Social Security

Well, it turns out that Bush was right that this was a problem, but it still hasn't been fixed. Barack Obama had the following to say:

"I think the best way to approach this is to adjust the cap on the payroll tax so that people like myself are paying a little bit more and people who are in need are protected," the Illinois senator said.

"That is the option that I will be pushing forward." Currently, only the first $97,500 of a person's annual income is taxed. That cap is scheduled to rise to $102,000 next year.

Obama's proposal could include a gap or "doughnut hole" to shield middle-income earners from higher payroll taxes, he said.

Uh huh, uh huh. WHAT?!! Now raising the cap on social security taxes makes sense, as Social Security would be better as a flat tax than a regressive tax as it currently is. What I want to know is when will Social Security honestly be declared not to be a pension system, but rather, just "welfare for old people?" Because that's what it is.

But the doughnut hole is basically a very open invitation for not just company cars, but company-provided housing, helicopters, etc. Sound silly? Well come on - this is the stuff tax accountants dream of.

Any other ideas?

On the Republican side, candidate Fred Thompson last week unveiled a Social Security proposal that calls for reducing benefits to future retirees and creating a system of voluntary personal retirement accounts. The plan is similar to one put forth by President Bush that ultimately stalled in Congress.

Gee, why does that sound familiar? Maybe Because George Bush already tried it and fell flat on his face. The government doesn't need to get involved with private accounts - because they're private. Private accounts already exist. This is as mind-boggling as the need to hire a scout to find out if Greg Maddux can pitch.

Privatizing Social Security is something that the US simply cannot do because it was put off far too long. To pull it off, it needs a more comfortable position, and the only way to get there is to raise the retirement age at an astounding rate.

Most importantly, the Minimum retirement age, which Bill Bradley has pointed out before, should be raised. Getting that up to 65 in the next decade and 70 by 2030 is not an unreasonable goal with the full retirement age rising along with it up to 70 and ultimately 75. After all, the program was created when the retirement age was 3 years in excess of life expectancy; it doesn't take a mathematician to figure out that if the retirement age slips to more than 10 years below life expectancy, then you have a problem. If you get the retirement age back up to life expectancy minus 3, you're in excellent shape.

At that point, Social Security stops being a source of income for a generation of people living off that and their savings for 20 years. Then you can talk privitization, because you'll reduce the impact it has on people's lives. Getting there would be harder, but it's a good start.

Chinese Crackdown

After a few Chinese sources delivered unsafe products, the Chinese government has decided to take action, by saying that American products are bad.

From the Washington Post:

Investigative reports in the state-run media delve into the case of an exploding cellphone purportedly made by U.S.-based Motorola that allegedly killed a young man. They warn consumers not to use contact-lens solution produced by U.S.-based Advanced Medical Optics, which has been linked to rare cases of blindness. And they play up recalls of U.S. beef.

Faced with mounting international concern over the safety of some of the products it exports, the Chinese government -- often perceived as defensive and clumsy in how it handles public relations -- is firing back.

In Washington, China has put together a team of lobbyists who have been practically living on Capitol Hill for the past few weeks. In Beijing, the government has taken the unusual step of seeking advice from outsiders, including public relations powerhouses Ogilvy and Edelman, about how to get positive messages out to Chinese and American consumers.

Of course, because the Chinese government has not altogether abolished communism in China, it makes sense that the government would concern itself with PR. But yeah, that's the setup. Then there's this paragraph right after it:

The result has been an aggressive campaign to save the "Made in China" label by presenting an alternate view on consumer safety and globalization. The message is that China isn't the only country that has had problems with the products it exports. China, as government officials have been pointing out in recent days, rejects U.S. imports at a rate that is just a little less than the 1 percent of Chinese products rejected by the United States.

But look at this. The Chinese government is trying to argue that their products are safe because the US makes stuff that gets rejected too. The question of safety, though, is not which ones are rejected, but rather which accepted products cause harm, if one is concerning themself with product safety. Here, it seems that China is stating that they are better at regulating imports than the US, although I don't think they're offering to scrutinize their own exports further.

