Ah, I See. In That Case, It Makes Perfect Sense!. "What's the Matter With Kansas?" is a great book and a fascinating socio-political question. But a more visceral "what the bleeding hell is the matter with Alabama?!?" was the cry of many a Kossack when we learned that Alabama voters had narrowly rejected a constitutional amendment that would have "erase[d] segregation-era wording requiring separate schools for 'white and colored children' and eliminate[d] references to the poll taxes once imposed to disenfranchise blacks." To repeat: a majority of Alabama voters freely chose to keep segregationist language (long since unenforceable due to its federal unconstitutionality) in their state constitution.

Now, you might have thought -- as I did -- that this stunning rejection of basic 1950's civil rights achievements was -- perhaps -- somewhat indicative of a teeny eensy bit of racism in Alabama. That's why I was glad to learn from today's WaPo that the real reason Alabamans voted in favor of state-enforced segregation and poll taxes was because . . . well . . . here -- read it yourself:

[Some say] it was not about race but about taxes. The amendment had two main parts: the removal of the separate-schools language and the removal of a passage -- inserted in the 1950s in an attempt to counter the Brown v. Board of Education ruling against segregated public schools -- that said Alabama's constitution does not guarantee a right to a public education. Leading opponents, such as Alabama Christian Coalition President John Giles, said they did not object to removing the passage about separate schools for "white and colored children." But, employing an argument that was ridiculed by most of the state's newspapers and by legions of legal experts, Giles and others said guaranteeing a right to a public education would have opened a door for "rogue" federal judges to order the state to raise taxes to pay for improvements in its public school system.

So there you go. I feel much better now, knowing that Alabama's vote for segregation had nothing to do with race, and everything to do with denying children the right to public education. That's fantastic. [Daily Kos]

What a fine state Alabama is. Just like Georgia. Or South Carolina. Amazing how they love taking federal tax money from the 'blue' states. Perhaps someday they will actually enter the 20th Century. Keeping rascism in the Constitution because it might mean they actually have to pay to educate their children. Who benefits from having a stupid populace?   comment []2:39:10 PM    

Guernica Redux. Cutting piece by Saul Landau; an excerpt:On November 12, as US jets bombed Fallujah for the ninth straight day, a Redwood City California jury found Scott Peterson guilty of murdering his wife and unborn child. That macabre theme captured the... [Leiter Reports]

What I had not known is that the US requested that a tapestry of Picasso's Guernica be covered up during Powell's falacious speeh before the UN about WMD in Iraq. Guernica was the site of the first application of Total War, a town that fought against the fascist Franco in the Spanish Civil War. It was bombed from the air, killing what we would call 'insugents' today but were called civilians back then. But then, we were not on the side that was dropping the bombs in 1936. At least the Bush administration realizes enough of the similarties to request Picasso's great image to be hidden. Awfully decent of them.  comment []2:35:56 PM    

Black is White. George Will is joining the chorus of attack on the universities: Academics, such as the next secretary of state, still decorate Washington, but academia is less listened to than it was. It has marginalized itself, partly by political shrillness and... [Leiter Reports]

Ahh. I was all set to write something about this but anyone who thinks and who has read George Will knows that he is the absolute model of modern day pundit. Meaning that facts and knowledge enter little in their world.  comment []2:30:02 PM    

Concentration hampers simple tasks. Nature Nov 26 2004 5:52PM GMT [Moreover - moreover...]

It is nice to see science actually demonstrating what we have heard. Having to 'think' about it slows you down.  comment []2:23:42 PM    

Patients plead with Amgen for Parkinson's drug. IHT Nov 27 2004 11:02AM GMT [Moreover - moreover...]

Drug comapanies just can not win. Merck is in trouble for not recognizinf sooner that Vioxx had some negative effects on people. Now Amgen is in trouble for taking a drug off because it had some negative effects on people. Clinical trials have found that it is not effective and could be harmful. Yet they get letters from people who feel it is helpful and are willing to sign any kind of waiver to continue getting the medicine.

You can see how easy it is for a drug company to get pulled in two different directions, Here is a drug that studies has shown may be harmful and does not demonstrate efficacy above placebo. Yet patients claim it does work and want it. For a drug like Vioxx, which demonstrably helps people, the pull to keep it out there to help seems tremendous. There would have been a huge howl if Merck had taken it off the market 2 years ago. There was no hard evidence it was a problem and everyone who had benefited would have een writing their Congressman. Sometimes, it is a lose-lose situation for a drug company.  comment []2:12:06 PM