Natch Greyes' Political Line

Zombie Attack Science & Quarantines

2009-12-12T20:05:00.003-05:00

The New York Times has released it's Ninth Annual Year in Ideas and while there were a lot of interesting ideas the one that caught my attention was titled 'Zombie Attack Science.' Basically, a graduate student at Carleton University in Ottawa, Philip Munz, used the idea of zombies to study a disease outbreak. The results were, predictably, grim.

For years epidemiologists have known that, except in certain cases, quarantines don't work. In the end quarantines only slow the rate of infection, something well documented with H1N1 (Swine Flu). Munz managed to prove that in the case of an infectious disease (in this case 'zombism') which conformed to the following rules: after getting bitten people turn into zombies in 24 hours and sometimes don't realize what's happening to them until they change. It also seems that everyone exposed is infected (something not like the flu but not outside the realm of possibility for some diseases (although most of those diseases do not have an efficient delivery vector)).

In a city of one million Munz found that after 7 to 10 days everyone was either "dead or undead." Quarantining the zombies, unsurprisingly, only bought a few more days. Further, a 'cure' which did not provide immunity allowed only between ten and fifteen percent of residents to survive. "There was only one winning solution: fighting back quickly and fiercely. If, after the first zombies emerge, humanity begins a policy of "eradication," then the zombies can be beaten."

This has frightening implications for epidemiology. If certain conditions are met it may be necessary to kill those infected in order to preserve the majority of the population. That has grave implications for policy making as the end goal of nations or organizations developing biological weapons would undoubtedly seek this scenario. It's hard to imagine a 'win' for government when the rules of the game require the killing of some portion of the population. Of course, we are fortunate that there is a ban on biological weapons but it should be noted that not all countries are party to the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and it is not likely that terrorists or certain other international groups will willingly follow the BWC's terms.

Note: Munz' research is available here (.pdf)

Edit: Just finished reading the comments following the NYT article and found this gem:

Natch Greyes is a Democrat providing commentary and analysis on elections and policy agendas in American politics.

Copenhagen's Climate Clash

2009-12-10T18:04:00.005-05:00

Over the last few days it has become increasingly obvious that the 'Developing Nations,' especially China and India, are unwilling to invest in energy efficient technologies. China, in particular, would like the United States and Europe to front the cost of much of the proposed energy saving measures. Obviously, this is an intolerable request. China and her friends would like to get something for nothing, an unacceptable premise for any agreement.

Climate change is happening. The recent scandal in the University of East Anglia has done nothing to change that fact. We should not be surprised that those scientists misrepresented facts and chose to emphasize certain aspects of climate change over other aspects. They are not, after all, ethicists and expecting them to act, in some way, more morally than the rest of mankind is foolish. They are, after all, only human, guilty of the same desires, the same pressures, and the same illusions of grandeur which haunt all of us.

Now, I know that about half the readers of my blog are staunch conservatives and find it intolerable that I would continue to maintain that climate change is happening. But, I also know that many of them find this intolerable because they would, almost naturally, assume that my maintaining the truth of climate change means I want to prevent it. Far from it. I am not foolish enough to think that the slow-to-form opinions of The Congress or the even slower-to-form opinions of the international community would result in humans taking any meaningful action to prevent climate change. The mechanisms of change have already been set in motion and only an act of God could prevent them from bulldozing the futile attempts of man.

I use 'energy efficient' bulbs and appliances precisely because they are 'energy efficient.' Energy costs money, the less I use the less I have to pay. It's simple economics. It's something everyone should do, not out of concern for the environment but out of self-interest. Self-interest is precisely what those masters of economics, those researchers and scientists should appeal. It is more compelling, more threatening, more real to frame the debate over energy independence as being about buying the bombs which kill our friends and families in Iraq and Afghanistan versus bankrupting the terrorist organizations than it is to frame it as being about saving the environment versus business-as-usual. It's a lot more horrific to hear the truth, that the 12 gallons of gasoline John Q. Public bought at the local gas-station last week payed for the bullet that took the life of PFC Bob Brown in Baghdad yesterday.

