Beware activists masquerading as scientists; they're usually just working out their pet peeves. Case in point: a particularly unscientific "study" done by a hypochondriac who thinks dryer sheets are causing cancer:

The research was carried out by Professor Anne Steinemann, an expert on the effects of pollution at the University of Washington in Seattle.

Researchers analysed the fumes emitted from tumble dryers when cycles were run with the detergent and scented dryer sheets.

Analysis of the captured gases found more than 25 volatile organic compounds, including seven hazardous air pollutants, coming out of the vents.

See, it uses all those sciencey-sounding words like "analysed" and "research" and "expert." The study is here (PDF), if you want to look. Professor Steinemen claims that dryer sheets can "affect not only personal health, but also public and environmental health. The chemicals can go into the air, down the drain and into water bodies."

There's a major problem with Steinemen's "study." Mere exposure to chemicals does not lead to cancer. She completely sweeps the potential toxicity (or lack thereof) under the rug. This is the same flaw that the folks claiming that cell phones cause brain cancer make. Yes, if you hit the brain with enough RF bad things will happen to it. No, cell phones do not emit enough.

Like her irrational fear of dryer sheets, Steinemen has shared some other interesting beliefs in the past. Steinemen, who does not live in Missouri, once asked the state to ban air fresheners in schools. Apparently, her "studies" weren't getting enough traction, so she went right to the authorities.

This is the tried-and-true method for hack scientists to gain traction. They must compensate for a lack of evidence by simply screaming louder, claiming epic-levels of danger, and crying "It's for the CHILDREN!" while hoping that their shrillness will cause risk-averse government authorities to give in to their silly theories. When it comes to dryer sheets, Steinemen gives the game away too easily:

This is an interesting source of pollution because emissions from dryer vents are essentially unregulated and unmonitored.

Of course, Anne. Of course.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 08:15 AM | Comments (254)
Post contains 361 words, total size 3 kb.

One advantage Romney has in a battle with Perry is that most of Romney's flaws are already known and, as they say, "baked in the cake." Romney's counterattacks will probably do more damage, because that will be new information (or new supposed information) for voters.

He says that "Mitt" is finally starting to realize RomneyCare is a problem (? -- I think he knew), and calls it a "total debacle."

More interesting, to me, is his effort to define himself in general terms.

Perry used the radio appearance to help advance his image as a candidate who deplores the Washington establishment; he also worked to distinguish himself from former President George W. Bush, to whom he's often compared despite the reputedly poor relationship between Perry and the Bush family.

"I'm Rick Perry and I am who I am and I've got my own record. I'm not George Bush, I don't try to be," Perry said. He griped that some opponents criticize him because "I speak plainly."

"I am not an establishment figure," Perry said. "I dislike Washington; I think it's a seedy place."

Posted by: Ace at 07:53 AM | Comments (106)
Post contains 193 words, total size 1 kb.

Via Byron York.

There's way too much stupid for a full Fisking, so just a few highlights.

This year’s Republican primary season offers us an important opportunity to confront our scruples about the privacy of faith in public life — and to get over them. We have an unusually large number of candidates, including putative front-runners, who belong to churches that are mysterious or suspect to many Americans. Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are Mormons, a faith that many conservative Christians have been taught is a “cult” and that many others think is just weird. (Huntsman says he is not “overly religious.”) Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum are all affiliated with fervid subsets of evangelical Christianity, which has raised concerns about their respect for the separation of church and state, not to mention the separation of fact and fiction.

We need to get over, "our scruples about the privacy of faith in public life"?

Put aside for a moment the fact that liberals, and that's the "us" Keller is talking to and about, have never had any such scruples when it comes to Republicans. What Keller is really saying is, GOP office seekers with strong religious beliefs better not bring their faith to bear on public matters but they can be damn sure we liberals are going to smear them with our misunderstanding and misrepresentations about that faith.

I don't know anything about Perry or Bachamnn's religion but Rick Santorum is a Roman Catholic. That Keller, who says he was raised Catholic, thinks that's a "fervid subset of evangelical Christianity" tells you far more about Keller's view of religion than any beliefs a candidate may or may not hold.

I honestly donÂ’t care if Mitt Romney wears Mormon undergarments beneath his Gap skinny jeans, or if he believes that the stories of ancient American prophets were engraved on gold tablets and buried in upstate New York, or that MormonismÂ’s founding prophet practiced polygamy (which was disavowed by the church in 1890). Every faith has its baggage, and every faith holds beliefs that will seem bizarre to outsiders. I grew up believing that a priest could turn a bread wafer into the actual flesh of Christ.

But I do want to know if a candidate places fealty to the Bible, the Book of Mormon (the text, not the Broadway musical) or some other authority higher than the Constitution and laws of this country. It matters to me whether a president respects serious science and verifiable history — in short, belongs to what an official in a previous administration once scornfully described as “the reality-based community.” I do care if religious doctrine becomes an excuse to exclude my fellow citizens from the rights and protections our country promises.

