Slate Videos
newest 100 slate videos / slate widgets / media rss:

John McCain's latest attempt to knock Barack Obama down a notch is a curious ad that blames Obama for runaway gas prices. Slate's John Dickerson explains.

How Do You Diagnose Autism? Michael Savage thinks doctors are getting it wrong. By Juliet Lapidos Children's advocacy groups are demanding that Michael Savage apologize for denigrating autism as the "illness du jour" on his radio program last Wednesday. Savage also attributed the high prevalence of autism and related disorders to faulty diagnoses: "In 99 percent of the cases, it's a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out." How do doctors spot the disorder? Surveillance and interviews. According to the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, autism is an early onset disorder—it appears before the age of 3—characterized by poor social and communication skills and repetitive behavior. There's no biological test to determine whether a kid has these problems, so pediatricians are encouraged to look out for warning signs—like failure to make eye contact, inability to form relationships with peers, and delayed language skills. If there's cause for a concern, a specialist will typically use a standardized questionnaire to interview the child's parents and teachers: Does little Bobby show interest in people he doesn't know? How does he show interest? Does he prefer solitary play? The specialist will also spend some one-on-one time with the child, noting how he uses toys, responds to images, and whether he engages in conversation. Per the DSM, clinicians should diagnose a child with autism only if he is judged to have six or more social and linguistic impairments. The threshold is lower for so-called "autism spectrum disorders." A child might be described as having Asperger's if he exhibits some ritualized behavior plus at least two social-interaction impairments—e.g., he can't make friends and has trouble with nonverbal communication like eye contact—but has no significant delay in language acquisition. A child who has severe social interaction or language problems but doesn't quite meet the criteria for autism or Asperger's might end up with a diagnosis of "Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise Specified." (For more details on how the DSM classifies these disorders, click here.) The number of cases of autism-related disorders has skyrocketed in recent years. This past November, Hillary Clinton issued a press release claiming that the diagnosis rate had leapt from one in 10,000 in 1993 to one in 150 in 2007. That's not quite right—the rate was about four in 10,000 as far back as the 1970s and had already climbed to one in 200 in the 1980s. Either way, the numbers have gone up, leading some to wonder whether America is experiencing an epidemic. Some observers have mistakenly blamed mercury in vaccines; others, like Slate's Gregg Easterbrook, say television could be the culprit. Meanwhile, skeptics like Michael Savage hold a "cartel of doctors and drug companies" responsible for creating a panic. What's certain is that the DSM definition has become more expansive. In the version of the manual from 1968, the word "autism" appears as a symptom of childhood schizophrenia. It only became its own category in 1980, and in 1987 the diagnosis required a finding of eight social and linguistic impairments rather than six. In 1994, the term Asperger's was introduced so doctors could diagnose a lesser form of the disorder. Awareness is also affecting the diagnosis rate: Clinicians know what to look for and are encouraged to act quickly when they notice symptoms.

How to cook like Le Bernadin's chef. video by Jonah Green. Author: NewYorkMagazine Keywords: food fish grill slate eric ripert barbeque tips secrets expert le bernadin new york nymag.com Added: July 22, 2008

As roads and highways become ever more clogged, Danielle Parsons tells us how researchers are studying ways to learn from nature's own traffic-flow experts: ants.