When we turn our attention to something like the tangible effects of climate change we should emulate former Senator John Culver (D-IA). We should try to "get ahead of the curve" and practice some foresight. We should invest not in futile attempts to change China's mind but in knowledge about our own geography and prepare the economy to deal with what may amount to be fast paced changes. How much do we really know, for instance, about Iowa and what climate change will likely do to Iowa? Will Iowa still be able to be the "food capital of the world." Or will it no longer be possible to grow crops such as corn in much of Iowa? What degree of change will be necessary to produce such changes and will the climate of Iowa become more compatible to growing another crop (rice perhaps)? If it turns out that Iowa can no longer sustain a massive output of corn will we be able to transition off corn to other foods and where will those foods be grown? As far as I know, predictive studies aimed at answering these questions have not yet even been proposed.

We're woefully unprepared for climate change but I have faith in the 'can do' American spirit. In biblical times, when it it was not unusual for God to speak to man, God told Noah to build an arc. Today, God speaks to man through science. It is in science that we must have faith. But, when our policy makers fail to give science a direction through specific allocation of funds for the pursuit of knowledge relating to the prediction of future events then we cannot hope to save ourselves, we cannot hope to maintain our dominance on the world stage. Imagine if Noah had ignored God and failed to build the arc. A similar fate might beset us if we fail to act.

In Copenhagen, the worry about China centers on her Carbon output and the potential costs of failing to curb that output. By taking aggressive, forward thinking steps we can circumvent many of those costs. By investing in research that will tell us what to expect on our own shores we will gain knowledge about climate change which is nontransferable. It does China no good to know the expected climate and, subsequently, agricultural output of Iowa or Nebraska or any other state. That knowledge, useless as it is to other countries, will give us an economic and strategic advantage over other countries. The economic shocks and burdens can be diluted over time as we take measures to protect our vital interests. Those measures will almost certainly not be replicated in places like China and the rest of the 'Developing World,' places which have already shown to have a disregard to preparing for the future. By preparing ourselves, by taking the necessary precautions we can help keep our country at the head of the pack and our citizens safe from catastrophe.

Natch Greyes is a Democrat providing commentary and analysis on elections and policy agendas in American politics.

2009-12-08T09:28:00.003-05:00

The poll workers only expected 20 to 25 people to vote at my precinct and maybe 1400 through all Worcester.

2009-12-08T09:28:00.001-05:00

Just voted in the Massachusetts Senate Primary. Poll workers told of a grand total of 9 people had already voted.

"A Date Which Will Live In Infamy" December 7, 1941

2009-12-07T13:29:00.000-05:00

Today, we mark the 68th Anniversary of the dastardly attack by the naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan. In honor of today:

If you'd like to see/hear/read FDR's greatest speech in a different format, please head over to American Rhetoric.

Natch Greyes is a Democrat providing commentary and analysis on elections and policy agendas in American politics.

Senate Select Committee Admonishes Senator Burris

2009-11-22T20:27:00.001-05:00

United States Senate Select Committee on Ethics Admonishment of Senator Burris (D-IL)
Natch Greyes is a Democrat providing commentary and analysis on elections and policy agendas in American politics.

Veterans Day 2009

2009-11-11T08:00:00.001-05:00

It's Veterans Day 2009. Remember to thank a Veteran.

Natch Greyes is a Democrat providing commentary and analysis on elections and policy agendas in American politics.

In Honor of Today: Tear Down This Wall

2009-11-09T18:33:00.000-05:00

Natch Greyes is a Democrat providing commentary and analysis on elections and policy agendas in American politics.

2009-11-07T23:12:00.001-05:00

A lone Republican joined the Democrats. How sad, only the Congressman from Louisiana joined them

2009-11-07T23:07:00.001-05:00

The House passed health reform.

2009-11-07T23:05:00.001-05:00

The House passed health reform.

In an interesting twist: Illegal Immigrants in Mexico

2009-11-07T19:55:00.001-05:00

Natch Greyes is a Democrat providing commentary and analysis on elections and policy agendas in American politics.