First, nice way to repeat Andrew "Where's the Placenta?" Sullivan's Mormon underwear talking point.

More importantly, Keller is saying Christian candidates who talk about their faith must demonstrate to him (and presumably NY Times readers) that their religious beliefs don't disqualify them from public service.

Imagine if someone said that that about a personal who was say, oh just to pick a religion at random, a Muslim. I'm sure the NY Times would consider that a legitimate line of inquiry.

Oh wait, someone did and guess what? The NY Times was not amused.

Among a dreary Republican field, Herman Cain stands out for using religious bigotry to gain political traction for his presidential ambitions.

Mr. Cain, a former pizza executive, started a few months ago by telling a reporter that he would not be comfortable with a Muslim in his cabinet. During a televised debate last month, he said his discomfort was due to the intention of some Muslims “to kill us.”

Don't question the Muslims but those crazy Christians? Questions must be asked! Aspersions must be cast! (FTR- I was not a fan of Cain's stances either)

Speaking of asking questions, there are far more questions being asked about the current GOP field than were ever asked about then Senator Obama. In fact, asking questions about Obama's beliefs or pointing out that his background isn't exactly the normal story we expect in a President is something that tends to drive the left (video link) nuts.

It seems the executive editor of the NY Times thinks candidates for President who are proud Christians are somehow "the other" and that it's not only OK but an important public service to question their beliefs.

I'm sure this fear of religion will resonate throughout the Times' Manhattan and DC home territory. Meanwhile, the Republican candidates will go on campaigning in the rest of the country where "religion" isn't a dirty word.

Posted by: DrewM at 06:29 AM | Comments (245)
Post contains 816 words, total size 6 kb.

From Voice of America:

Former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, in a memoir obtained by the New York Times, says he urged former President George W. Bush to bomb a suspected Syrian nuclear reactor site in 2007.

The report says Cheney advised Bush to take "military action against the reactor," which was attacked by Israel a short time later. Cheney says his advice was turned down by the president and his advisers in favor of a diplomatic approach.

Wimps. I remember an Ace headline back in '05. The meme in the left wing news back then was about Iraq exit strategy. I must have heard "Bush has no exit strategy" 18 times a day for a while there. Then Ace contacted his sources in DC and wrote this headline: Bush Has Exit Strategy... For Syria. I read that and blew my beverage onto the computer screen. Anyway. Looks like Ace and Cheney were thinking along the same lines.

I think we should open this thread up to other unreported Cheney news.

Follow me on Twitter. more...

Posted by: rdbrewer at 05:33 AM | Comments (316)
Post contains 204 words, total size 2 kb.

[I'm kind of busy this morning, so I'm afraid this is just going to be a link-dump. Sorry.]

The "meh" CBO report is even more "meh" than expected.

Steve Jobs calling it a day as CEO of Apple.

Why the Eurobond idea is stupid.

Looking forward to AmericaÂ’s next credit downgrade.

That whole Greek loan-collateral dustup in Europe is getting worse.

Keynesian economics versus regular economics.

There are two ways to view Keynesian stimulus through transfer programs. It's either a divine miracle—where one gets back more than one puts in—or else it's the macroeconomic equivalent of bloodletting.

Marcellus Shale “bonanza” not such a bonanza after all.

Gold -- the worldÂ’s currency. (But it did fall to earth a bit.)

More “green” FAIL.

All eyes look to Teh Bernank.

I wondered how long it would be before some moonstruck Donk with fond misremembrances of FDR would trot out the “bring back the WPA!” line, and lo! so it happened.

Regarding the desire for a WPA-style jobs plan: Why not use spoons?

How QE2 went wrong. Technical, but interesting if youÂ’re into that kind of thing.

This whole article could be replaced with five words: AND THEN A MIRACLE HAPPENS!

“Kill the quants before they kill us.”

Reminder: A VAT is a bad idea if you're a fan of small government.

UPDATE 1: Deficits mean nothing! Spend! Spend like the wind, you wingnut gun-toting Jesus-shouting slope-heads!
more...

Posted by: Monty at 04:29 AM | Comments (122)
Post contains 266 words, total size 4 kb.

It is time once again for our monthly straw poll. Let's see where the moron horde is at with the GOP candidates.

Some of you are going to have to make a hard choice this month. I finally took a certain former governor who hasn't announced a candidacy off the list. If she runs or even indicates that she's planning to run, of course I'll add her again. But enough is enough.

The other change this month is to take Tim Pawlenty off the list.

Prior AOSHQ straw polls: July, June, May.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 03:30 AM | Comments (260)
Post contains 121 words, total size 1 kb.

Dick Cheney once killed and ate a congressman in front of a visiting troop of girl scouts, as part of his demonstration of “how a bill becomes law.”

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 03:06 AM | Comments (49)
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.