Pre-emptive Presidential Pardons Can you be pardoned for a crime before you're ever charged? By Jacob Leibenluft With six months to go before President Bush leaves office, the White House is receiving a flurry of pardon applications. The New York Times reported that "several members of the conservative legal community" are pushing for the White House to grant pre-emptive pardons for officials involved in counterterrorism programs. Wait—can a president really pardon someone who hasn't even been charged with a crime? Yep. In 1866, the Supreme Court ruled in Ex parte Garland that the pardon power "extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment." (In that case, a former Confederate senator successfully petitioned the court to uphold a pardon that prevented him from being disbarred.) Generally speaking, once an act has been committed, the president can issue a pardon at any time—regardless of whether charges have even been filed. As the Explainer has pointed out before, there aren't many limits to the president's pardon power, at least when it comes to criminal prosecutions under federal law. The president's clemency power has its origins in the practices of the English monarchy, and as a result, the Supreme Court has given the president wide leeway under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. There are some exceptions: The chief executive can't pardon someone for a violation of state law or nullify a civil ruling, and his power doesn't extend to convictions handed down in an impeachment proceeding. (It's also not clear whether the president can pardon himself for future convictions.) While pre-emptive pardons remain very rare, there are a few notable exceptions. Perhaps the most famous presidential pardon of all time occurred before any charges were filed. Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon absolved the former president of "all offenses against the United States which he … has committed or may have committed or taken part in" between the date of his inauguration in 1969 and his resignation in August 1974. In other cases, presidents have pardoned individuals after criminal proceedings have begun but before a judgment has been handed down. In late 1992, less than a month before leaving office, President George H.W. Bush pardoned former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, who had been indicted earlier that year on perjury charges surrounding the Iran-Contra affair. (A lawyer for Roger Clemens' former trainer Brian McNamee claimed the pitcher might receive a similar pardon from Bush if he were ever indicted.) In addition, broad presidential amnesties—like the one President Carter issued to those who had avoided the draft during the Vietnam War—are essentially pre-emptive pardons issued to a large group of individuals. If someone hasn't yet been charged with a crime, how does the president know what to pardon them for? As in Nixon's case, President Bush could issue a pardon that applies generally to any crimes that may have been committed within a certain range of dates. More likely, a pardon could apply only to actions surrounding a single policy or place—say, the detention or interrogation of suspected al-Qaida members.

Slate's advice columnist, Prudence, counsels a woman who has just slept with her best friend's brother.

What's a Bank Run? And how do you get on the FDIC's secret problem list? By Jacob Leibenluft Last week, California-based IndyMac became the largest bank to fail in two decades after a bank run depleted its deposits. Now, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.—which took over what's left of IndyMac—says that 90 financial institutions are on its secret list of "problem" banks. How does a bank end up on this secret list? By getting a bad rating, based on its financial situation and visits from inspectors. Every few months, federal regulators issue banks a "CAMELS rating" that goes from one (for the safest banks) to five (for the most suspect). If a bank scores either a four or a five, then it's included on the list the FDIC compiles each quarter. (See Page 4 of this document [PDF] for the most recent disclosure of the size of the list and Page 20 for a brief discussion of the rating system.) The exact data that go into a CAMELS rating are kept secret. (The acronym stands for capital, assets, management, earnings, liquidity, and sensitivity to market risk.) But the evaluation probably makes use of some information that's available to the public, like the size of a bank's "nonperforming assets"—loans and obligations that aren't getting paid back—and whether it has enough capital to deal with unexpected losses. The FDIC won't release its problem list, and a bank isn't allowed to disclose its CAMELS rating, either. One major reason is that if the public knew which banks were in trouble, the likelihood of a "bank run" might go up. A run occurs when a bank doesn't have enough cash in its reserves to pay all those depositors who want their money back. To understand how this happens, start with a basic concept behind our banking system: A financial institution is required to keep only a small fraction of its deposits in reserve. This system allows banks to "multiply" the amount of money in circulation—increasing the amount available for investors to borrow, for example, and consequently stimulating economic activity. But it also means that if every depositor decided to liquidate his or her savings on the same day, the bank wouldn't be able to make the payouts. Under normal circumstances, this almost never happens. But if a bank's customers believe that a bank is at risk of going under, they might rush to move their money elsewhere. This could happen because the bank is genuinely in trouble—say, it made a lot of bad mortgage loans. But even an entirely healthy bank can go under if enough depositors believe it to be unsafe. (For more on that case, read this classic paper [PDF] on the topic.) The FDIC was established during the Great Depression to limit the likelihood of a run: By offering insurance on deposits—up to $100,000 per depositor, in most cases—it makes people feel more secure in leaving their money in the bank. So, while bank failures still happen—at an average of just under five per year over the past decade—runs aren't very common. In IndyMac's case, the bank's problems stemmed from bad mortgage loans, but some regulators also blame the run on a public letter from Sen. Charles Schumer expressing concerns about the bank. Even though you can't see the problem list, there are other ways to check on your bank's health. In addition to the financial filings the banks make with the FDIC, private firms like Bankrate have their own models that rank financial institutions using similar methods. And the mere fact that a bank shows up on the FDIC's trouble list doesn't mean it's likely to fail. According to research by FDIC economists (PDF), only a small percentage of the banks on the list actually go under. Changes in the banking industry may also make it more difficult for regulators to accurately model the risks of bank failure: After all, banks were once considered safer if they owned a lot of mortgages. That may explain why IndyMac wasn't on the FDIC's trouble list as recently as March 31.