Analysis of Election 2009: Voters Wanted Change

2009-11-04T08:36:00.000-05:00

I was surprised at some of the results last night but not at others. When I look over what happened in New Jersey, Virginia and, yes, Worcester I see one clear pattern - incumbents lost. And incumbents lost with anywhere from a fairly slim to a fairly hefty margin. If the voters are trying to tell elected officials anything it's "we don't like the situation we're in and you guys don't seem to be doing enough to change it." (Note that in the next election, the Special Election for Senate in Massachusetts, Congressman Capuano who is running as a Washington Insider is not doing so hot in the polls).

Honestly, given that 2008 was the year a whole bunch of new faces went to Congress (and the White House) and it was such a bad year economically I'm not surprised that 2009, which has also been pretty bad economically (except for a brief period in summer when stocks rallied pretty far), would also result in the displacement of incumbents. I said before that New Jersey pitted an unpopular Governor against a challenger and that challenger was going to run a strong race no matter what positions he held. That prediction has been largely true - Cristie seems to have won 48.8% of the vote, just enough to win against Corzine. Likewise, the current Democratic Governor, Kaine, didn't make decisive moves in helping people out. I'm not surprised that Deeds lost there (although the race pitting Deeds against McDonnell previously would also indicate a likely Deeds loss). And, in my own Worcester, we elected a Mayor, Joe O'Brien, who was running against what everyone thought to be a strong incumbent. So, I have to say that it seems to me that the economy and everything that goes along with it really pushed people to vote for change in terms of incumbents and incumbent parties.

When we look at the returns in New York's 23rd Congressional District the same holds true. The Republican was kept out of office. Interestingly, the twist on this trend happened in California's 10th Congressional District which the Democrats managed to hold on to even with everything bad in the economy. I really don't know too much about the race in CA-10 but the National Journal indicates that the Republicans weren't really a presence, so I'm not sure we can actually draw any real conclusions from it.

The one major bucking of the trend was in terms of Mayoral Races in big cities. Detroit, Pittsburgh, Boston, and New York City all continue to have their incumbent Mayors. My hypothesis on this is that perhaps in these cities the voters didn't see the Mayor as having much control over the economy whereas some place like Worcester, which was already suffering before the recession, saw ineffectiveness at the Mayoral level and had to deal with severe budget cuts/reallocations of funds. It's simply not clear what's going on in Mayoral races but, for federal elections at least, the trend last night seemed to be out with the old, in with the new.

Maine's Proposition 1 was a major disappointment. Pollster.com explains how what happened could have happened in a very detailed way. Mostly, it was a combination of polling margins and the language of the Proposition. A "No" vote was a vote for same-sex marriage - that's a bit confusing and something same-sex marriage advocates should work to correct if they put a ballot measure on the ballot in 2010.

It's hard to say exactly why Prop 1 failed to continue to exist. I'm sure there will be more detailed reports coming out soon but overall I think the conservatives did a very good job of motivating voters and we just didn't see the diversity in Maine that we'd normally see for something like a Presidential election. It's quite possible that a vote on the same Ballot Measure would have produced different results had this been a Presidential election year. But there is also probability that, as with most progress, taking four steps forward is met with one step back. It is hard to say exactly.

Also, results from Washington State's Referendum 71 are still coming in so no analysis on that yet.

Natch Greyes is a Democrat providing commentary and analysis on elections and policy agendas in American politics.

The Onion on Glen Beck

2009-11-03T18:32:00.001-05:00

Cruel & Somewhat Unusual

Victim In Fatal Car Accident Tragically Not Glenn Beck
Natch Greyes is a Democrat providing commentary and analysis on elections and policy agendas in American politics.

Election Day 2009: Live Blog

2009-11-03T07:28:00.000-05:00

Election 2009

Natch Greyes is a Democrat providing commentary and analysis on elections and policy agendas in American politics.

Elections Next Tuesday

2009-10-28T19:58:00.000-04:00

I haven't been writing here recently for a variety of reasons but mainly because of my concern about the potential impact my blogging will have on potential employment opportunities. Due to this concern I am seriously considering suspending my blogging. I do, however, have great love of elections and election day and will certainly be live blogging the coming election. Here are some things to look for:

Governor

New Jersey - The Race for Governor between Republican Chris Cristie and Democrat Jon Corzine. Pollster.com is reporting that although the race is very close Corzine may pull out ahead. He currently leads 40.8% to Christie's 39.1% (Daggett, an independent, is taking the rest of the vote).