Then a professor said this later on in the article:

On the other hand, Shi Anbin, an associate professor of media and cultural studies at Tsinghua University in Beijing, said that trying to turn the tables and focus attention on problems with U.S. products is "not a wise strategy."

"We need to face our own problems rather than pointing an accusing finger at a scapegoat," Shi said. "I believe Chinese officials still need to learn some PR and communication skills."

Yes, that is correct that what the Chinese government did does not address the initial problem. I'm glad that Ariana Eunjang Cha was able to get an expert to state the painfully obvious.

Right after, there was this bit:

Sen. Charles E. Schumer, chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, which has been pushing for punitive trade legislation against China, described the execution of the former head of the Chinese food and drug administration and the country's new ban of a chemical that was mixed in toothpaste as "surreal actions."

These "prove that China just doesn't understand the real problems," the New York Democrat said

Senator Schumer, your advocacy for punitive trade legislation against China proves that you don't understand the real problem. That would make Chinese products more expensive for consumers, so to compete, they'd have to get cheaper and take more shortcuts. And to be technical, that doesn't prove that China doesn't understand the problem, only that China is not interested in solving the real problem. And that the communist method of dealing with problems - killing people - is stupid.

But I'm going with the Chinese government being stupid, especially after reading this gem.

Nevertheless, the incident has brought out hostility in some Chinese consumers. The headline on one online bulletin board posting blares, "America's Motorola is following Bin Laden's example, killing Chinese with explosion." It quotes from the official New China News Agency in giving examples of past quality problems, though its main purpose seems to be complaining about Motorola's after-sales service.

Yes, an accident where someone died in an explosion makes someone like Bin Laden, but firing squad, that's just how you take care of business. But if you want to know how bad the Chinese government is at defending themselves in an argument, this one guy states, perhaps rightly, that this is an improvement.

Dan Harris, a U.S.-based attorney who runs a popular China law blog and represents small to mid-sized companies doing business with China, said the shift in the government's public relations strategy "is definitely smart on their part. They are not going to convince Americans that everything is okay just by denials."

Heh. They're trying to distract people, but at least they aren't completely denying problems, and they don't have to fix anything. An improvement, but barely.

Yay, Failure

The surcharges did not receive much attention when lawmakers approved them Feb. 24., but the reaction has been overwhelmingly negative since Virginia residents learned about the fees this month.

At first glance, you think, aha, the legislature enacts this law under cover of darkness. Doesn't it also come to mind, Why the hell didn't anyone report on the damn fees until when they went into effect? It does for me.

But seriously, it is absolutely criminal the disregard the Virginia legislature shows for the Constitution of the United States, by enacting what is clearly a violation of the 14th amendment, as it does not grant equal protection under the law.

Virginia Republicans and Democrats demonstrated in the spirit of bipartisanship how opposing factions can agree on something and both be wrong. Boo.

Really Sick

Ok, the TB guy is either evil or demented. He had TB, then left on a flight overseas from Atlanta, then came back to the US to get treated. Now, why would he put others in harm's way, traveling with a communicable bacterial infection in an enclosed space?

The man, however, told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that doctors didn't order him not to fly and only suggested he put off his long-planned wedding in Greece. He knew he had a form of tuberculosis and that it was resistant to first-line drugs, but he didn't realize it could be so dangerous, he said.

Basically, he would put his bride-to-be in danger. Sure he's on drugs, but it's tuberculosis! Wouldn't it be more sensible to put off the wedding for a bit if you come down with some sort of disease like this if it's treatable?

What if he had more dire predictions of the severity of his own tuberculosis? What if he figured he was doomed to die, and he wanted his wedding, his wedding night, etc before everything was over? I'm inclined not to buy this fellow's account, and no way in hell he didn't think that TB was such a big deal given what he knew about. And while I don't see any point in prosecuting him if he's going to die anyway, clearly you've got to make some sort of policy considerations here. At the very least, release his name and the flights he took so that the other passengers can sue this obviously very wealthy man who put their lives in danger.

