The mind’s biology

She relaxed in the recliner, her eyes closed, her hands resting lightly in her lap. The psychiatrist’s assistant made small talk while pushing the woman’s hair this way and that, dabbing her head with spots of paste before attaching the 19 electrodes to her scalp.

As the test started, her anxiety ticked up. And that’s when it began: the sensation of being locked in a vise. First, she couldn’t move. Then she was shrinking, collapsing in on herself like some human black hole.

It was a classic panic attack — captured in vivid color on the computer screen that psychiatrist Hasan Asif was watching.


“It’s going to be okay,” he said, his voice quiet and soothing. “Just stay with it.”

The images playing out in front of him were entirely unexpected; this clearly wasn’t a resting state for his patient. With each surge of anxiety, a splotch of red bloomed on the computer screen. Excessive activity of high-energy brain waves near the top of her head indicated hyper-arousal and stress. Decreased activity in the front of her brain, where emotions are managed, showed she couldn’t summon the resources to keep calm.

more

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2016/02/19/brain-hacking-the-minds-biology/

Quiet 'Legal Scrub' Of TPP Makes Massive Change To Penalties For Copyright Infringement

In early November, the "final text" of the TPP was finally released. The USTR even posted the thing to Medium, pretending that after years of secrecy it was now being transparent. As we've been told time and time again, the final document is not open to any changes. The only thing left to do was a "legal scrub" which is a final process in which the lawyers comb through the document word by word, basically to make sure there are no typos or out-and-out errors. The legal scrub is not when any substantial changes can be made.

And yet... the eagle eyed Jeremy Malcolm over at EFF has spotted an apparent change in the "legal scrub" of the Intellectual Property chapter that will massively expand criminal penalties for copyright infringing activities that have no impact on the actual market. Technically, the scrub just changed the word "paragraph" to "subparagraph" in the following sentence:

Vt. Rep. Welch to back Sanders for president

Rep. Peter Welch is supporting Sen. Bernie Sanders for president, giving Sanders his first congressional endorsement in his home state.

Welch said on Friday to Vermont Edition that he planned to vote for Sanders in the state's March 1 primary.

The Vermont congressman also plans to vote for Sanders as a superdelegate at the Democratic National Convention this summer, Welch said.

"I'll be voting [on March 1]," Welch said, according to Vermont Edition. "And I've decided to vote for Bernie Sanders."
Welch added that "as a superdelegate, I'll follow through and vote for him when we get to the convention in July."


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/peter-welch-endorses-bernie-sanders-219499#ixzz40eDPsE1x

Democrats need to accept that only Bernie Sanders can defeat the GOP

Bernie Sanders will become our next president and it should come as no surprise to people actually paying attention
H.A. GOODMAN


In one major poll, Bernie Sanders is now leading Hillary Clinton nationally. In most others, he’s not far behind from the former Secretary of State. Vermont’s Senator already has an “edge over Clinton in matchups with GOP opponents,” dispelling Clinton’s electability myth. In an average of national polls, Bernie Sanders is less than eight points from Hillary Clinton, after being over 50 points behind in 2015. In addition, there’s only one person capable of challenging a Republican in 2016 without James Comey declaring national security was jeopardized by a private server.

Bernie Sanders is the only Democratic candidate capable of winning the White House in 2016. Please name the last person to win the presidency alongside an ongoing FBI investigation, negative favorability ratings, questions about character linked to continual flip-flops, a dubious money trail of donors, and the genuine contempt of the rival political party. In reality, Clinton is a liability to Democrats, and certainly not the person capable of ensuring liberal Supreme Court nominees and President Obama’s legacy.

The precious and all-knowing polls already show Bernie Sanders defeating Republicans in a general election and Robert Reich has already explained why Sanders can easily win the presidency. In a Huffington Post piece titled “6 Responses to Bernie Skeptic,” Reich debunks the trusted myth of Clinton supporters and Republicans:

“He’d never beat Trump or Cruz in a general election.”

Wrong. According to the latest polls, Bernie is the strongest Democratic candidate in the general election, defeating both Donald Trump and Ted Cruz in hypothetical matchups. (The latest RealClear Politics averages of all polls shows Bernie beating Trump by a larger margin than Hillary beats Trump, and Bernie beating Cruz while Hillary loses to Cruz.)

more

http://www.salon.com/2016/02/19/hillary_clinton_just_cant_win_democrats_need_to_accept_that_only_bernie_sanders_can_defeat_the_gop/

The Pious Attacks on Bernie Sanders’s “Fuzzy” Economics

Let he who has never made an incorrect economic forecast cast the first stone.
BY DAVID DAYEN
February 19, 2016

Far too much of the Democratic primary has been consumed with determining the boundaries of what is and is not serious. Four former chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers under Presidents Clinton and Obama provided the latest example this week, writing an open letter to castigate a fellow economist, Gerald Friedman of the University of Massachusetts-Amherst.

