Monthly Archives: August 2015

NewScientist (28 July 2015, paywall) reports on the capabilities of an excited human cell:

[Matjaž] Humar and his colleagues developed three ways to get cells to emit visible light. The first involved injecting each one with a tiny oil droplet, forming an optical cavity which could be filled with fluorescent dye. Shining a light pulse on to the cavity excited the dye atoms into emitting light in a tightly focused beam. …

Tagging cells with fluorescent dyes is a common and relatively easy way for researchers to label cells by getting them to emit light, but this produces a relatively broad range of wavelengths, making it difficult to distinguish between differently tagged cells.

However laser light is characterised by having an extremely narrow range of wavelengths. That means it is theoretically possible, using these new techniques, to give every single cell in the human body a unique, identifiable laser signature, Humar says.

CNN reports President Obama has compared the GOP to the hardliners in Iran:

“What I said is absolutely true, factually,” Obama told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria in an interview that will air in full Sunday.

“The truth of the matter is, inside of Iran, the people most opposed to the deal are the Revolutionary Guard, the Quds Force, hardliners who are implacably opposed to any cooperation with the international community,” Obama said.

This is rather interesting since the GOP is also a party that is suffering declining popularity, even as it continues to dominate the legislature, as we see here.

I put the GOP’s faltering partially to their use of RINO, as I noted in an unrelated post here:

Well, ever hear the acronym RINO?  It’s Republicans in Name Only, and is used by conservative Republicans against the moderates to chisel them from the mainstream of the party, and then eject them into the formless political void.   I’ve become convinced that it is one of main operational mechanisms that is “purifying”, if I may use the term without laughing, the GOP into nothingness, splitting off non-conforming members on less and less significant features until all the RINO-users are pointing at each other, spitting their potent curse in confidence; ideological purity, to use Mr. Brodsky’s fine phrase.

Well, most interestingly is this article, from AL Monitor‘s Rohollah Faghihi:

Larijani, known as a moderate conservative, has been chairing parliament since 2008. Following the disputed 2009 presidential election and its violent aftermath, Larijani was labeled as “the silent man of sedition” by hard-liners who charged that he was refraining from condemning the protests. Today’s conservative camp, which is increasingly defined by its hard-liners, has seen many of its senior members separate from it in past years. These include Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani, chairman of the Expediency Council; Ali Akbar Nategh-Nuri, head of the Supreme Leader’s Inspection Office; and President Hassan Rouhani, a moderate conservative who remains loyal to his longtime patron, Rafsanjani.

Rafsanjani and Nategh-Nuri have been the target of conservative infighting. Both were initially marginalized by hard-liners who supported Mahmoud Ahmadinejad against Rafsanjani in the 2005 presidential election. But that wasn’t the last of it. In the televised presidential debates with candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi preceding the 2009 vote, Ahmadinejad accused Rafsanjani and Nategh-Nuri’s sons of corruption on live television. After these accusations in front of millions of Iranian viewers, neither Rafsanjani nor Nategh-Nuri were supported by their old conservative friends.

These incidents point to an overarching trend over the years — more moderate figures have been forced to part ways with the conservative camp. As a result, the latter is now dominated by hard-liners. This trajectory was accelerated under Ahmadinejad, who strengthened hard-liners more than at any point in the history of the Islamic Republic.

Bolded by me.  So the Iranian hard-liners engage in their own version of purification, achieving a higher level of obdurate agreement at the expense of fewer voices, and probably less sympathy from the populace.  One wonders how far it’ll go.  From another AL Monitor article:

One of these figures is Seyed Morteza Rashidi, who is based in the holy city of Qom. Since the conclusion of the nuclear deal earlier this month, Rashidi has lashed out at Rouhani and the negotiating team — including Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi — in over 20 Facebook posts. He argues that “the Islamic Revolution is now controlled by those who do not even believe in its principles, but are also as Westernized as one can get.” One week after the agreement was struck, Rashidi wrote on his Facebook page: “The deal, signed by enemies of the Revolution, is legally too flawed. It seems that Iranian negotiators are either traitors or uneducated individuals.”