Star Wars Extravaganza!
The Empire Strikes Back: Han and Leia - The Deleted Scene:

But wait - there's also photographic proof of Leia's affair With Chewie:

Which isn't that suprising given that Chewie cleans up well:

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:20 PM | Comments (748)
Post contains 585 words, total size 7 kb.

Capt. Owen Honors was removed from command of the USS Enterprise earlier this year over a series of videos he made when he previously served as the ship's Executive Officer. After a hearing, a panel of 3 admirals has decided to allow Honors to continue in the Navy rather than discharging him after 28 years of service.

The former executive officer of the carrier Enterprise can remain on active duty despite a finding that his job performance aboard the carrier fell short of standards, a Navy board of inquiry decided Wednesday.

Capt. Owen Honors was brought to the board of inquiry for co-producing dozens of controversial and sometimes bawdy video vignettes shown aboard the ship in 2006 and 2007.

The three-admiral board unanimously agreed Honors committed misconduct, failed to demonstrate acceptable qualities of leadership required of an officer in his grade and failed to conform to prescribed standards of military deportment. But it also voted 3-0 that Honors “be retained in the naval service.”

Given this in his record, his effective service has ended anyway. He's never going to get another command and he still faces an unrelated retirement board but he won't be kicked out or punished further over the videos.

As I wrote after his relief and the firing of several of his senior officers, I can see the case against Honors. This was a profoundly dumb thing to do given the world we live in. If you're going to command a ship, you need to have the ability to see beyond the moment and how things might play out and look in different lights. Fair or not, that's just reality.

There were also some very questionable (to be charitable) elements to a few of the videos, like calling out an individual crew member as a coward.

On the other hand, Honors consistently received the highest fitness reports and by almost all reports, the crew reacted well to the videos. It seems Honors was being punished for something that was more or less accepted in the world in which it was designed but judged harshly in retrospect. What's funny to a tight-knit crew that's spending the better part of six months together will probably look odd and even offensive a few years later and few thousand miles away in DC/Norfolk. Which standard carries the day?

Galrahn at Information Dissemination has been strongly critical of Honors almost from the start and he has two posts today that are well worth reading on the subject.

I found this post especially interesting because I think at the time he and I had a discussion about this on Twitter. In short, if Honors' conduct was acceptable to his superiors inside the somewhat insular world of Naval Aviation (and given his fitness reports it seems to have been) but not to other leaders in the Navy, then the Navy has a much bigger problem than some off color videos.

But apparently we simply didn't get the memo, because as it turns out, Captain Honors represents the kind of character, professionalism, and conduct that is valued by at least three Flag officers in the naval aviation community today - because their ruling specifically says that despite cited misconduct, they want Captain Honors on their team. Captain Honors is one of them, indeed exactly like all of them from a career perspective.

It is hard not to see this result as more evidence and a very visible impact of the culture problem in naval aviation specifically cited by the investigation report. Sexual harassment, discrimination, improper conduct... these simply aren't priorities to a leader who trivializes these matters as part of his professional conduct. It is also impossible to suggest these are priorities for any Flag officer whose role is to hold accountable those leaders who trivialize those matters as part of their professional conduct. When one removes accountability from leadership, the result is the new acceptable standard.

Admiral Harvey, Commander US Fleet Forces, who had command jurisdiction over Honors certainly felt Honors fell short of the standards set by the Navy for leaders. more...

Posted by: DrewM at 04:49 PM | Comments (114)
Post contains 990 words, total size 7 kb.

Just reported by Bret Baier. More information when I get it.

Added: Reuters says that the Jobs "has been on medical leave for an undisclosed condition since January 17." He had been suffering from pancreatic cancer. Jobs has been named chairman. Tim Cook is to replace him as CEO.

From the Washington Post:

Steve Jobs has said that he intends to return to the company he founded at the end of June, after a five-month leave he is taking to fight the illness that has left him with a gaunt appearance. In the meantime, Apple will be helmed by Cook, a respected manager little known outside Silicon Valley.

"I know he and the rest of the executive management team will do a great job," Jobs wrote in an e-mail distributed inside the company Wednesday.

The early consensus, among some analysts and Mac fans, is that Cook is an able administrator, though not necessarily one with the sort of salesmanship skills or industry-bending vision as his boss.

Business Insider has Jobs' letter to the board:

To the Apple Board of Directors and the Apple Community:

I have always said if there ever came a day when I could no longer meet my duties and expectations as Apple''s CEO, I would be the first to let you know. Unfortunately, that day has come.

I hereby resign as CEO of Apple. I would like to serve, if the Board sees fit, as Chairman of the Board, director and Apple employee.

As far as my successor goes, I strongly recommend that we execute our succession plan and name Tim Cook as CEO of Apple.

I believe Apple''s brightest and most innovative days are ahead of it. And I look forward to watching and contributing to its success in a new role.

I have made some of the best friends of my life at Apple, and I thank you all for the many years of being able to work alongside you.

Steve

Posted by: rdbrewer at 02:43 PM | Comments (374)
Post contains 339 words, total size 2 kb.