Virginia - The Race for Governor between Republican Robert McDonnell and Democrat Creigh Deeds is looking like a McDonnell lock with a 12 point lead. Virginians previously picked McDonnell over Deeds and it doesn't seem as if Deeds has been able to energize Virginians who trend Left, something not too surprising considering the bruising primary the Democrats went through earlier this year.

Ballot Initiatives

Maine - Two words: Gay Marriage. Yeah, voting is crucial. Although polls seem to be indicating that a blow to same-sex marriage is about to occur, Question 1 is the only major thing on the ballot and so turnout is crucial. (For the record I'm saying 'No' on 1).

Congressional Races

New York's 23 (NY-23) - The fight between Republican Dede Scozzafava and Wanna-Be Republican (Conservative Party Candidate) Doug Hoffman has been the story. This has allowed Democrat Bill Owens to pull out ahead. Honestly, Talking Points Memo (TPM) has the best coverage of NY-23 I've seen. Personally, I would have liked to see Dede Scozzafava in Congress. I think her stances on the issues are generally in the direction the Republicans need to start moving in order to continue to stay a national party.

Other Stuff

Worcester, MA - Yep, the place where I'm currently voting is having a Mayoral Race. I received a nice, hand lettered flier from Joe O'Brian's campaign today. That was a nice touch. I was already planning on casting my ballot for him but it's nice to see a bit of personal outreach. (Occasionally, that does some good things, like get your name on a blog). We're also voting for some other positions as described by the Telegram and Gazette. But I don't really feel the need to go into those.

If I missed any important races (or races that you think I should have mentioned) please let me know.

Natch Greyes is a Democrat providing commentary and analysis on elections and policy agendas in American politics.

Secondhand Smoking

2009-10-19T22:42:00.000-04:00

I was recently engaged in a debate on secondhand smoke due to the recent release of a paper by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) which indicate that smoking bans could help reduce the incidence of heart attacks by 6-47% in non-smokers. I support smoking bans and I want to share my reasoning.

While it's true that there is some difference between the smoke inhaled by smokers and secondhand smoke that difference is different only in that the smoke inhaled by smokers is typically run through a filter (in the case of cigarettes). Secondhand smoke is a combination of the smoke inhaled by smokers and unfiltered smoke directly from burning tobacco products. (Source). In equal quantities this makes secondhand smoke more dangerous than inhaled smoke run through a filter because secondhand smoke includes non-filtered as well as filtered smoke.

There are 250 chemicals in tobacco smoke known to be harmful, with 50 of them known carcinogens. (Source). Carcinogens typically act either by promoting mutations in genomic DNA resulting in altered cell growth or, by some mechanical mechanism, promoting cell growth. In essence, the cancerous cells become 'cancerous' because they undergo rapid malignant division and growth creating tumors. (Source: Common Knowledge)

Further, many of the harmful compounds in tobacco smoke seriously elevate the risk of other diseases. And, secondhand smoke is known to cause heart disease, typically manifesting as a heart attack, and is known to cause Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS).

The effects of secondhand smoke are clear. Secondhand smoke negatively affects the health of everyone exposed to it. But, some people believe that they have the right to smoke anywhere they wish. Nothing could be further from the truth. I will attempt to show this in several, distinct arguments.

1. Group rights trump individual rights. No one would argue that something which is to the benefit of one individual but the detriment of everyone else could be construed to be the right by which the state should abide, i.e. what benefits the group should be held in higher esteem than that which benefits a single individual. If this were not true than anarchy would descend in the legal realm for individuals could act with impunity against the interests of the group.

2. The right to health trumps the right of individual liberty. If this were not true than it would not be possible that freedoms of expression could be curbed by the interests of the state. For example, 'hate speech' could be prosecuted, for otherwise individual liberty would allow expression of that speech.

