" (those quotations are from Simon Dillon's review of the film, but characteristic of how I hear most fans describe it).

I understand the jokes. I know why I'm supposed to laugh. I just don't want to. Yes, I get the irony and satire. I know, for example, why "peace is our profession" is supposed to be a ridiculous motto for a branch of the military. (However, it doesn't take much effort to understand the argument that a strong military is necessary to ensure peace. Understanding the argument doesn't mean you have to agree with it, but it can temper the supposed hilarity.)

Maybe satire is what's intended when Slim Pickens's character jumps on the bomb at the end of the film and rides it down from the plane howling like a cowboy. I don't know. Maybe the message is that bomber pilots are ridiculously crazy? Again, I know that it's supposed to be a funny but also a "man, that's a deep critique" scene. But I find it more annoying than humorous.

Dr. Strangelove the character isn't all that funny. Again, I get the satire. The U.S. (and probably the Soviet Union) used former Nazi scientists to advise them on weapons systems. And Dr. Strangelove is a former Nazi scientist who has a hard time preventing his hand from springing up in a Hitler salute. I get the humor, but frankly I don't find it "weeping-with-laughter hysterical," to again quote Simon Dillon.

People who know the film know that Peter Sellers plays three of the characters, including Dr. Strangelove. You know Peter Sellers, right? He's a very, very talented actor who we're all supposed to like. I'm just not super impressed by him. Granted, he probably really is a great actor, but to me he's just an actor. And three roles? Maybe in 1964 that was a new thing. But in 1997, when I saw the film, it was a tired old ploy. And even in 1964, it was just the same guy playing three roles.

What's the argument of the film? That nuclear war is bad? Who doesn't believe that? Who didn't believe that in 1964? Okay, maybe Curtis LeMay. Maybe a few others who aren't actually disturbed individuals. But even most of those who advocate for Nuclear Utilization Target Selection don't look forward to what the world will look like when it's put into practice. They probably see it as a grim tactic for a grim situation and a grim time.

Another potential argument for the film: Defense systems and plans might have a logic of their own and start a war even when those responsible don't want that to happen. Or related: One rogue person might make decisions that activates those systems and starts a war that world leaders don't want. As arguments go, those are good ones, I guess. They're worth thinking about. But I can think about it without pretending to laugh at the fact that one character is named "Bat Guano" and another is named "Rex Turgidson."

Look, too many people like the film for me to be confident that it's as bad as I think it is. Maybe the emperor really has clothes. (I dislike the "emperor no clothes" aphorism, but I'm using it now.) But maybe, just maybe, others feel as I do, that they're expected to like the movie but that they don't really find it funny or even a good film. 

Post script: In the above blog post, I pull a lot of quotations from Simon Dillon's review of Dr. Strangelove. I obviously don't share his enthusiasm for that movie. I used his review because it is emblematic of the type of praise I hear about that film. But I want to say that Dillon is worth reading, and I enjoy his blog very much and recommend it.