A bit on gas prices

The House of Representatives voted a few days ago to blame someone else for their idiocy by passing a bill to stop "price gouging."

"This is a first step in addressing the outrageous prices we are seeing at the gas pump," said bill sponsor Rep. Bart Stupak, Michigan Democrat. Prices in recent years have peaked at about the Memorial Day start of the summer driving season, but they could climb higher this year if hurricanes or conflicts in the Middle East or Nigeria disrupt supplies.
"This bill is all bark and no bite, and will do nothing to lower gas prices," said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican. "No American likes paying high prices at the pump. ... This bill could make the pain felt by consumers at the pump considerably worse."

Boehner also stated the immigration bill proposed was a piece of shit. No really, he said that. Boehner also knows what the hell he's talking about, and hell, he's almost making me feel good about the Republican party. But perhaps it's worth examining why gas prices might go up.



The stupidest explanation is greed. Look, people are greedy, all the freaking time. That's normal. You're greedy for wanting that gas to cost as little as it can, for wanting everything on the internet to be free, for wanting there to never be any traffic congestion on the highway, for wanting to have your cake, eat it too, but not have to deal with the caloric intatke (not to mention the carbs). If greed raises prices, then what the hell causes them to fall? When gas gets down to $2 a gallon, does that mean the oil execs feel guilty or something? Maybe they're less greedy? If you actually believe that, I'm frightened you are reading this. Anyone that stupid shouldn't be given anything as powerful as a computer, or for that matter, a spoon.



But seriously, what harm could an anti-gouging bill do? Well, if there are shocks to the supply or the demand for oil, the market could not respond as it normally would, so it would force oil companies and gas station owners to either lose money or not sell, and guess which one they'll pick. This is called a price cap, and it creates shortages. Look at the 1970s - people cyphened gas from other people's cars, and they made locking gas tank caps. I mean, you thought Monica Lewinsky had low standards for what she put in her mouth! The president will wear sweaters and tell us we shouldn't have Christmas because of all the lights - Jimmy Carter actually did that. I mean, doesn't this strike you as a little silly?



But what else could cause high gas prices, if not for some conspiracy? Well there's the cost of crude oil itself, then it has to be refined, then it has to be delivered, then the gas station sells it, and the gas station owner and the oil companies have to make a profit, or else they wouldn't be in the oil business. Now, what happened in the last couple years to cause gas prices to rise? Let me think . . . Here's a key reminder of why ethanol is expensive:

Ethanol is a solvent that picks up any gunk in tanks and readily blends with water.

Those properties could ruin a 9,000-gallon tank of gasoline at a huge cost to a retailer.

It costs up to $1,500 to clean tanks, said Kevin S. Kan, president and chief executive officer of American Auto Wash Inc. in Malvern, which operates 18 stations in the region, including 13 BPs that have converted to the ethanol blend.

Ethanol is logistically more complicated than the petrochemical it replaced - MTBE, or methyl tertiary butyl ether. Refiners could blend MTBE into gasoline at the refinery and send the finished gasoline through pipelines to terminals.

But ethanol must be blended into gasoline at the terminal because it would mix with water if it were sent through pipelines, ruining the fuel. So, fuel terminals have to go through a similar process of cleaning tanks to store ethanol before it is blended.

They must also install blending equipment.

Yeah, that alone is going to make gas a lot more expensive. And keep in mind that Ethanol doesn't have nearly the pipeline network available for gasoline (in fact, the oil companies are trying to lobby Congress for it). So really, these ethanol additives are not a good idea right now; maybe a few years down the road if you're gonna complain about gas prices to consumers.

Another idea: just stop all the bullshit around ethanol that makes it so expensive. You've got a lot of regulation in the economy regarding how much corn people can grow, etc, as well as tariffs on foreign goods to raise the prices of domestic goods. You've gotta be kidding me if you think we need the government to tell farmers how much they can grow, etc. Ignore the caps, and people will grow more corn, partly for ethanol, partly for food, whatever will make money. People make good decisions when it's their own money in business, generally. Further, you can get sugar ethanol to do the job cheaper, or at the very least you could allow regular sugar to replace high fructose corn syrup. The tariffs on foreign sugar are the culprit here, believe it or not, and if you reduce or eliminate that, you'll see a reduce in demand at home, lowering the price, and more corn will be exported for those of you who think the trade deficit matters.

