• Maybe Lead Causes Autism Too


    How do you measure exposure to lead? The usual—and most accurate—way is a blood test. The problem is that lead disappears from the bloodstream pretty quickly, so this only tells us about lead exposure in the past few months. What if you want to know about lead exposure several years ago?

    Well, lead builds up in teeth, so you can take a look at that. For example, if you measure lead levels in the teeth of prisoners locked up for violent crimes, you find that their lead buildup is higher than average. This is useful, but it still doesn’t tell you when the lead exposure occurred.

    But what if you could measure lead like tree rings? Then you get this:

    Baby teeth from children with autism contain more toxic lead and less of the essential nutrients zinc and manganese, compared to teeth from children without autism, according to an innovative study funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), part of the National Institutes of Health.

    ….The differences in metal uptake between children with and without autism were especially notable during the months just before and after the children were born. The scientists determined this by using lasers to map the growth rings in baby teeth generated during different developmental periods. The researchers observed higher levels of lead in children with autism throughout development, with the greatest disparity observed during the period following birth.

    This is similar to the way lead exposure produces more crime-prone individuals. Basically, lead takes the place of calcium in the brain, which is crucial to normal development. In the autism study, they discovered that lead takes the place of zinc and manganese.

    This was a small study. On the bright side, the researchers looked at twins so they could isolate environmental factors. On the not-so-bright side, they only studied 32 pairs of twins. So this study is suggestive, but far from conclusive. For one thing, if lead poisoning really is a factor in autism, then rates of autism should have gone up during the 50s to the late 70s, and then declined since then. That hasn’t been the case, though there are all sorts of measurement problems that get in the way here. Or, it might be the case that lead has only a small effect and gets drowned out in the historical data by other things.

    But if this turns out to be right, it means that lead poisoning is now implicated in reducing intelligence and increasing the rates of violent behavior, ADHD, and autism. Has one element ever caused so much damage? What does it take for us to make the decision to finally get rid of it once and for all?

  • About That Plan to Annihilate ISIS…


    I’m still sick. Everyone needs to feel sorry for me. What’s worse, I had to drag myself to the doctor’s office yesterday for some lab tests anyway, and my favorite phlebotomist1 cheerfully told me that what I had was “going around.” It always is, isn’t it? “And it lasts four weeks,” she told me. “After a week you might think you’re finally over it, but then it comes back like a freight train.”

    Lovely. So what can I blog about while I’m wooly headed? How about Trump? Yesterday I was wondering what’s up with his secret plan to annihilate ISIS. His generals were supposed to report back to him in February, and now it’s June and nothing much seems to have happened. We armed the Kurds to help us in the battle for Raqqa, and…that’s about it. So this morning I decided to do a quick Google to see if I’d missed anything. This is from Brian McKeon, a former Obama official, writing in Foreign Policy:

    On May 19, a day when Washington was consumed with the latest developments in the scandals enveloping the White House, the Pentagon announced that the chairman and vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford and Air Force Gen. Paul Selva, respectively — would be renominated for another term. The commanders leading the military campaigns in Afghanistan, Iraq, North Africa, and Syria — all places with significant Islamic State presences — also remain in place.

    That same day, Dunford and Secretary of Defense James Mattis updated the Pentagon press corps on the counter-Islamic State campaign, which Trump has ordered them to accelerate….They highlighted only two significant changes: delegation of more authority to field commanders, and a tactical shift from shoving the Islamic State out of safe locations to surrounding it in its strongholds.

    So all the same generals that Trump ridiculed during the campaign are still running things. There have been a couple of minor tactical shifts, but that’s all. There will be no expanded troop presence. And far from “bombing the hell” out of ISIS, airstrikes have increased at about the same rate as usual:

    On the other hand, civilian casualties have skyrocketed since Trump was inaugurated:

    The increase in airstrikes and civilian casualties isn’t surprising on its own. The Battle for Mosul began last October, and a higher battlefield tempo was inevitable. But even in January and February, when the Pentagon was still operating under the Obama doctrine, they managed to keep civilian casualties relatively low even though the number of airstrikes was high. Under Trump, airstrikes have stayed at the January levels, but civilian casualties have more than doubled. According to Defense Secretary James Mattis, this is just a “fact of life.”

    Anyway, that’s what’s happening. As near as I can tell, we’re continuing to fight ISIS with pretty much the same plan we’ve had all along. The only substantial difference is that apparently we don’t care much about civilian casualties anymore.

    Oh, and we dropped a gigantic bomb in Afghanistan. That sure seemed to get the media’s attention. They just love shiny, dramatic new things, even if they don’t actually mean anything.

    1Seriously. One of the side effects of cancer is that you develop relationships with the folks who draw blood. I always go to the lab in the afternoon because that’s when Karen works. (To be totally honest, it’s when Pedro doesn’t work, and I’m actually avoiding him more than anything else.)

