Ben Carson blasts 'vicious,' white liberal critics as ‘the most racist out there’

Dr. Ben Carson on Tuesday blasted his critics for heat he’s taken recently over controversial remarks on gay marriage, calling his white liberal detractors “the most racist out there.”

“They want to shut us up completely, and that’s why the attacks against me have been so vicious,” Carson said on the Mark Levin radio show. “I represent an existential threat to them. They need to shut me up, they need to get rid of me, they can’t find anything else to delegitimize me, so they take my words, misinterpret them, and try to make it seem that I’m a bigot.”

Levin said Carson was being targeted for his race.

“You’re attacked also in many respects because of your race,” Levin said. “You’re not supposed to talk like this, and a lot of white liberals just don’t like it, do they?”

“They’re the most racist people there are because they put you in a little category, a box,” Carson responded. “How could you dare come off the plantation?”

The comments come after the rising GOP star apologized for remarks he made last week linking homosexuality to bestiality.

Carson said that marriage is “a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality — it doesn't matter what they are, they don't get to change the definition.”

NAMBLA is the North American Man/Boy Love Association.

Carson, a professor at Johns Hopkins University, initially defended the comments as taken “out of context and completely misunderstood,” but the furor provoked students at his university to petition to have him removed as this year’s commencement speaker. Carson has said he would step aside if that’s what the students wanted.

Carson became an overnight sensation on the right after criticizing President Obama, who was seated directly to his right, at the National Prayer Breakfast earlier this year.

View Comments

View the original article here

Claims That There Is No Research About The Effectiveness Of Ex-Gay Therapy Are True

Christopher Doyle

Advocates of so-called ex-gay therapy (often referred to as sexual orientation change efforts, or SOCE) are not pleased that the New Jersey legislature is seriously considering a ban on the treatment for minors. The increasingly vocal Christopher Doyle, who works with the infamously disavowed therapist Richard Cohen, penned a reaction for Christian Post asking, “Where is the tolerance” for people who are ex-gay? But his post actually helps outline many of the reasons nobody humors ex-gay therapy.

For example, he reiterated the canard that sexual abuse causes people to be gay:

That’s right, even if your child was sexually abused by a pedophile such as Jerry Sandusky and develops homosexual inclinations as a consequence, he/she may not be able to receive Sexual Orientation Change Effort (SOCE) therapy from a highly educated and skilled professional counselor, social worker, or psychologist. Why, you ask? According to the office of Massachusetts State Representative Carl Sciortino (D), because SOCE is an “archaic vestige of homophobia” and should be banned.

This argument is actually just an inverse of conservatives’ tired claim that gay men are more likely to be pedophiles. Because boys are often the victim of abuse in high-visibility institutions like the Catholic Church, the Boy Scouts of America, or athletic teams and their abusers are male, conservatives conclude that the perpetrator must be gay, even though pedophilia has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Likewise, ex-gay advocates claim that any boy who was once abused by a man and later realizes he is gay must have somehow been swayed or corrupted by the abuse itself. There is nothing to reinforce this conclusion, however, except conservatives’ ability to prey on the vulnerability of these traumatized young people.

Doyle goes on to claim that there is no research available about the outcomes of ex-gay therapy for adolescents:

The problem with this conspiracy is this: There is NOT ONE scientific study that contains any hard data on the outcomes of SOCE for adolescents. Not one!

So when I contacted the offices proposing a ban on SOCE therapies and asked them to cite studies that show “harmful” outcomes for adolescents, they could only point me to position statements from liberal trade organizations, which are known for their one-hand clapping viewpoint, strictly pro-gay and anti-ex-gay. If these organizations were made up of objective scientists that looked at all the evidence, such legislation would not be allowed anywhere.

Doyle unsurprisingly demonstrates a complete ineptness for understanding scientific rigor. His claim is not entirely wrong: there is not one scientific study that contains any hard data on the outcomes of SOCE for anybody. That’s because all of the studies on ex-gay therapy have found that it doesn’t have any effective outcomes — even studies done by researchers who are trying to advocate for the practice.

Moreover, Doyle is attempting to reduce major medical organizations to “liberal trade organizations.” Perhaps he’s bitter on behalf of his partner Cohen, who was permanently expelled from the American Counseling Association for ethical violations in 2002. The American Psychological Association’s 2009 report and resolution against ex-gay therapy was based on a metastudy of 83 peer-reviewed studies from 1960–2007, and few of them were found to be methodologically sound. Among the key findings though were 1) that treatment doesn’t change orientation, 2) it does contribute to distress (through self-stigma, shame, isolation, and rejection), and 3) in contrast, clients whose sexual orientation was affirmed experienced a measurable benefit.