Fat Sweedish Kids

A study on obesity in Sweeden concluded the following:

Stockholm schools that banned sweets, buns and soft drinks saw the number of overweight children drop by six percentage points in four years, a Karolinska Institute study published on Monday showed.

A bit more in this brief regurgitated press release, I mean article, about the study:

The number of overweight or obese six-to-10-year-olds dropped from 22 to 16 percent in the 10 Stockholm schools that participated in the study by banning sweets and introducing healthier lunches, the Swedish research institute said in a statement.

A control group of schools that did not introduce specific food regulations saw the number of overweight or obese children rise from 18 to 21 percent.

The results of the project were to be presented on Monday in Budapest at an international conference on obesity.

So the number of fat kids decreased in the schools in the study. But you, the reader will think, aha, those kids must have slimmed down. But remember that the first paragraph told us that the number dropped after 4 years, considering a group of 6-10 year olds. Basically, this is an almost entirely different group of young people, but the impression is given that this is a matched pairs experiment. These kids don't necessarily have to be from the same families after four years.

One of the chief problems is that participation in the study was voluntary, so schools would consciously decide whether or not kids would be in the low-carb group or the control group. Those who would choose the restriced group would presumably want to be in this group to impress the parents, who would largely (ha! largely) want to be in this group. Likewise, those who want the freedom to drink sodas, etc, may not be as concerned with their health, or at least concerned enough that they would be effected. There would also be, presumably, parents moving into the districts of the other schools, based on their position, if they wanted better regulations.

The last sentence makes sense for parents who don't have the spines to be the ones deciding their kids' lunches instead of their own kids. For most people though, that sentence points out the futility of the regulation argument. Kids can certainly still get sweets, etc at home and elsewhere away from school, and at that age, it's entirely a function of parental controls.

As far as food that is provided by the school, it should absolutely be designed to be healthy, and good too. Kids who buy lunch at school should get something reasonably healthy, and there's not really a good argument for selling soft drinks in elementary schools. But if parents are going to decide what to give their kids, then why mess with that? I can see justification in saying no sodas for the young kids, but banning buns? One has to draw the line at some point.

Reading the Bible for School?

Stephen Prothero, the chairman of Boston University's religion department thinks that public schools should teach Bible literacy.

Biblical illiteracy is not just a religious problem. It is a civic problem with political consequences. How can citizens participate in biblically inflected debates on abortion, capital punishment or the environment without knowing something about the Bible? Because they lack biblical literacy, Americans are easily swayed by demagogues on the left or the right who claim — often incorrectly — that the Bible says this about war or that about homosexuality.

One solution to this civic problem is to teach Bible classes in public schools. By Bible classes I do not mean classes in which teachers tell students that Jesus loves them or that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, but academic courses that study the Bible's characters and stories as well as the afterlife of the Bible in literature and history. Last week, the Georgia Board of Education gave preliminary approval to two elective Bible courses designed to teach religion rather than preach religion. As long as teachers stick to the curriculum, this is a big step in the right direction.

He concludes with a more concrete proposal:

What makes sense is one Bible course for every public high school student in the U.S. This is not a Christian proposal. It does not serve the political left or the political right. It serves our young people and our public life.

What is perhaps the most striking is that the author of this particular story thinks the only people who would be alarmed about public schools teaching their kids about the Bible are people who are not particularly religious. It is in public schools more than universities that it makes a difference whether or not you agree with a teacher's stance on an issue, because that teacher has some genuine authority over you, including the capability to give you detention or get you suspended. If you were to present the Gordon Tullock line that you have a better chance of dying on your way to the voting booth than for your vote to actually make a difference in a high school civics class, that would not go over so well. Conservatives already have a hard enough time with schools teaching macroevolution and global warming, so if you contradict what they believe about the Bible, they'll certainly not take it lightly.