Rashidi often fills his page with quotes and pictures of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. There are numerous other pro-Khamenei young people active on social networks, many of whom say they don’t fit into any Principlist grouping. They say they follow the path of “Imam Khamenei” and that they’re willing to give their lives for him.

So, if the treaty is approved by Supreme Leader Khamenei, will he be the next one boosted out of the Conservative camp?

The unwillingness to compromise, the certainty of the rightness of their positions in a situation in which even the most skilled and knowledgeable experts will acknowledge a basic uncertainty – this phraseology could be applied to the Iranian hardliners or the GOP with equal facility.

The mark of political immaturity?  Obduracy.  Political maturity?  Reserve judgment, ask pointed, relevant questions about the critical matters – and if the answers are satisfactory, vote for it, and if they are not, vote against it.  Use it to play political games, to achieve evanescent political superiority?  A waste of opportunity to make real progress.

From a different viewpoint …

Courtesy SpaceWeather.com.

At least they talk about it.  International Business Times touched on it:

Popular Turkish Muslim televangelist Ahmet Mahmut Ünlü wants to set the record straight by refuting the comments made by noted Islam expert Ali Riza Demircan, who claimed that “advanced oral sex” was a forbidden act under the Islamic religion. Ünlü says the Quran does not stipulate anywhere that oral sex is illegal.

“Do not invent a lie on behalf of Allah,” Ünlü, known more commonly as Cübbeli Ahmet Hoca, told viewers of his televised sermon, according to Turkish newspaper Hürriyet Daily News. “Brothers, let’s speak frankly: [Islam’s] Shafi’i sect allows this act, as it considers human semen a clean substance,” he said, adding that though the Hanafi sect does claim that semen is dirty, the act of oral sex is not.

Last week, a conversation about religion between television host Pelin Çift and Demircan deviated when Demircan delved into what sexual practices were deemed haram — or forbidden — under Islam during a program on a state-run television channel. Demircan declared “advanced oral sex” was one of them, along with anal sex and other “sadistic sexual acts.” Demircan said that engaging in these acts, even between married couples, is considered haram for Muslims.

Reportedly, his co-host on the show had some problems with the topic, reports the Hurriyet Daily News:

Speaker Pelin Çift burst into laughs when she confronted with the sudden bombardment of sexual references during the talk on religion which had been progressing somberly by that time.

“You see, Sister Pelin, you had been talking so comfortably. Now you are not able to ask a question,” Demircan told the speaker as she laughed.

“Do you know what my problem is?” the theologian continued. “For God’s sake, my hodja, what’s your problem?” Çift answered.

Pinar Tremblay at AL Monitor troubles herself to go a little further:

The most popular reaction, however, came from another Islamic personality, Robed (Cubbeli) Ahmet Hoca. A senior figure in the Ismail Aga religious order, Ahmet Hoca is known for his love of the limelight and controversial remarks. …

Ahmet Hoca’s blessing of oral sex generated another round of satirical exchanges on social media, and before one could declare the discussion over, Demircan came back with a personal retort against Ahmet Hoca, saying, “After the TRT program, I received several thank you notes and prayers. I am delighted to contribute to the understanding of what is forbidden. This is a crucial matter as it leads to conflict among couples and even to divorce. When we speak of what is forbidden, I understand those in denial, those who are engaged in extramarital affairs, gays, lesbians, erotic site owners and [sex toy] salespeople to be disturbed, but I don’t understand short-sighted Muslims. Are they disturbed by being reminded what is forbidden in Islam because they are committing these sins?” …

Indeed, these sexual debates offer intriguing clues about the social, economic and political values in contemporary Turkish understanding of religion. As the marketplace of religious orders has grown, televangelists or sheikhs from these orders have become much more tolerated in the public domain.

