Heretics' almanac

Stubborn CW fools

Generationrescue.org was launched today, with the help of somebody who knows public relations. The premise is that the cause of autism and myriad other neurological disorders is known - it's mercury poisoning, caused primarily by the injection of thimerosal into small children when they're vaccinated.

Nonesense, says the medical and scientific “establishment” - we don't know what it is, but it “isn't proven” that any causal relationship between thimerosal and autism.

The arguments on both sides quickly get involved and require knowledge of epidimiology, biology, and critical reasoning.

Now, it's easier to deny the link - you simply say, like tobacco companies did until recently, that the evidence isn't conclusive, or persuasive, given any number of factors that widen the margin of error. This can and probably will go on for years.

Those who seek to prove the link are taking several avenues, and here they are:

1. Common sense: injecting an organic mercury compound straight into the bloodstream of children has to be risky at best and most likely reckless.

2. In vitro tests to examine the effects of ethylmercury on living cells.

3. In vivo test on lab animals to test for reactions.

4. Mass data analysis of actual populations to discern patterns, ideally with a control group.

5. Trend analysis following the gradual abolishment of thimerosal in vaccines, staring a few years ago.

6) Proven cures. Autistic children who are treated for mercury poisoning recover.

Those who reject a link claim that studies of type 4) are inconclusive, dispute the “science” of those who argue 1), and seek to discredit thosr who have done studies based on 2) and 3). 5), everyone agrees, is too early to tell. 6), they say, is a result of quackery and a placebo effect.

If you point out that a link hasn't been disproven and may very well be possible, you're told that you can't' prove a negative [sic]. In other words, we are fools for examining a possible hypythesis when none other is offered. The hypothesis that thimerosal causes mercury should be treated like someone convicted of a crime: any reasonable doubt leads to a rejection of the charge.

The question the thimerosal-lovers refuse to answer is what it would take to convince them that they're wrong. Parents of afflicted children are obviously delusional, the results they cite are coincidental, the scientists who are coming up with new findings are incompetent, etc.

I have a couple of ideas, though. Those who think that thimerosal is safe enough to inject into babies should put some skin in the game: they should all accept an injection of pure thimerosal in a weight-adjusted dosage equivalent to what babies got, over the same period of time. If they do that, they can continue to denounce the parents who think ethylmercury is harmful. If they don't, they should shut up or suffer abuse and scorn they deserve.
Sent wirelessly from my Blackberry.

Talking about Alexandra...

Alexandra Pelosi has carved a niche for herself in the world of media criticism by reporting on political reporting - from the inside of the bubble of the bubbles known as presidential campaigns. Her newest book - soon to be followed by a new documentary from what I understand - is about the 2004 campaign, in which he admits to voting for a candidate who dropped out early.

You can't help but like Alexandra - she's the kind of person who can't help but 'fess up to all her insecurity and neuroses, and so you end up cheering her through her own account. She's friendly to George W., even as she asked him questions that clearly annoyed him.

She characterizes the campaign as a media circus, which is apt, but it obfuscates an important point in her narrative, which is that the audience moves with the show - they might as well have rented a giant sound studio for the campaign as far as the location matters, at least after Iowa and New Hampshire.

It would be too much to say it's a creative tension, but it is a tension: the campaigns doing their best to make everything predictable and on-message, and the media doing their best to catch every little slip, and either feeling contempt for the other. If it were a marriage, it wouldn't last any longer than a, well, year or so.

I suppose the question is whether the voters make more informed choices as a result.

I suspect that a lot of voters consume the soundbytes because there's nothing else to eat. They're perfectly willing to accept that a senator from Massachusetts or Arizona, or a governor from Texas or Vermont, might make excellent presidents even if they look funny, have annoying personal habits, or change their minds every once in a while. It was interesting to hear how the pundits dissected the debates as if they were boxing matches rather than examining the content of what was said.

It is probably way too much to hope for, but what if, in the next election, both candidates rounded up sponsors and went to the networks to produce a 10-episode documentary series in which each episode would be dedicated to an issue of importance to the election. Rules of the game would be set ahead of time, and each side would be invited to submit a prioritized list of 10 issues. Leave it to Hollywood to produce and make entertaining, and we might have some talk about substance.
Sent wirelessly from my Blackberry.

Gay Israel

Some time ago, the rabbi of my synagogue wrote in the monthly bulletin a letter about homosexuality, halacha (Jewish law), and the Jewish community. Halacha, he wrote, leaves no doubt: homosexuality is an abomination. But since Jewish values preclude us from ostracizing members of the community except for very special circumstances, we are confronted with a dilemma: we can not behave in hurtful ways toward gay fellow congregants.

