Of course you'd say that; you have the brainpan of a stagecoach tilter

Dr. Daniel Amen flogs neuroimaging for presidential candidates in the LAT.

Amen's no stranger to dubious endorsements of neuroimaging techniques - he's made a name for himself selling SPECT scans as a diagnostic tool for everything under the sun.

Amen's proposal is little more than phrenology updated for the 21st century. Indeed, the core scientific truth from which they both extrapolate is the same - that certain aspect of mental function are localized to certain areas of the brain. And they both go wrong in by attributing way more significance to the extent to which size or blood flow respectively serves as a predictor of function. Functional imaging (which uses radiotracers to measure the blood flow in different areas of the brain) is a useful research tool, since it reveals what areas of the brain are active at a given time and may someday find its way into clinical use (SPECT, for example, may be useful for diagnosing Alzheimer's, but it has its limitations. Functional neuroimaging does a good job of revealing what low-level neurological activity is going on (ex recognizing faces, language processing, feelings of disgust) at a given time, but complex behaviors generally cannot be reduced to a distinguishable pattern of activation and while differences in activation can be observed between populations with clear psychological or neurological differences (ex the lack of emotional reaction to freightened faces by psychopaths, the impaired language processing of sufferers of the various forms of aphasia), it has not been demonstrated to be a reliable tool for classifying compared to behavioral observation. Amen wants us to believe that despite this, neuroimaging of presidential candidates could be used to measure personality traits relevant to their performance in office. If you believe that, I have a diagnostic brain scan to sell you...

Libertarians for Bloomberg '08 - "Remember who he isn't."

Discussing this interview of Ralph Nader, Matt Yglesias says:

From a Reason magazine perspective, it seems to me that a Bloomberg Administration is likely to be substantially more libertarian than either a Democratic or a Republican one would be. Bloomberg, however, is specifically identified with a brand of trivial nanny-stating -- indoor smoking ban, trans fat ban -- that seems to be to aggravate libertarians in a manner that's out of proportion to the actual significance of the policy issues.

In defense of the Bloomberg haters, he is "specifically identified" with trivial nanny-stating because it's the main thing he's known for on the national stage and he does tend to take it too far, even by the standards of many people who don't mind a little gov't meddling. Libertarians aren't reflexively rejecting any candidate who engages in a little nanny statism - Bill Richardson is a smoking ban supporter (not to mention a cock-fight ban supporter), but they're not exactly calling for his blood.

On the other hand, I don't think I'd be risking my libertarian cred too much to say that Bloomberg may accomplish the small feat of being the most libertarian-friendly presidential candidate coming out of New York this election.

Friday WTF?!: The Obvious Choice

You know your local crazy guy with a public access cable show? Alaska's is running for president.

Republican Debate Replay Remarks

-I feel sorry for Tommy Thompson. I don't think he's very bad as Republicans go and no worse than the top tier candidates, but he absolutely dies in these debates. The majority of his time was spent clarifying which Thompson he is, and he's the one that's declared.

-Tancredo is at least realistic about Iraq. Still unrealistic about immigration though.

-Sen. Brownback wants to work with labor unions in Iran. I'd make a crack about Republicans supporting labor unions, but I don't really care for labor unions any more than I do Republicans.

-Romney has awesome hair. I don't think he should be president, but if he loses, he may want to look into playing a president on TV.

-Ron Paul is becoming increasingly effective at presidential politics. Chances remain negligible that he'll win the nomination, but he's getting better at presenting his ideas in a way that is attractive to non-libertarian disaffected Republicans.

The more I think about Mitt Romney, the more I think he will be the John Kerry of 2008. Despite being assailed as a flip-flopper and lacking strong convictions on hot button issues, Romney will win the GOP nomination due to various parts of the Republican base disliking McCain and Giuliani more than him. He will lose the general election.