Al-Monitor contacted several theologians and government imams from the Religious Affairs Directorate (RAD), but they were unwilling to comment. One scholar said, “You should not write about oral sex. It will hurt your reputation.” When asked how respected religious elders can discuss the issue so freely, the scholar replied, “They are all men, occasionally a few older women. Young women should not speak about these matters.”

Indeed, the scholar has a point. Speaking about sexual matters in Turkey is another field, like security and military politics, reserved for men. Although it may seem progressive to be talking about sexual matters in public, it is more an issue of men preaching to younger men and women about what is permissible, not an open debate. Hence, all women are pretty much expected to do is giggle nervously and look sheepish or shell-shocked. The host Cift is an exquisite example of the immature standard set for women in this regard.

So for all the discussion of oral sex (although apparently never really defined), the role of women remains as the passive recipient.

Whilst loitering ill in my ol’ comfy chair,
What didst I espy,
But an old, creepy movie
Glorying in all black and white!

The Vampire Bat (1939),
With stars of yore,
Such as Wray, and Atwill,
Douglas and Eburne!

Prepared was I, for another drear’
Plot, executed with no excitation or bon
Mot, but only to accumulate
A little more green to buy more rear.

So much was the surprise,
Not a character of cardboard,
Faces of character,
Characters … memorable!

Indeed, such a lovely twist,
To please this fevered brain,
I can only give,
Three stars out of four!

(The sound editor should have been shot!)

In a recent article by Melissa Healy of the Los Angeles Times (and syndicated to other newspapers like the Minneapolis Star Tribune), she lays out a horror story about Alzheimer’s.  She writes:

Over the next 35 years, about 28 million baby boomers will likely develop Alzheimer’s disease, and the annual bill for their care will balloon from $11.9 billion in 2020 to more than $328 billion in 2040, says an analysis released last week.

Those numbers do not pass the smell test — at all.  I’ll show you why in a moment.  Clearly one of two things happened.  Either reporter Healy paraphrased what the analysis really said, and distorted the accuracy of the data in the process (possibly by attributing all Alzheimer’s cases to baby boomers, and not to the entire population).  Or Healy didn’t do adequate fact checking, and the analysis itself is completely bogus.

Why?  Let’s look into the numbers a bit.

Baby boomers are those Americans born between 1946 and 1964.  According to the Census Bureau, there were a total of 76 million births during those years.  (Strangely, when I add up the births per year for each of those years, I get about 74 million when rounding to the nearest ten-thousand.)

A first “smell test” or “do the numbers even make sense” question would be to ask, could there really be 28 million out of 76 million people getting Alzheimer’s disease?  That’s an astonishing 36.8%, more than one in three, people will develop Alzheimer’s over the next 35 years!  It’s an epidemic!  Or is it?

The same organization that provided the numbers used by journalist Healy also says this (PDF):

• 11 percent of people age 65 and older have Alzheimer’s.
• 32 percent of people age 85 and older have Alzheimer’s.

Even if you believe those above numbers, there’s no way to get to 36.8% of 76 million baby boomers.  First, 11 million of those 76 million boomers had already died by the year 2012.

Inconveniently, we also had just over 11 million immigrants of the same age, so we were at about 76 million (76.4 to be more exact) baby boomer aged people living in the USA — in 2012.  Do all immigrant baby boomers get Alzheimer’s?  Something is needed to pull the average up.

The average lifespan for baby boomers ranges from 62.9 years to 69.7.  Over those coming 35 years when this Alzheimer’s epidemic among baby boomers is supposed to occur, what age will boomers be?

In 2015, the oldest were 2015 minus 1946 equals 69.  Already the oldest were at the average age of death.  The youngest were 2015 minus 1964 equals 51.  Most of the youngest can be presumed to be still alive.  Since it’s an average age of death, not a median, we cannot literally say half of the oldest are already dead, but certainly a significant number are.