This was an honest assessment, but couldn't have left anyone with much reassurance. It is compounded by the fact that every synagogue aims to be a gathering place for every Jewish member of the community. And while traditional Jews may consider the acts that tempt gay people sinful, the presence of the temptation should not deprive a gay Jew of the rights of belonging to a Jewish community.

In a somewhat fanciful but oddly logically coherent argument, some among the Orthodox say that since a) we all sin in one way or another, b) sleeping with members of the same sex is a sin, it must follow that we must forgive homosexuality as long as gay people feel bad about acting out their sexual impulses. In other words, you can be gay if you feel bad about it.

It gets more complicated by the fact that sexual abstinence is not, per se, a virtue in Judaism. And it isn't clear what a valid excuse is for staying unmarried.

Acceptance of gay marriage is not going to happen in remotely traditional Jewish communities, but that can be justified by pointing out that traditional Jewish marriages are restricted in several other ways as well.

A compassionate, inclusive Jewish community will face a vexing dilemma on this issue. Homosexuality can't be acknowledged as being ok, but homosexual people must be accepted as full members. They'd be right to ask what “acceptance” means if something as essential as their sexuality is, at best, ignored.

This isn't the only unbearable conflict between Jewish values. Mamzerim - the children resulting from taboo sexual relationships - are for all practical purposes rejected by their fellow Jews, innocently punished for the sins of their parents.

I'm not a rabbi, but there have to sources of leniency for these issues. For example, if we assume that we all are at least occasionally beset by illicit sexual impulses, couldn't one say that same-sex attraction is simply a variation? And couldn't one argue that of all sins, homosexual acts are lesser sins, replete with extenuating ciscumstances? And couldn't the whole idea of gay marriage be taken as companionship between two people, the specifics of which are none of our business? In other words, isn't there a way to nibble around the issue to the point that gay people no longer feel like stangers where they shouldn't? I don't know, but it seems important.
Sent wirelessly from my Blackberry.

Selling papers spreading hysteria

Aftenposten, in its tireless quest to rid Norway of anything resembling a serious press (and thereby the best reasom for freedom of the press), is asking for more “tips” about the outbreak of Legionnaires' disease in the city of Fredrikstad. Quoting one official who says that situation is “catastrophic,” they also report that deaths may increase. You'd have to read very carefully through the articles to learn that you can't get infected by another person, and that old people or people with an already compromised immune system are most at risk to die.

Readin the Aftenposten headlines, you'd be forgiven for believing that we're dealing with an Ebola epidemic or bubonic plague.

Of course, this is serious stuff. I would expect and hope that public health officials are busy a) finding out the source of the infection, and b) identifying everyone who could have been exposed. But as the incubation period nears its end, and assuming the source has been thoroguhly disinfected, there aren't going to be a lot of new cases.

But that doesn't mean Aftenposten should stop using fear to sell papers. I can only imagine the inquiries docs are getting now - “I drove through Fredrikstad yesterday and feel congested - am I going to die?” Perhaps the press should foot the bill.
Sent wirelessly from my Blackberry.

Marriage and the state

In a recent New Republic, Jonathan Rauch  makes the strongest case yet for same-sex marriage, which is that to disallow it would be to gut the special purpose society gives to marriage in general. While it may casue cognitive dissonance among some to allow that same-sex couples are equivalent to heterosexual couples, the implications of disallowing same-sex marriage will inevitably have the perverse effect of telling people that marriage is no big deal if you want to raise kids and)or give those who enter into such a commitment protection under the law.

I've previously argued that a natural consequence of the same-sex marriage ban ought to be a constitutional amendment that takes government out of the marriage business. Instead, those who marry enter into a legally enforcable contract that has privileges and obligations that depend on the couple' religion, preferences, etc.

This position is, I suppose consistent with Rauch's. If a ban on same-sex marriage guts undermines society's interest in promoting marriage, it is better that society get out altogether.  Bigamy would be be prosecuted as a matter of fraud, but consensual polygamy or polyandry would be allowed. Adultery, abandonment, constructive abandonment, or annoying personal habits would be grounds for divorce if stipulated as such in the marriage contracts. Parties could also establish conflict resolution mechanisms upfront.   It would force a lot of couples to discuss things upfront, since they could opt out of provisions rather than accepting them as a matter of state law.

Rauch is also right: if the state has the authority to regulate marriage, it has the responsibility to understand such regulation has.
Sent wirelessly from my Blackberry.

Al's glee club

I attended Alan Greenspan's “prepared remarks” and answers to questions today at the New York Economic Club, and here's what: I want to be Alan Greenspan, except maybe a little younger. He was older than he looks on TV, but also funnier, and I guess one makes up for the other, at least in singles' bars - not that either of us likely to be found there.  At any rate: he's probably one of the smartest people around. 