3. If it were true that individuals should be allowed to smoke in public places, clearly in opposition to the interest of the public health, then individuals should also be allowed to violate the public health in other ways. The wanton spraying of other chemicals hazardous to the public health, against the interest of some individuals, should be allowed because, clearly, if the public health cannot be considered in one case it makes sense that it should not be considered in another case. Therefore, we shouldn't regulate things like air or water quality because, really, individuals should be allowed to dump whatever chemicals they please into those two systems (air & water).

4. The exposure to secondhand smoke is inadvertent. It might be argued that the exposure to other detriments to health is also inadvertent. Such is the case with a virus, e.g. H1N1. Yet, unlike a virus, there is a conscious choice inherent in secondhand smoke. That choice is not made by the person exposed to to secondhand smoke. While the smoker him/herself choses to elevate his/her risk this choice is not made by the person exposed to secondhand smoke. In the case of instances where a conscious choice can be made whether to be exposed to something or not exposed (e.g. certain vaccines which treat conditions not contracted at random) people should be allowed to evaluate the risks versus the benefits themselves before a choice is made for them.

I could probably think of a half dozen other arguments for smoking bans but I think those four are sufficient for now. Suffice it to say, I support smoking bans because of three major reasons: they are in the interest of the public health, exposure to secondhand smoke does not allow the exposee a choice in the matter of exposure to harmful chemicals and the benefits of implementing such a ban (in terms of monetary cost, time spent to treat associated illnesses, and general improvement of average health) outweigh whatever costs such a ban incurs.

Natch Greyes is a Democrat providing commentary and analysis on elections and policy agendas in American politics.

Gardasil: Yeah, Who Didn't See That Coming?

2009-10-15T22:44:00.001-04:00

[Edit: This Post Updated October 16th @ 1:25 p.m., updated in blue]

The L.A. Times' Opinion published an article by Karin Klein about Gardasil. She's been wondering about why the FDA didn't recommend that boys be vaccinated alongside girls, so have I. Oh wait, they did. But why isn't it being pushed in the same way that it has been pushed for girls, considering approval occurred nearly a month ago?

Let me note that the only way to eliminate the strains of HPV which cause cervical cancer from the population is to vaccinate boys as well. This is due to the need to vaccinate a large enough proportion of the population to eliminate the disease (as was done with smallpox).

"The cost of giving boys the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine would outweigh any health benefit, researchers say." Wait, what? You mean the potential to slow the spread of HPV and significantly lowering the risk of women getting cervical cancer isn't worth the (monetary) cost?

So why wasn't it a good value? "Vaccination was considered a good value if cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from $50,000 to $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year, meaning the cost of the vaccine vs. the number of added years someone would gain by getting the vaccine." So, basically, since boys can't get cervical cancer it's not worth vaccinating them even though it would almost certainly slow the spread of HPV to girls, who can get cervical cancer.

Now, you would think that it was Merck, the producer of Gardasil, who was pushing for boys not to be vaccinated wouldn't you? I mean it makes sense, if you only vaccinate girls you will never vaccinate all of them and so you will need to keep supplying the population with vaccine so you'll continually have a cash crop. But, Merck is actually being the responsible player here. (Kudos to Merck). Merck petitioned the FDA to approve the vaccine for boys to prevent genital warts. Merck petitioned the results of the Harvard School of Public Health results which said it wasn't worth vaccinating boys. Merck is leading the way when it comes to pointing out that HPV causes problems for men as well as women and that it's to the benefit of men to get vaccinated.

Now, some of Merck's interest is selfish (They can make a bunch of money). But, it's interesting that it's the company which is being responsible, not the medical professionals who are putting monetary cost above societal cost.

Of course, the media has latched onto the Harvard results which came out on October 9th in the British Medical Journal (online). It is these results which have prompted most of the media attention on Gardasil and vaccinations.

Natch Greyes is a Democrat providing commentary and analysis on elections and policy agendas in American politics.

Senators Beveridge & Hoar On Mideast Military Escapades

2009-10-14T21:32:00.000-04:00

Both Senators Beveridge and Hoar died long ago. Their words regarding the Philippines and the problems the United States was facing regarding that nation seem to apply to the current cases of Iraq and Afghanistan. Beveridge was a fierce imperialist while Hoar called for a cessation of the annexation of territories.