What would conservative Christians argue about if the Bible was taught in schools? Well, try David's relationship with Jonathan; it's been argued that the two had a homosexual relationship, particularly in light of 2 Samuel 1:25-26. will the curriculum mention that Jonathan's willingness to risk his life for David was what he was referring to, as Jesus said "Greater love has no one than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13)? Or for that matter, will it mention the cultural differences in showing affection?

Further, if an entire course is taught on the Bible, that can certainly cover a lot of ground. It's not inconceivable that a student could read the entire Bible during a full-year course. Were the course to mandate that, then it would certainly be difficult to impartially teach the Bible, particularly with such verses as, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" (2 Tim 3:16, ESV) among others.

Frankly I don't think this will ever happen (and incidentally, doesn't this just look like a ploy to find jobs for religion majors?). I would favor it only for one reason: because it's so divisive and personal an issue, it will likely make an excellent conversation starter for parents to take interest in what their kids are learning, and that is one of the most important keys to success for kids who aren't already motivated enough. For the most part, though, I'm pretty sure it won't happen, and I'm not disapointed at all by that.

NY Times: ManBearPig isn't real

The Times did not deny that global warming exists, far from it (but were that the case you'd just have to get a little bit suspicious). What they did say, though, was that Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth was not entirely, well, true.

“I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,” Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”

How weak is the science of global warming?

Still, Dr. Hansen said, the former vice president’s work may hold “imperfections” and “technical flaws.” He pointed to hurricanes, an icon for Mr. Gore, who highlights the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and cites research suggesting that global warming will cause both storm frequency and deadliness to rise. Yet this past Atlantic season produced fewer hurricanes than forecasters predicted (five versus nine), and none that hit the United States.

That last sentence basically said that forecasters predicted 9 out of the last 5 hurricanes. That's the standard joke about economists - they've predicted 9 of the last 5 recessions. Heck, if this stuff isn't better than macroeconomic theory, then screw it.

On that Most Fascinating of Topics

Barack Obama. And Tort Reform.

So apparently now Al Sharpton has decided he's not going to endorse Obama that easily. This story reveals a little more about an issue Obama supports, tort reform. Sharpton thinks that victims of police brutality need to be able to sue the police department, and this limits their ability to do that.

On the subject of tort reform, it just strikes me that the benefits of such practices is that lawyers will not have nearly the incentive to attract clients, from ambulance-chasing to charing nothing except for a portion of winnings in court (that is to say, if they lose, all their work was for free). Now of course, if a lawyer cannot get $10,000,000 in tort damages that way, their expected payout surely decreases. This will reduce the number of some of the more frivolous lawsuits; even the ones that fail are costly to businesses because their lawyers do not work for free, and of course, business costs are part of what is covered by consumers in the price of goods and services. Consumers are a demographic of all people, sexes, races, and creeds (well, maybe not the Amish, but you get the idea), after all.

***

The most bizarre part of the story came right at the end.

Does Sharpton's endorsement matter? CBS 2 polled some New Yorkers and the
results were mixed, but the majority appeared to lean toward the side that
believes Sharpton's endorsement will make a difference.

The very premise of such a question seems absurd. It probably went something like this:
"Will Sharpton's influence matter?"
"Well, not for me, but I can see that it might matter, sure."
I wouldn't be surprised if the above exchange happened with a lot of white people polled. The point is that you don't conduct opinion polls by asking people what they think other people think, if you want anything useful anyway; what you ask is what they think and then you get a representative sample and judge from that. Therefore, the question should have been, Do you care what Al Sharpton thinks?

HA!

Don Boudreaux makes a great point, which I think a lot of people were probably thinking.

Years beyond his wisdom

Every so often, there will be a news report that says something like, "Really old dude still alive!" Well, it should, because that's generally all there is in the story. Yahoo! reports (link via Drudge) that Chan Chi has been living for 107 years, and the kicker is that he's been abstinent from sex since his wife died decades ago. Here's the usual boring stuff:

Chan, from Hong Kong's less built-up New Territories hinterland, was pictured looking sprightly and eating heartily at the banquet [for the city's elders].