Anyway, his speech was about the oil and natural gas situation. As expected, he made us all a lot wiser about it, but not a lot more certain about what will happen. He did, however, call for the US to get less “energy-intensive,” and called in particular for our cars to tone it down - hybrid is definitely a good thing in Chairman Greenspan's view. Also interesting was his point that distribution is making natural gas a lot more expensive in the US than it should be. His long-term assessment is that we'll make oil and natural gas obsolete long before we run out of it.

Finally, someone asked him about the housing bubble, which was expected to be the big topic of the day. Explaining that there were indeed local bubbles, he made three points interesting enough to make an HBS case: 1) the housing market has very high transaction costs taking into account closing costs, commissions, and the move, 2) you can't move houses around to sell them, 3) because we resist mass-produced housing, productivity gains in residential construction seriously lags overall productivity gains, making residences a safe long-term investment. There is speculation, he said, in second homes, and there may be some shifts there; but it seemed unlikely that housing will cause the economy any real pain. One risk is related home equity loans driving consumption.

His biggest worry seemed to be Chinese currency.  If China allows its currency to rise appreciably against the dollar (which many think is inevitable), the “i” word may come into play through some rather complex mechanisms that would raise prices for all imports.

When asked what his biggest worries would be for the next several years, the chairman said that was a tough question, but only because he had no way of knowing the answer (if economists had stand-up comedy clubs, this would be a typical joke). He said he had a lor of confidence in the resilience in the American economy, and that bad trens always broke - but that it was “left field” events that always worried him, and his successor, whoever he - or she - might be.

Didn't hear a thing I didn't agree with.
Sent wirelessly from my Blackberry.

What reality should be

There is a sort of meme to the effect that all stories reduce to certain archetypes: quests, unrequite love, etc. Whether they find expression in high art, trash TV, or our own fantasies, they all amount to the same thing. Personally, I think a lot of them can be found in Meatloaf lyrics.

We're entering the summer season for reality TV, and I wonder if anyone even believes there's anything real about it anymore. Is there anyone who believes Trump picked the field of aspiring apprentices for anything but their entertainment potential? Or that what we see in the Bachelor reflects evolving romance?

TV is all about telling the same few stories thousands of times in ways that make it entertaining every time. Reality shows take form in production, where characters are reduced to a single type - sociopaths like Rob and Omarosa, narcissists like Sarah, etc. Viewers are invited to suspend disbelief long enough to think that the drama they know is for real this time.

So maybe reality TV should dispense with the pretense and invite individuals to create their own drama. You want to create a Cinderella story? Ask your friend with the camcorder to tape you training for the Olympics. Sell it to NBC? Construct your own Bachelor, except that you look for your bride among strangers. Start a videoblog.

Of course, the networks have a leg up because they foot the production cost. The participants are geeks in the original sense of the word, doing humiliating things for public entertainment.

We all know that people are willing to pay a steep price for fame, and the reality shows are all based on that premise. But it doesn't give us much to admire. Perhaps there should be reality shows about people who get the chance to be heroes; whom the networks enable to do worthy things - like finding a home for an orphan, or a child for an inferile couple, or a scholarship for a talented but disadvantaged teenager. Maybe it should be about someone who wants to learn more about his/her deceased parent, or maybe even someone who wants to find a buyer for a company that is about to go under.

We have seen enough losers who will do anything to win; maybe it's to see stories about people who deserve to win.
Sent wirelessly from my Blackberry.

Mount Moriah Malaise

I couldn't help but detect a certain tone of triumph in Aftenposten's report the other day, that the new Israeli security chief was warning that “Jewish terrorist groups” were planning to blow up the Noble Sanctuary, which is “also called” the Temple Mount.

The people who are plotting to blow up the Dome of the Rock are fanatics and criminals, and possibly murderers if they should succeed, but they are not terrorists. An attack of this kind is not aimed at causing fear among non-combatants, and it's probably not intended to kill anyone at all. Aftenposten takes great care to call Palestinian terrorists “militants,” but this caution only goes one way.

Another nit: why are papers like Aftenposten so anxious to put *Jewish* vs. *Palestinian* extremism? You might wonder if they are trying to attribute the “bad” acts of one to religious fanaticism, and justify “equivalent” acts of another to a frustrated independence movement.

Now, let me make it clear that I object to any thought of destroying or damaging the Dome of the Rock, the al-Aqsa mosque, or any other Muslim building on Mount Moriah on: moral grounds, because I think we must respect others' holy sites; religious grounds, because I think the third Temple must be built in peace; and political grounds, because the fallout would be devastating.