Mark Jordan Legan sums up what the critics are saying about some of the big weekend movies: The Dark Knight, Mamma Mia!, and Space Chimps.

AccuWeather.com senior meteorologist Jim Kosek brings you his forecast for this weekend's worst weather. Which town wins this week's dubious distinction?

Here we see Patrick Marchese, co-founder of Markzware, haggling a deal outside of Xunantunich Mayan Ruins in the Cayo district of Belize. Lovely art, by the way!

Slate's Political Gabfest, with John Dickerson, David Plotz, and Emily Bazelon. This week: The economy takes another hit or two, Obama tries to improve his foreign policy credentials and the return of the flip-flop

Where do diming Hollywood stars and D-list celebrities go to reconnect with fans? Slate V visits the Hollywood Collectors Show, the latest stop in our "Conventional Wisdom" series.

Slate V's new interview series features writers discussing their craft. In this episode, Junot Díaz reveals how his immigrant experience and obsessive reading habits shaped his Pulitzer Prize-winning novel.

A woman seeks guidance from Slate's advice columnist, Prudence, about how to deal with a co-worker who shows a bit too much flesh.

Mark Jordan Legan sums up what the critics are saying about some of the big holiday weekend movies: Journey to the Center of the Earth, Meet Dave, and Hellboy II: The Golden Army.

AccuWeather.com senior meteorologist Jim Kosek brings you his forecast for this weekend's worst weather. Which town wins this week's dubious distinction?

How To Help a Lost Dolphin Bang on some pipes or just use a pinger instead. By Jacob Leibenluft A group of about 15 bottlenose dolphins that have been swimming in New Jersey's Shrewsbury River since mid-June now appears to be moving farther inland. Local marine officials had originally planned to coax them out of the river, but they have shelved those plans for now. How would you coax a dolphin back into the ocean, anyway? With nets or noise—but both methods can be dangerous. Nets have been used to save dolphins before, usually by deploying divers to ensnare the dolphin, removing the animal from the water with a special stretcher, and quickly transporting it to safety. But capturing the dolphin is not always an easy feat, and there's also the possibility the animal will get entangled in the webbing and drown. An alternative is to create a barrier upstream using boats and then bang pipes or use high-frequency pingers to scare the dolphins in the opposite direction. But this method has downsides, too. Because dolphins are so sensitive to sound, the loud noises can create a highly stressful situation. In extreme cases, the stress can even send a dolphin into shock or cause it to beach itself. Last year, an effort to rescue a group of common dolphins in Long Island's Northwest Creek using this method had mixed results: Eight dolphins were safely corralled into the Atlantic, but 11 could not be saved. Despite these risks, there are times when rescuing a dolphin is worth the danger. Keep a bottlenose dolphin too long in fresh water, and the process of osmosis can start causing serious health problems. (River dolphins do exist, but they are classified in a different family from ocean dolphins and aren't found in the United States.) After about three days in freshwater, a bottlenose dolphin's skin would begin to swell, and its corneas would become cloudy. Soon afterward, the animal might develop skin lesions, eventually leading to infections that can spread throughout its body. (To see a case study of one bottlenose dolphin rescued from a Florida river, click here.) Fortunately for the dolphins in New Jersey, they have been swimming in the Shrewsbury and the neighboring Navesink—two bodies of water that are better described as estuaries rather than rivers. Estuaries contain a brackish mix of freshwater and seawater that is probably salty enough to keep the dolphins in good health: Veterinarians say dolphins can get in trouble when salinity levels drop below 15 parts per thousand; measurements near the bridge the dolphins recently passed under were more than 25 parts per thousand on Thursday. These particular dolphins may also be well-suited to water with a slightly lower salinity content, since they appear to be part of a stock that sticks closer to the land even when they aren't lost. (Marine biologists believe the dolphins may have been attracted inland by schools of menhaden, a fish the animals prey on.) But no matter the salt content, these estuaries could be dangerous come winter: Back in 1993, a group of four dolphins that stayed in the frozen Shrewsbury River until December died after rescuers tried unsuccessfully to free them from the ice.