  • Morning News Roundup


    Today’s news:

    But don’t worry. White House flack Hope Hicks says everything is going to be OK:

    President Trump has a magnetic personality and exudes positive energy, which is infectious to those around him. He has an unparalleled ability to communicate with people, whether he is speaking to a room of three or an arena of 30,000. He has built great relationships throughout his life and treats everyone with respect. He is brilliant with a great sense of humor … and an amazing ability to make people feel special and aspire to be more than even they thought possible.

    In short, Donald Trump is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being she’s ever known in her life.

    1Unless sources in the White House are lying again just for lulz.

  • Donald Trump Makes a Joke


    Here’s something unusual. Last night Donald Trump wrote a six-word tweet:

    Despite the constant negative press covfefe

    This was obviously a tweet sent in error, but it didn’t get deleted immediately. It stayed up. And up. And up. And it completely took over Twitter. My Twitter feed was about 95 percent covfefe jokes last night.

    But that’s not what’s unusual. This is:

    This is Trump making an actual joke and taking himself less than seriously. I’ve never seen him do that before. I wonder if he wrote the tweet himself?

  • Trump Can Fire People, But He’s Having Trouble Hiring New Ones

    Action P/Rex Shutterstock via ZUMA


    Gloria Borger reports:

    Trump returns to the White House this week just as he left — lonely, angry and not happy with much of anyone. The presidency, Donald Trump is discovering, is not an easy or natural fit. “He now lives within himself, which is a dangerous place for Donald Trump to be,” says someone who speaks with the President. “I see him emotionally withdrawing. He’s gained weight. He doesn’t have anybody whom he trusts.

    Unfortunately, Trump has a big problem hiring new staffers who he might trust:

    The disclosures from investigations stemming from Russian meddling in last year’s election — coupled with the president’s habit of undercutting his staff — have driven away candidates for West Wing jobs that normally would be among the most coveted in American politics, according to people involved in the search.

    By the time the first change in what may be a broader shake-up was announced Tuesday, the White House was left without a replacement. Michael Dubke, the White House communications director, said he would step down, but four possible successors contacted by the White House declined to be considered, according to an associate of Mr. Trump who like others asked not to be identified discussing internal matters.

    At the same time, talks with two former advisers, Corey Lewandowski and David N. Bossie, about joining the White House staff grew more complicated. Mr. Bossie, a former deputy campaign manager, signaled that he does not plan to join the staff.

    I can’t imagine why anyone even semi-competent would be willing to work for Trump, especially in the press operation. Trump undercuts them constantly, and he obviously wants to be the public face of the administration himself. The problem is that he’s afraid to face the press on a regular basis. Even he realizes that his administration is epically incompetent, and reporters have started calling him out on this. So he hides in the Oval Office and feeds his press staff to the lions instead.

    As for every other position, too many people finally understand what Trump is really like:

    There is this storyline about Donald Trump, one longtime Trump watcher says, that he’s a loyal guy. That he sticks with his old friends and defends them and supports them. “You have it all wrong,” he says. “Trump is not loyal, except to his family. He can be solicitous and ingratiating. But if there’s a moment you are not useful, forget it, you’re done. No matter what you have done for him.” Consider: Rudy Giuliani, Paul Manafort, Chris Christie.

    I don’t know what took everyone so long to figure this out, but by now they have. There’s just no upside working for a shitshow of a White House and a shitshow of a man.

  • Less Liberal Contempt, Please


    Michael Tomasky writes today that elite liberals need to make peace with middle America. We need to be willing to welcome folks to our side of the aisle even if they don’t agree with every single liberal piety:

    There are plenty of liberals out there in middle America, and plenty of liberalish moderates, and plenty of people who lean conservative but who aren’t consumed by rage and who think Barack Obama is a pretty cool guy and who might even have voted for him. These people are potential allies. But before the alliance can be struck, elite liberals need to recognize a fundamental truth: All of these people in middle America, even the actual liberals, have very different sensibilities than elite liberals who live on the coasts.

    First of all, middle Americans go to church….Second, politics simply doesn’t consume middle Americans the way it does elites on the coasts….They talk kids, and local gossip, and pop culture, and sports….Third, their daily lives are pretty different from the lives of elite liberals. Few of them buy fair trade coffee or organic almond milk. Some of them served in the armed forces. Some of them own guns, and like to shoot them….Fourth, they’re patriotic in the way that most Americans are patriotic. They don’t feel self-conscious saluting the flag.

    ….We need to recognize that in vast stretches of this country, hewing to these positions doesn’t make someone a conservative.

    There’s nothing especially new here. It’s basically the old problem of Reagan Democrats, which liberals have been wrestling with for a couple of generations. I’d argue that it has two fundamental origins.

    First, the great sort. A century ago, hardly anyone had more than a high school education. Both of my grandfathers were plenty smart enough to go to college, but neither one did because they couldn’t afford it. (I don’t need to bother telling you about my grandmothers, do I?) Because of this, people of widely different intelligence mixed together all the time. There wasn’t really much choice.