A former chef, he said a low-fat diet and regular dawn exercises had helped him fight off the ravages of old age.

Ok, goodie for you. Nothing surprising there at all. But then there's this part:

But the centenarian, who's had no difficulty living a monastic existence for nearly 80 years, admits the pleasures of tobacco have been harder to resist.

"Now I want to quit," he was quoted as saying of his decades-long cigarette addiction. "Maybe the government should ban cigarette sales so I can give it up," he added.

Are you kidding me? First of all, I'm having a hard enough time believing a guy who can live to 107 should give up anything that he's doing. Secondly, the only way this guy thinks he can stop is to have the government ban cigarette sales? People have quit without the government banning cigarettes. He could try some program, support group, the patch, the gum, or even jelly beans.

Political Compass - You should go here

Political Compass is brilliant, and it's probably the best way to describe someone's politics. This is me right here. I've taken it a few times, and I'm pretty steadily in about the same area.

The way it works is that it just trashes the left/right model used in American politics, because it's actually quite useless. Adding labels means less and less, so it uses words with absolute meaning to describe your political inclinations. What it does is put economic beliefs on the left/right axis and then other issues of state control on the up/down axis, so that way you can understand, for example, the Libertarian party.

Frankly, I think the best model would account for military and foreign relations to be on a separate axis, maybe a willingness to use military force axis. You might be an economic libertarian who's a social libertarian as well, but you feel the military needs power to do what's necessary internationally, or whatever.

But anyway, it's on the sidebar, and if any of the two people that read this blog want to comment, leave your coordinates.

What's the difference between a janitor and a maid?

Let's say you wanted to hire someone to clean your house, so you decide that you're going to hire a maid (used to mean young girl, and there's all the tradition of women cleaning and that sort of thing associated with it too). If this is someone who's independent, she'll probably go for about $20/hr.

What if you have a firm and you need to hire someone to clean your office building, probably about 10 people. You could hire 10 maids (each at $20/hr), and they'd be independent contractors. Or on the other hand, you could purchase some captial stock, like cleaning fluids, vacuum cleaners, those floor buffer things that aren't quite zambonis, squeegies, power washers, etc which will last for a good while and then hire people who can clean stuff using your stuff. This will cost you about $12/hr for these workers, and that's a bit on the high end, like if they're unionized. Naturally, you'd rather go with these, and they'd be called janitors, which is from the Latin for doorkeeper.

What these two have in common is that they both are involved in hygenic maitenence; you might call them cleaning people. This entire post, I'm poking fun at Russell Roberts, because for being politically correct and calling maids "cleaning people," he confused someone who thought he meant janitors, and got labeled "Hack of the Day." Too bad, but remember this lesson: political correctness isn't free.

But don't get me wrong, I like Russ. In fact, you should all go buy this book if you haven't already read it. Don't ask to borrow my copy; it's upside down.

Obama, meet Schwartz

Barack Obama, a man whom Joe Biden described as "the first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," is running for President, officially. Here's one thing that I frankly found amusing.

"We can build a more hopeful America. And that is why, in the shadow of the Old State Capitol, where Lincoln once called on a house divided to stand together, where common hopes and common dreams still live, I stand before you today to announce my candidacy for President of the United States of America," Obama said. His voice rose to a shout as he spoke over the cheers from thousands who braved temperatures in the teens.

Obama evokes the image of Lincoln, but how much does he wish this metaphor to extend? Lincoln, in all honesty was not a President beloved in his time, and did little to genuinely unite. His rhetoric, though, is very well preserved, and that is what is recalled by political figures of either party, really. Kind of a classic example of this, perhaps?

HPV Vaccine

Merck & Co. have a drug on the market that has the potential to be a hot-button political item. The Governor of Texas decided to bypass politics, as ABC Reports:

Bypassing the Legislature altogether, Republican Gov. Rick Perry issued an order
Friday making Texas the first state to require that schoolgirls get vaccinated
against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer.