Slate's Political Gabfest, with David Plotz, Emily Bazelon and Lynette Clemetson substituting for John Dickerson. This week: Barack Obama and Jesse Jackson clash, Iran launches some missiles and the Gabfest Crew talk about the way the cookie crumbles.

Follow Samantha Henig on her journeys into vice subcultures. In this episode, Henig visits an absinthe bar to see whether the so-called "green fairy" lives up to its mystique.

Today, you'll hear a torrent of new evidence that's just come out which further details the Bush administration's torture regime. You'll learn about the self-styled "War Council," Bush's use of Communist Chinese torture techniques, vehement protests by the military's own lawyers, hiding the abuse from the Red Cross, and, recent medical findings of marks of torture on detainee's bodies. In a concluding QuickBlast, you'll hear Dick Morris serially lie about Democratic tax plans, and learn how to respond to any right-winger spouting similar nonsense. (PS: Right-wingers, if you want to write in to me, fine, but at least do me the courtesy of listening to the podcast first. Please don't respond just on the basis of the brief preview above. Thanks!!) #127 Transcript #127 Transcript as a Word document #127 Sources

Hollywood has launched its fair share of actors into the political arena over the years. Now, the obscure 1980s action film "Predator" is about to unleash its third cast member on the road to public office.

What's So Exotic About an "Exotic Loan"? Its zany repayment plan. By Juliet Lapidos The Federal Reserve will issue new lending rules to "restrict exotic mortgages" for people with poor credit ratings, according to a report in Tuesday's New York Times. What's so exotic about an exotic mortgage? Its nontraditional repayment plan. Under a conventional mortgage, a borrower pays back part of the loaned money each month, along with interest. A borrower who takes out an "exotic" or "alternative" loan, by contrast, can put off paying back the principal. With an interest-only plan, or "IO," the borrower doesn't start chipping away at the principal for what is typically between three and 10 years. With a payment option adjustable rate mortgage, the borrower can choose different plans from month to month. One option is interest-only; another, called "minimum payment," cuts the borrower even more slack—he or she doesn't even have to pay the full interest every month. Another example of an exotic mortgage is the "teaser," a specific type of ARM. To entice customers, lending agencies set a low initial interest rate, then reset the interest to a much higher rate at the first agreed-upon adjustment date. In contrast, the "subprime mortgages" that keep getting mentioned in the news refer more broadly to high-interest loans issued to borrowers with low credit scores. (The high interest rate compensates for the fact that customers with damaged credit are more likely to default.) A borrower with bad credit can take out a high-interest loan on a traditional, fixed-rate repayment scheme or experiment with an "exotic" plan. Exotic loans are easier to keep up with in the short-term, but they carry significant risks for borrowers down the road. For example, someone on an IO plan may have his payments double or even triple once the interest-only period ends. A minimum payment plan can result in "negative amortization," whereby unpaid interest is added to the principal—and the aspiring homeowner ends up owing more for his mortgage than he originally borrowed. Exotic loans do make sense for certain borrowers. For example, a Wall Street banker who has a relatively modest salary but expects a large bonus at Christmas may take out a pay-option ARM, start out by making interest-only payments, and then address the principal after the holidays. In Tuesday's article on the Fed clampdown, the New York Times defines an exotic mortgage as an "Alt-A" loan, but that's not strictly correct. An Alt-A, or alternative documentation, loan holds borrowers with a good credit score to a lower approval standard than a traditional loan. (Applicants may not need to provide proof of income, for example.) So while an Alt-A is nontraditional and in that loose sense "exotic," an exotic loan isn't necessarily an Alt-A.

Two microphones, a card table, NPR's Alex Chadwick, and intimate stories from passers-by. In this episode, a young woman tells Alex about having her car stolen three times.