In 35 years, in 2050, when we will allegedly have had 28 million baby boomers develop Alzheimer’s, the oldest boomers will be 2050 minus 1946 equals 104.  Oh hey, I’m sure there will be lots of those!  And the youngest boomers will be only 2050 minus 1964 equals 86 — for a group of people who on average die at age 66.9 for men and 73.7 for women.

So how many baby boomers will even be alive in 2050?  Some estimates put that number at about 18 million.  There’s only about 75 million alive today in 2015.  By 2028, the number is estimated to fall to 65 million.

Clearly there cannot be 28 million baby boomers with Alzheimer’s in 35 years (2050), since there will be far less than that number even alive.

The only ways to get to 28 million baby boomers with Alzheimer’s disease over the next 35 years is to assume nearly all of the boomers alive today in 2015 will live to be 85 years of age, far exceeding all the actuarial table estimates.  Or that Alzheimer’s will actually cause the death of more than a third of those alive.

All the numbers say that heart disease, lung cancer, lung disease, diabetes and strokes lead that hit parade, though.  For adults over 65, Alzheimer’s comes in number 10 behind 9 other deadly causes.

Clearly that 28 million baby boomers with Alzheimer’s number is bogus.

How did it get that way?  Maybe it was meant to be 28 million newly diagnosed cases of Alzheimer’s over the next 35 years in US residents of all ages, not just boomers?  Or even adult residents, since over 35 years, a lot of Generation X will become senior citizens, and even Millennials will be hitting late middle age.  Or maybe the Alzheimer’s Association’s math is a bit fuzzy, and in calculating that number, they mixed apples and oranges because it looked so impressive.  Likely it’s to the Association’s advantage to have bigger numbers.

Regardless, even without doing all the math above, 28 million out of 76 million adults alive today are not all going to develop Alzheimer’s.  It’s that simple.  It fails the smell test.

New Horizons during a spin test…

… from myself will abate as we must attend a funeral out of state, and I appear to have contracted a head cold.  Chris may step in, though, and with my thanks.

Pope Francis, the latest in a series of pontiffs, did not write this:

Which of these two (real) companies would you invest in?

The first boasts in its annual report that it has a single goal: “Maximizing shareholder value.”

A few lines later, it promises: “We are deeply committed to building the value of the Firm … in everything we do, we are constantly identifying and evaluating ways to add value.”

After discussing ways to boost the company’s share price in a conference call, the CEO emphasizes that “our goal is simple; that’s to create value for our shareholders.”

The other company takes a different approach.

Its annual report states that the business “was not originally created to be a company.” Customers who are key to its future “believe in something beyond simply maximizing profits,” it reads.

Its CEO once stated bluntly, “We’re definitely not in it for the money,” and admitted to a friend that “I don’t know business stuff.”

One analyst wrote that management simply “doesn’t care that much about making money.”

This is actually, if I recall properly, a bit of promotional mail from The Motley Fool‘s Morgan Housel, a financial columnist who I occasionally read but do not follow, despite finding his writing appealing.  And the thesis of this column is appealing, too.  The first company, it turns out, is the infamous Lehman Brothers, a financial services firms that went suddenly bankrupt during the recent Great Recession.  The second is … Facebook.  Now reportedly making millions of dollars.

Housel goes on:

Companies that focus on profits often lose customers, while companies that focus on customers often find profits.

As much as I want to believe in the thesis, my contrarian side simply notes that Lehman Brothers was a financial services company.  They were about money – from whom to borrow, to whom to lend, where to invest.  This is all about money, and their statements reflect that.  The fact of their failure doesn’t mean their basic commitment of return on investment was wrong – it may mean they were simply incompetent in managing a business in a sector which has proven to be more and more difficult to successfully navigate (and so incompetent may be an unkind, even harsh word for folks who were inadvertent explorers, and were eaten by dragons).