The only argument that Doyle has is that no research has disproven ex-gay therapy. Of course, science does not prove negatives, it just rules out hypotheses that don’t produce results. There is currently no research available disproving the idea that drinking lots of 7-Up cures an in-grown toenail, so perhaps Doyle should pursue some junk science that doesn’t propagate shame and rejection.

View the original article here

Is There a Doctor in the House? Probably Not

One reason for the shortage is the aging of both doctors and their patients.

According to a 2012 Physicians Foundation survey, nearly half of the 830,000 doctors in the U.S. are over 50 and approaching retirement. They are also seeing fewer patients than they did in 2008.

The patient pool is getting older, too, with some 8 million people reaching retirement age every day. Older people need more health services, and some 15 million will be eligible for Medicare in the coming years.

Entering the system in 2014 will be the 30 million additional people with access to services through the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).

"There were shortages in doctors when Massachusetts did their version of the Affordable Care Act," said Ruselle Robinson, a health care business attorney and former general counsel to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health.

"It's hard to say how this will play out with all the new people being added to health care next year," Robinson said.

Younger doctors are also part of the shortage problem. Saddled with medical school debt that can average $250,000 on graduation, many are choosing higher-paid specialties like cardiology or surgery.

"When students leave med school a lot of them are thinking about how I can make the most money," Saag said. "Somehow, we have to figure out a way to reward primary care providers so more will enter that area."

One way to reduce such debt and get doctors into the system more quickly is accelerated education, making medical school three years instead of four — something that is not new but not widely followed.

NYU has such a program now, as does Texas Tech, which is graduating its first class this year under the new schedule. It takes nearly a decade to educate a doctor and the hope is one less year would help cut down on the financial burden.

(Read More: College Roulette: Ask for Financial Aid, or Not?)

"It's not clear yet as to whether this is a good model and how viable it will be," said Dr. Andew Filak, senior associate dean at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine.

"For some students, three years would be adequate," Filak said. "For others, some more time might be necessary to assure that the student has the fundamental knowledge and experience to move on to a residency program."

Other solutions include letting nurse practitioners be more involved at the primary care level. Sixteen states now allow them to see patients for checkups, and ordering and interpreting diagnostic tests.

Some would like more states to adopt similar programs.

"We need to have a lot more nurse practitioners on the job," said Terry Fulmer a nurse and the dean of Bouve College of Health Sciences at Northeastern University.

"Obviously, they don't have the education of a physician, but they are highly trained professionals. And if the outcome is equal to what a doctor would do, it doesn't matter how many hours' training a nurse has," Fulmer said.

Another way to work around the doctor deficit is more team-based care, in which a physician-led team of at least two health care professionals (nurses and doctors) work with each other, the patient and the family.

Getting more medical professionals into the pipeline won't be easy. Though Obamacare authorized more government funds to increase training for primary care doctors, nurse practitioners and physician assistants, that money is set to be cut in the ongoing budget battles.

(Read More: Your Company's Next Health Plan: Drop the Doughnut)

There is some hope. More than 45,000 students applied to medical school last year, up 3.1 percent from 2011. First-time applicants, considered to be a barometer of interest in the field, set a record, increasing by 3.4 percent.

"I think more medical students these days are going in with their eyes wide open and for the right reasons," said Dr. Joel Blass.

"Even dealing with all the regulatory and insurance requirements, I think it's all moving in the right direction," Blass said.

And one expert says it's not so much a scarcity of physicians but of using them in the right way.

"We don't need more physicians, but rather better "team-based workflow tools" to ensure that everyone on the team can work to the highest level of their ability in a safe and efficient manner every day," said Dr. Lyle Berkowitz, Associate Chief Medical Officer of Innovation for Northwestern Memorial Hospital.

"That means using information technology and freeing physicians to spend their time on more complex patients," Berkowitz added.

But many physicians are questioning their profession. In a recent survey of U.S. doctors, more than 84 percent said the profession was in decline. Nearly 60 percent said they wouldn't recommend medicine as a career.

More than 75 percent said they were overextended and as result, nearly 6 percent of doctors said the were working fewer hours than they did in 2008.

"Our medical system is in chaos, and the shortage is part of it," Saag said, who added that Alabama and other nearby states have a shortage of HIV specialists.

"Whether it's getting more doctors or a health care system we can all understand, something needs to change and soon."

View the original article here

World Bank President On Climate Crisis: ‘If There Is No Action Soon, The Future Will Become Bleak’

Jim Yong Kim Promises To Factor In Global Warming “With Every Investment We Make And Every Action We Take.”

You may recall the shocking World Bank Climate Report from November that concluded: “A 4°C [7°F] world can, and must, be avoided” to avert “devastating” impacts.

What impacts? The must-read report warns that “we’re on track for a 4°C warmer world marked by extreme heat-waves, declining global food stocks, loss of ecosystems and biodiversity, and life-threatening sea level rise.”