Do Fireworks Cause Air Pollution? Air quality on the Fourth of July. By Jacob Leibenluft Officials in Nevada warned that July 4 fireworks—combined with smoke from California wildfires—may cause unhealthy levels of air pollution. So did the weekend fireworks cause Las Vegas to exceed clean-air standards? Yes, at least for a few hours. This isn't at all unusual: State environmental agencies often report Independence Day spikes in their PM2.5 readings—a measure of the concentration of very tiny airborne particles, no bigger than 2.5 micrometers in diameter. Under federal law, a location's air quality is judged, in part, by the number of days on which the PM2.5 average exceeds 35 micrograms per cubic meter. Fireworks shows on the Fourth of July can put out enough pollution to break that threshold. In Las Vegas, preliminary data from at least one site shows PM2.5 readings greater than 200 micrograms per cubic meter at 10 p.m. on July 4. The city's air quality was clean enough earlier in the day to prevent the 24-hour average from cracking 35, so the show won't affect the city's clean-air record. In other places, the average reading might have been higher. Last year, for example, an air-quality monitor located in South Bend, Ind., registered an average reading of 39 micrograms per cubic meter on July 4, up from 16.6 the day before. Fireworks-related pollution may not affect a city's air-quality rankings, even if the average readings do surpass the federal threshold. That's because the Environmental Protection Agency has a special provision allowing states to discount a high reading in the case of "exceptional events." This is supposed to ensure that unforeseen events like wildfires or terrorist attacks don't artificially boost a location's air-pollution readings. Because the agency classifies July 4 fireworks as a special cultural tradition, state and local agencies can apply to have their abnormally high readings struck from the record. (Chinese New Year fireworks are exempt, too.) Last year, cities including Fresno, Calif., (PDF) and Salt Lake City (PDF) filed reports explaining why July 4 readings shouldn't count toward their stats. These reports also make a clear case that the higher pollution levels are due to the fireworks themselves and not a spike in automobile traffic for the holiday. Fireworks-related air pollution is not a uniquely American problem. One team of scientists in India reported that sparklers set off during the Diwali festival raise ozone levels; another recorded sulfur dioxide concentrations as much as 10 times higher during the holiday. A Chinese study found similar results during a lantern festival in Beijing. Research suggests (PDF) that weather conditions make a big difference, too: If the wind is weak, then the particles released during the fireworks display will take longer to disperse.

What if a friend asked you to take part in her wedding ... dressed as a cartoon character? Slate's advice columnist, Prudence, offers her thoughts.

The 500,000 Artifacts of George Washington How did archaeologists find half a million objects at one site? By Jacob Leibenluft Archaeologists announced on Wednesday that they had unearthed George Washington's boyhood home at a site not far from Fredericksburg, Va. Over the course of a seven-year excavation, the researchers found more than 500,000 artifacts. How can there be half a million artifacts at one site? Almost everything you find counts as an artifact, as long as it was made or impacted by people. The objects comprise more than just materials from George Washington's home; archaeologists excavated a full acre of land, and the items they collected spanned 10,000 years of history—from rocks used to sharpen prehistoric stone tools to Civil War-era buttons. The collection does include an expensive tea set thought to be owned by the Washingtons and a pipe bearing a Masonic crest, but most of the objects are far more mundane, like nails, broken glass, or cracked egg shells. The only artifacts that weren't removed from the site are remnants of old buildings—either architectural fragments that are still intact or foundation stones that were weighed and left at the site. Once the artifacts are excavated, the archaeologists clean, examine, and identify them in the lab. Each item is cataloged in a computer database with a number and an "address" that denotes where exactly it was found. Most are then put in a plastic bag, placed in a protective box, and shelved in a storage room—with the finds organized by their original location at the site. It's standard professional practice to store all these artifacts. (It isn't unusual for an archaeologist to collect millions over the course of a career.) If an archaeologist leaves an object at the site after it has already been dug up, the artifact can't be easily reanalyzed by future researchers. So even if an archaeologist were only interested in George Washington's old toys, he or she would still be expected to carefully collect, catalog, and store anything found closer to the surface. A researcher who violates these rules can be investigated for misconduct and removed from the Register of Professional Archaeologists. An archaeologist must also ensure that there are "adequate curatorial facilities for specimens and records" before he starts digging. That is no easy task, and the need for so much storage space has led to what some in the field have called a "curation crisis." Keeping millions of objects has become increasingly expensive: A 2003 study by the National Park Service found that some museums charge as much as $1,000 per box for storage. That has led to a discussion of whether and how collections should "deaccession" (i.e., get rid of) objects like tin cans or old soil samples.

Slate's Political Gabfest, with David Plotz, Emily Bazelon and Terry Samuel substituting for John Dickerson. This week: Wesley Clark speaks out, another McCain Campaign shake-up, and the U.S. sanctions Chinese torture

Mark Jordan Legan sums up what the critics are saying about some of the big holiday weekend movies: Hancock, Wall-E, and The Wackness.