His contrasting example, Facebook, went public in 2012.  Think of that.  His example has been public for three years, and while successful in that time frame, three years doesn’t make for a market dominating monolith like, say, Coke, or Berkshire-Hathaway.  It’s a services company, not something making useful tangibles with a large moat, and frankly Facebook doesn’t inspire great love – I find it annoying in many respects.  And I expect if the right new service company came along in the future, Facebook might become a ghost town.  Remember Eastman-Kodak?¹

This weak article is all the more unfortunate as it comes in the context of Pope Francis’ remarks about capitalism:

And behind all this pain, death and destruction there is the stench of what Basil of Caesarea called “the dung of the devil”. An unfettered pursuit of money rules. The service of the common good is left behind. Once capital becomes an idol and guides people’s decisions, once greed for money presides over the entire socioeconomic system, it ruins society, it condemns and enslaves men and women, it destroys human fraternity, it sets people against one another and, as we clearly see, it even puts at risk our common home.

Whether or not you’re Catholic (and I’m agnostic), the Pope’s remarks concerning a dominant economic systems are worth reflection.  Once capital becomes an idol is a lovely way to remind the learned² that the economic system should be our servant in the pursuit of larger, worthy goals – not our master that oppresses us.  Morgan had an opportunity to reflect on the proper role of capitalism (or even any economic system) within society, how to interpret it for the benefit of investors – and missed it.  Tying it in with Pope Francis’ remarks would have brought extra leverage to the argument.  I regret his unforced error.³

¹ I am not directly invested in any of the companies mentioned in this post.
² We’ll skip the poseurs whose single lesson from their economic studies is that regulating business is bad for business and therefore shouldn’t be permitted.
³ Perhaps someday I’ll work up the hubris to take a shot at it.

Just as hardliners in the United States are loathe to give President Obama his diplomatic achievement, Iranian hardliners also do not like the deal.  The Blaze reports the comments of the commander of the Basij:

“Any Iranian who reads the Vienna documents will hate the U.S. 100 times more (than the past),” the commander of Iran’s Basij forces, Brig. Gen. Mohammad Reza Naqdi said, according to Iran’s Fars News Agency.

Naqdi asserted that the U.S. would use the agreement as a pretext to continue pressuring Iran.

“The U.S. needs the agreement merely to legalize the sanctions and continue pressure against Iran,” he said. …

The Times of Israel reports the another remark from Naqdi:

The nuclear agreement reached between six world powers and Tehran treats the Islamic Republic unfairly and will only increase anti-American sentiment in the country, a top Iranian general said Tuesday, according to state-run media.

A day after the United Nations Security Council adopted the pact amid recriminations from senior Iranian hard-liners, Gen. Mohammad Reza Naqdi claimed Washington was using the accord as pretext for a future US military strike against Iran.

The command of the Revolutionary Guard is also upset:

Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari, head of the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps told the Iranian news agency Tasnim that “Some parts of the draft have clearly crossed the Islamic Republic’s red lines, especially in Iran’s military capabilities. We will never accept it.”

AL Monitor‘s Alireza Ramezani summarizes one the hard liners may really fear – the return of the Reformist movement in Iran:

“Only military figures or those close to military circles have mainly been critics of the deal so far,” a political journalist in Tehran, who asked not to be named, told Al-Monitor.

Indeed, the harsh — but apparently finely calibrated — objections to the nuclear agreement seem to be aimed more at pressuring Rouhani than at the deal itself. This is not surprising as the accord will — economically speaking — bring benefits for virtually every group and faction. The agreement has averted possible war and could bring billions of dollars in foreign investment into the struggling economy, which is largely in the hands of conservative actors.

Indeed, it appears that pressure on the Rouhani administration from rival groups will persist as long as moderates, who have obvious links with radical Reformists, are in power. However, this pressure is set to intensify in the next several months. Key elections are coming up in February, including for parliament, a significant stronghold for ultraconservatives who have anxiously been losing ground. The president and his allies need to seize enough seats in the conservative-controlled Majles or face significant challenges to his expected 2017 bid for re-election.

Not unlike our hard liners – not afraid of the agreement, but what it might do to their current positions in society.