    After the war, that changed. College became widely available, and nearly everyone who was smart enough to go, did so. Thirty years later, their kids mostly went to college too. But among the postwar generation that didn’t go to college, their kids mostly didn’t either. Since then, there’s been yet another generation, and we’re now pretty solidly sorted out. Those of us with college degrees marry people who also have degrees. Our kids all go to college. Our friends all went to college. And we live in neighborhoods full of college grads because no one else can afford to live there.

    On the other side, it’s just the opposite. Your average high school grad marries someone who’s also a high school grad. (If they get married at all.) Their kids are high school grads. Their friends are high school grads. And their neighborhoods are full of high school grads.

    The two groups barely interact anymore. They don’t really want to, and they’re physically separated anyway. (More and more, they’re also geographically separated, as liberals cluster in cities and conservatives live everywhere else.)

    Second, there’s the decline of unions. Fifty years ago, the working class commanded plenty of political respect simply because they had a lot of political power. No liberal in her right mind would think of condescending to them. They were a constituency to be courted, no matter what your personal feelings might be.

    But young liberals in the 60s and 70s broke with the unions over the Vietnam War, and the unions broke with them over their counterculture lifestyle. This turned out to be a disaster for both sides, as Democrats lost votes and workers saw their unions decimated by their newfound allies in the Republican Party. By the time it was all over, liberals had little political reason to care about the working class and the working class still hated the hippies. Without the political imperative to stay in touch, liberals increasingly viewed middle America as a foreign culture: hostile, insular, vaguely racist/sexist/homophobic, and in thrall to charlatans.

    By the early 90s this transformation was complete. On the liberal side, elites rarely interacted with working-class folks at all and had no political motivation to respect them. Republicans swooped in and paid at least lip service to working-class concerns, and that was enough. It didn’t put any more money in their pockets, but at least the Republicans didn’t sneer at their guns and their churches and their fatigue with rapid cultural change.

    I don’t think there’s any good answer to the great sort. Certainly not anytime in the near future. But this affects Republicans too, so it doesn’t have to be a deal breaker. The bigger problem, I think, is the decline of unions, which broke the political ties between working-class and middle-class liberals. There’s no realistic way that unions are going to make a comeback, which means that liberals need to come up with some other kind of working-class mass movement that can repair those ties. But what? This has been a pet topic of mine for years, but I’m no closer to an answer than I was when Reagan took office.

    In the meantime, we can still try to do better. Rhetorically, the big issue dividing liberal elites and middle America is less the existence of different lifestyles, and more the feeling that lefties are implicitly lecturing them all the time. You are bad for eating factory-farmed meat. You are bad for enjoying football. You are bad for owning a gun. You are bad for driving an SUV. You are bad for not speaking the language of microaggressions and patriarchy and cultural appropriation. Liberals could go a long way toward solving this by being more positive about these things, rather than trying to make everyone feel guilty about all the things they enjoy.

    Substantively, liberals might have to shift a little bit, but not by a lot. We don’t have to become pro-life, but we need to be more tolerant of folks who are a little uneasy about the whole subject. We don’t need to become Second Amendment zealots, but we should be more tolerant of folks who don’t want to be sneered at for keeping a gun around the house for self defense. We don’t need to tolerate racism, but we should stop badgering folks for not being able to express themselves in the currently approved language of wokeness.

    It goes without saying—which is why I need to make sure to say it—that the whole point here is to broaden our appeal to people who are just a little bit on the conservative side of center. That is, persuadable, low-information folks who agree with us on some things but not on others. The hard-right conservatives are out of reach, and there’s no reason to try to appeal more to them.

    In the same way that right-wing Republicans need to learn how to talk about women’s issues (see Akin, Todd), Democrats need to learn how to talk about middle America. No more deplorables. No more clinging to guns and religion. Less swarming over every tin-eared comment on race.

    In general, just less contempt. Does it matter that working-class folks often display the same contempt toward us? Nope. As any good lefty knows, contempt from the powerful is a whole different thing than contempt from the powerless. We need to do better regardless of what anyone else does.

    Can we do it? It’s worth a try.

  • Chart of the Day: The Sean Spicer Show


    Here’s a fun chart from Media Matters:

    (Note: I have switched the colors in the graph to the correct red-state-blue-state representation.)

    The remarkable thing here is not that President Obama’s press secretary was televised so little. That’s normal. The remarkable thing is that President Trump’s press secretary is televised so much. This is, pretty obviously, not because Spicer is singularly transparent and produces loads of news. It’s because the guy is a train wreck and we can’t look away.

    But here’s a question: the standard excuse for this is that Spicer gets great ratings. But does he? I know he did in his first few weeks, but are his ratings still higher than ordinary news? I can’t seem to find any evidence one way or another.

  • Lunchtime Photo


    Today’s picture has been personally curated by my mother from my vast backlog of lunchtime photos. To me, it’s an orange rose. To the rest of you, it’s an Easy Does It®, an All-American Rose Selection in 2010. Parentage is (Queen Charlotte x Della Balfour) x Baby Love. Would it really smell as sweet by any other name?