Now World Bank President Jim Yong Kim has a strong WashPost op-ed that warns “we need to get serious fast” to avoid the looming “climate catastrophe.” He explains:

The signs of global warming are becoming more obvious and more frequent. A glut of extreme weather conditions is appearing globally. And the average temperature in the United States last year was the highest ever recorded….

If there is no action soon, the future will become bleak. The World Bank Group released a reportin November that concluded that the world could warm by 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit (4 degrees Celsius) by the end of this century if concerted action is not taken now.

A world that warm means seas would rise 1.5 to 3 feet, putting at risk hundreds of millions of city dwellers globally. It would mean that storms once dubbed “once in a century” would become common, perhaps occurring every year. And it would mean that much of the United States, from Los Angeles to Kansas to the nation’s capital, would feel like an unbearable oven in the summer.

What does the physician and anthropologist recommend we do?

The world’s top priority must be to get finance flowing and get prices right on all aspects of energy costs to support low-carbon growth. Achieving a predictable price on carbon that accurately reflects real environmental costs is key to delivering emission reductions at scale. Correct energy pricing can also provide incentives for investments in energy efficiency and cleaner energy technologies.

A second immediate step is to end harmful fuel subsidies globally, which could lead to a 5?percent fall in emissions by 2020. Countries spend more than $500?billion annually in fossil-fuel subsidies and an additional $500?billion in other subsidies, often related to agriculture and water, that are, ultimately, environmentally harmful. That trillion dollars could be put to better use for the jobs of the future, social safety nets or vaccines.

Kim certainly talks to the talk when it comes to the implications of the climate crisis for the Bank itself:

Just as the Bretton Woods institutions were created to prevent a third world war, the world needs a bold global approach to help avoid the climate catastrophe it faces today. The World Bank Group is ready to work with others to meet this challenge. With every investment we make and every action we take, we should have in mind the threat of an even warmer world and the opportunity of inclusive green growth.

Let’s hope he means it. The Bank’s inconsistency on climate has been widely noted — see “Why Does the World Bank Say it Cares About Climate Change, But Continue to Aggressively Push Coal?” The Bank has kept financing large coal plants — most infamously providing a $3.75 billion loan for one of the world’s largest coal plants, located in South Africa. The Bank also pushed a 600-MW coal plant in Kosovo.

Even after the report was released, many questions were raised about whether the Bank would walk the walk:

On the basis of the report and this new op-ed, the bank must stop funding all new fossil fuel plants. I use the word “must” because that is the word the report and President Kim repeatedly use.

And it must be “all new fossil fuel plants” because the International Energy Agency has made clear this year with detailed analysis that natural gas isn’t the solution if your goal is staying far from 7°F warming — see IEA’s “Golden Age of Gas Scenario” Leads to More Than 6°F Warming and Out-of-Control Climate Change. It must be noted that even that IEA gas scenario, which results in too much warning, assumes that not only does global oil consumption peak around 2020 — but so does coal! So if one or both of those peaks don’t happen — and they wouldn’t without a high price of carbon and aggressively clean energy deployment starting now — then the Golden Age of Gas is just Hell and High Water, the  “devastating” scenario laid out in the World Bank report.

The findings of the Bank report match those of PricewaterhouseCoopers, which found that limiting warming to even 7°F requires “nearly quadrupling the current rate of decarbonisation.” That means the only rational clean-tech strategy for a non-suicidal species is “Deploy, Deploy, Deploy, R&D, Deploy, Deploy, Deploy“ [yes, not in that order].

And 4°C [7°F]  is not even the high end of projected warming for 2100 if we stay near our current emissions path (see “The IEA And Others Warn Of Some 11°F Warming by 2100).”

Kim’s ending is simple but blunt:

After the hottest year on record in the United States, a year in which Hurricane Sandy caused billions of dollars in damage, record droughts scorched farmland in the Midwest and our organization reported that the planet could become more than 7 degrees warmer, what are we waiting for? We need to get serious fast. The planet, our home, can’t wait.

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here

There Is A Lot At Stake In Sanford, Florida

When someone (or a group) can publicly do this, and no one (President, Attorney General, Governor, Sheriff) condemns it or brings charges as a result, we need no more proof that we are losing our country.

Anybody else think this would have happened in Texas? Perry would have the Texas Rangers rounding those thugs up, like within hours of such an announcement. Governor Scott should demand that the bounty be rescinded or someone is going to jail.

And if any of the GOP candidates expressed outrage (are you listening, Mitt?) over this, I suspect his base would finally get energized.

Meanwhile, the great, silent majority is sitting on its collective hands, while these fringe minorities get more and more outrageous in their actions.

The barbarians are truly at the gate.

View the original article here