Friedman conducted a study of how the economy would react over the next ten years if Bernie Sanders’s entire program—free college, universal health care, new infrastructure spending, an expanded Social Security, the works—were adopted. And it included some very optimistic numbers: the creation of 26 million jobs over the next ten years, annual economic growth of 5.3 percent, and a return of the labor force participation rate back to 1999 levels. The Sanders campaign didn’t appear to solicit the Friedman study, but it has been citing it to the media.

The Democratic CEA chairs—Laura D’Andrea Tyson, Christina Romer, Austan Goolsbee, and Alan Krueger—believe these numbers undermine their efforts “to make the Democratic Party the party of evidence-based economic policy.” They add: “These claims undermine the credibility of the progressive economic agenda and make it that much more difficult to challenge the unrealistic claims made by Republican candidates.”

I don’t feel it necessary to defend Friedman, though it’s worth pointing out that his economic growth numbers would simply eliminate the GDP gap that was created by the Great Recession and was never filled in the subsequent years of slow growth—which should be the goal of public policy, however “extreme” it sounds. What I do want to challenge is the idea that there’s one serious, evidence-based way to perform economic forecasting.

more

https://newrepublic.com/article/130157/pious-attacks-bernie-sanderss-fuzzy-economics

Krugman is wrong: Why his case against Bernie Sanders misses the point

The New York Times columnist's defenses of wonkery are well-intentioned. But politics and policy are not the same
ELIAS ISQUITH

For the first time since his strident defenses of globalization ruffled some fair trade feathers in the 1990s, Paul Krugman is in a protracted debate with the American left.

On the surface, they’re fighting about whether it matters that many centrist and center-left economists are uncomfortable with some of the promises Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign has made about how his policies will improve the economy. On a deeper level, however, they’re fighting about what it means to be a Democrat, and whether the party should behave more like a left-wing version of the GOP.

This is an important conversation, and the fact that it’s even happening should make lefties smile. They’re already on Nicholas Klein’s third step! For my part, I think both the “wonks” and their leftist critics are making vital points (annoying of me, I know). But they’re talking past one another, too. Leftists believe what’s important right now is politics, not policy. Krugman believes there should be no distinction.

With all due respect to the New York Times columnist, who has been an invaluable ally for the liberal movement for much of the past 16 years, there is a distinction. Good policy does not always make for good politics. There are positive lessons to be learned from the conservative movement’s example. And, right now, it’s politics — not policy — that matters the most.

more

http://www.salon.com/2016/02/19/paul_krugman_is_wrong_how_the_hillary_supporters_attacks_on_bernie_sanders_completely_miss_the_point/

In defense of grave dancing

It’s true that Scalia was a human being, but I still refuse to mourn a-holes like him politely
When a public figure we loathe dies, we're expected to observe a certain level of decorum. Here's why that's wrong
by KATIE HALPER


Like many people, I found out about the death of Antonin Scalia through social media, a Facebook chat to be specific. “DUDE! Scalia may be dead,” my friend messaged me.” After a few minutes of silence, my friend returned, in all caps, once again, to proclaim, “HE’S DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

While Scalia’s unexpected death provoked a pseudo-constitutional crisis among the right wing, it provoked an existential crisis in me. I felt simultaneously happy, relieved, hopeful and guilty. He’s someone’s father! Someone’s husband! RBG’s bestie and opera partner! Even worse than what I felt was what I wanted to do! “OMG!” I typed to my friend. “Would a listicle of Scalia’s Worst Quotes be the worst?” Ironically enough, my friend’s verdict was Scalian; swift, punishing and punctuated with hyperbole and exclamation points: “NO! YOU MUST DO IT!” F&*( DECORUM!”

A woman of checks and balances, I sought counsel from other sources via other means of communication. I skyped an editor to ask for her ruling on the issue. Her judgment was Kennedyian and moderate: She urged me to wait 24 hours, reminding me that “dancing on people’s grave [was] not a good look.” When I texted another friend, a journalist, he concurred with the editor, writing, “I wouldn’t celebrate it.”

The majority, it seemed, had ruled. It would be in poor taste and bad judgment, an ethical breach, to openly rejoice about Scalia’s death.

I had no grounds for appeal. The decision was final… or so it seemed.


much more

http://www.salon.com/2016/02/19/in_defense_of_grave_dancing_its_true_that_scalia_was_a_human_being_but_i_still_refuse_to_mourn_a_holes_like_him_politely/

Friday TOON Roundup 5 - The Rest

Rich


Bush





Flint



Middle East

Friday TOON Roundup 4 - Apple v FBI

Friday TOON Roundup 3 - GOP v. Constitution