Having said that, I must also say that the Jewish claim to the Temple Mount is at least as strong as the Muslim one, and dismissing it amounts to antisemitism. In spite of the Waq'f's insistence that there never was a Jewish temple on the site (and their efforts to destroy archeological evidence that there was), there is a) overwhelming archeological and literary evidence that there was, and b) no doubt that the Temple rite is central to Jewish religion and history. There are lots of compelling reasons why Israel and the Jewish community should refrain from acting on the claim, but lack of legitimacy is not one of them. If the UN and its member states had any decency, they'd pass joint and separate resolutions acknowledging the Jewish people's claim and thanking Israel for her forebearance.

Sent wirelessly from my Blackberry.

Hurra for dagen!

May 17th is Norwegian constitution day, commemorating the day in 1814 when elected dignitaries from Norway's political estates convened in Eidsvoll and agreed on a constitution. While Norway didn't become fully independent until 1905, May 17th entered the will of the Norwegian people as a determining factor in how the country was governed.

I meet this day every year with some ambivalence. In Norway it is a exhilarating, festive day. Flags everywhere, people dressed in colorful, often traditional garb, large children's parades, and a lot of smiles. Norway really does have something to celebrate - it has grown - mostly through hard work, but also some luck - from an impoverished outpost of Europe to one of most modern, yet scenic plaves you'll ever see. Its independence movement, in 1814 and especially in 1905, was a grassroots effort - it would be hard to find a sovereign state with a stronger case for legitimacy than Norway. Also, mid-May is a beautiful time of year.

Norwegian school children learn to be proud of the constitution, but a closer read will find a couple of problems.

One is stylistic - it's written in archaic Danish and is yet to be officially translated into either the Norwegian languages. An annoyance mostly, but with some symbolic value.

More importantly, a lot of its content is coming into public debate, and the fact that it is riddled with abolished paragraphs makes it ready for an overhaul. For example, it may make sense to move the establishment of a state church out of the constitution and into law, pending public opinion.

What is needed, I think, is an open debate on whether the basis for Norway's existence has changed. In 1814, the framers had an ethnocentric intent - Norway was the land of ethnic Norwegians - people with the same religion, the same native language, and a shared history. And although the overwhelming majority of Norwegians would still be recognizable to the Eidsvoll men, a large number would look alien to them. The framers were xenophobic, provincial elitists, as were most of the ruling class of their time. Norwegian political leaders of our time take pride in being the opposite: open-minded, inclusive, and progressive.

A new constitution would be unlikely to change the organization of Norway's government much: it would remain a constitutional monarchy, with the appropriate checks and balances. But it should make Norway a state founded on ideals and values, rather than ethnicity.

Perhaps its guiding symbol should be the many Norwegians wearing traditional outfits today with ancestors from Pakistan, Korea, Somalia, Vietnam, and elsewhere - a nation that generouslu shares its heritage and eagerly adds to it.

Happy birthday, Norway. Sent wirelessly from my Blackberry.

Dumping on the taxpayer

The platform pundits that I meet every day on my way to work agreed yesterday that the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp has become a “dumping ground” for bankrupt pension plans, and that “GM is next.” Today the Wall Street Journal joined the chorus, forecasting that underfunded pension plans could cost taxpayers as much as $250 billion. The Journal points out that the employees would have been better with defined contribution plans, since these are portable.

In the same edition, the Journal wonders if Rick Santorum might lose his job as a result of his support for Social Security private accounts.

In other words, people want defined benefit plans, but they may not know what's best for them.

But let's be clear here: defined benefits can also be made portable. Insurance companies are good at that sort of thing. The problem is that UAL, GM, etc., commingled financial services and their core business operations, unethically funding the latter by borrowing from the former. The pension plans are a creditor just like any other, but the “shareholders” are employees or retirees with no bargaining power.

One of the sleaziest things Enron did was to insist that their employees put their 401(k) funds into Enron stock, effectively forcing them to concentrate their risk.

The Journal implies that things would have been better if prospective pensioners could simply learn to accept more investment risk. Bush's ownership society could also be termed the “put the risk on the little guy society,” and Americans are smart enough to realize this.

To be sure, financial institutions charge for assuming the risk of guaranteed benefits, and the beneficiaries have to forego the upside along with the downside of a defined contribution arrangement. But it's a false dilemma to say that ownership only comes with defined contribution and defined benefit carries the risk of fraud.

Against the pension plan bailout, the Social security debate seems a little ridiculous. UAL borrowed money from its employees to keep the company afloat, and this loan is being assumed by the taxpayers. In the end, we underwrote these employees' pensions because the government didn't enforce a contract between UAL and its employees. I'm not a fan of regulation, but here's an examply we sometimed need it.
Sent wirelessly from my Blackberry.