The article reports that beginning in September 2008, Texas girls aged 11 and 12 will be required to get the vaccine, and further, the government would provide the vaccine to those who don't have health insurance and can't afford it. Many conservative groups are wary of the drug, feeling it will lead to greater sexual promiscuity.

There is another bit of interest burried further within this article. Specifically, the bit of interest relates to the governor's interests:

Perry has ties to Merck and Women in Government. One of the drug company's three lobbyists in Texas is Mike Toomey, Perry's former chief of staff. His current chief of staff's mother-in-law, Texas Republican state Rep. Dianne White Delisi, is a state director for Women in Government.

The governor also received $6,000 from Merck's political action committee during his re-election campaign.

The whole case here is quite interesting. For one thing, it interests me as a Merck shareholder. This does raise questions, though. I cannot help but think that the governor grossly overstepped his bounds to legislate a mandate on the population at large while bypassing the legislature. Why bother to have a legislature for that matter? One also cannot help but wonder whether this tells us something about the governorship of Texas as a means of ascent to the White House.

Reactions

But really, this is a bit tyrranical. The governor has dictated a law of himself which could have consequences. Interestingly, there are not only religious but also philosophical objections which are allowed for refusing vaccination in Texas, but nonetheless, it is incredibly alarming to see that the governor could make such a decision on his own. With the legislature, at least, the process ensures that the bill would be debated and discussed among state representatives, and those who objected could have made sure of such a thing. If it's that important, then couldn't parents get their kids this vaccine on their own? Or do people not get vaccines unless they are required to by law?

As for the bit regarding the moral implications, those are a bit ridiculous. For one thing, HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases are much more well-known in contemporary society than cervical cancer in the first place; how many people knew that this is largely caused by a sexually transmitted virus. The drug is not a birth control drug either. Further, there are plenty of other arguments that can be made regarding safe sex and abstinence, etc, that go beyond this, such as personal morality, emotional health, and the law of diminishing marginal returns.

Back to this particular case, I also find it particularly alarming that Merck is engaging in bribery as a way to do business. A politician can take a bribe - here, a campaign contribution - and be bought. But it's hard to judge Merck, though, as it is in a way getting revenge on the government. The Food and Drug Administration requires testing of all new drugs that come onto the market, requiring proof that they are "safe and effective." These testing requirements go beyond what is necessary to determine whether or not the drug is a good one, and all they give the drug maker is the right to make the drug. The FDA can screw up and approve dangerous drugs, but instead of the FDA, it is then the drug company which must pay the piper. The FDA requires extensive testing and then does not back it up at all.

So Merck just needs to make some money. So all they figure they have to do is to get the state to require it, and perhaps even pay for it. This helps to make the drugs in question far more profitable, which is after all the sole social responsibility of any corporation. This helps to offset the costs endured in the FDA testing stage, which cost not only money but also a lot of time.

The drug is a good drug, and lobbying by Merck is exactly what one should expect, as it is a very effective way to offset the research costs. I wouldn't want to limit Merck's ability to lobby, etc, without also limiting the power the FDA holds over drug companies, and I wouldn't count on either happening anytime soon. What I don't get is why Merck actually closed down a little on Friday.

Additionally

1) Here's some reading with tons of info on HPV. The Center for Disease Control has a lot of this type of information. One thing I saw:

HPV infection can occur in both male and female genital areas that are covered
or protected by a latex condom, as well as in areas that are not covered. While
the effect of condoms in preventing HPV infection is unknown, condom use has
been associated with a lower rate of cervical cancer, an HPV-associated disease.

Condom use can help, but it is very interesting to note that areas not covered by a condom could be so affected by the disease.

2) Here's a bit on required vaccinations. Vaccines for children are generally required, particularly for highly contagious diseases. Some vaccines, like flu shots, and other treatments for adults, are optional.

First Post

Ok, So now that makes three. I've transformed stuff, so now all there is to do is to edit the old blog to change the links around and focus on what I need to there.

This blog will focus primarily on political and economic stuff. Just for that disclaimer thingie, I'm a free-market economist with conservative/libertarian political views. You've been warned.