Senator Beveridge said "The military situation, past, present, and prospective, is no reason for abandonment. Our campaign has been as perfect as possible with the force at hand. We have been delayed, first, by a failure to comprehend the immensity of our acquisition; and, second, by insufficient force; and, third, by our efforts for peace...We attempted a great task with insufficient means; we became impatient that it was not finished before it could fairly be commenced; and I pray we may not add that other element of disaster, pausing in the work before it is thoroughly and forever done. That is the gravest mistake we could possibly make, and that is the only danger before us...Mr. President, reluctantly and only from a sense of duty am I forced to say that American opposition to the war has been the chief factor in prolonging it...

We must act on the situation as it exists, not as we would wish it. I have talked with hundreds of...people, getting their views as to the practical workings of self-government. The great majority simply do not understand any participation in any government whatever. The most enlightened among them declare that self-government will succeed because the employers of labor will compel their employees to vote as their employer wills and that this will insure intelligent voting. I was assured that we could depend upon good men always being in office because the officials who constitute the government will nominate their successors, choose those among the people who will do the voting, and determine how and where elections will be held.

The most ardent advocate of self-government that I met was anxious that I should know that such a government would be tranquil because, as he said, if anyone criticized it, the government would shoot the offender. A few of them have a sort of verbal understanding of the democratic theory, but the above are the examples of the ideas of the practical workings of self-government entertained by the aristocracy, the rich planters and traders, and heavy employers of labor, the men who would run the government..."

Meanwhile, Senator Hoar said "If a strong people try to govern a weak one against its will, the home government will get despotic, too...If you try to deprive even a savage or a barbarian of his just rights you can never do it without becoming a savage or a barbarian yourself.

Gentlemen talk about sentimentalities, about idealism. They like practical statesmanship better. But, Mr. President, this whole debate for the last four years has been a debate between two kinds of sentimentality. There has been practical statesmanship in plenty on both sides.

You also, my imperialistic friends, have had your ideals and your sentimentalities. One is that the flag shall never be hauled down where it has once floated. Another is that you will not talk or reason with a people with arms in their hands. Another is that sovereignty over an unwilling people may be bought with gold. And another is that sovereignty may be got by force of arms, as the booty of battle or the spoils of victory.

What has been the practical statesmanship which comes from your ideals and your sentimentalities? You have wasted six hundred millions of treasure. You have sacrificed nearly ten thousand American lives-the flower of our youth. You have devastated provinces. You have slain uncounted thousands of the people you desire to benefit. You have established reconcentration camps. Your generals are coming home from their harvest, bringing their sheaves with them, in the shape of thousands of sick and wounded and insane to drag out their miserable lives, wreaked in body and mind. You make the American flag in the eyes of numerous people the emblem of sacrilege in Christian churches, and of the burning of human dwellings, and of the horror of the water torture...

Your practical statesmanship has succeeded in converting a people who three years ago were ready to kiss the hem of the garment of the American and to welcome him as a liberator, who thronged after your men when they landed on those islands with benediction and gratitude, into sullen and irreconcilable enemies, possessed of a hatred which centuries cannot eradicate."

While not all of what they said applies to Iraq and Afghanistan, most of what I've included in this post is, in some way, relevant. And, while not all the specific measures are the same, many of the same measures still matter.

It is hard to say what lessons we should take from these two Senator's speeches on the Philippines but let us at least acknowledge that the subjects are, more or less, the same then as today.

Natch Greyes is a Democrat providing commentary and analysis on elections and policy agendas in American politics.

Abstinence Education Theory - Review III

2009-10-14T20:38:00.000-04:00

'What is the purpose of abstinence education theory?' According to our Federal Government it is to "deliver...the message that abstinence is the surest way to avoid out–of–wedlock pregnancy and STDs." That, I think, is a pretty good definition of what we mean when we discuss abstinence education theory. On one hand, this issue does not adequately address the issue which many fundamentalists consider 'the issue' for abstinence education theory, the health and safety of the eternal soul. On the other hand, inclusion of religion both violates the Constitutional prohibition against establishment of religion and ignores the problem inherent in 'knowledge of God.' So, for the purposes of this argument I'll ignore the implications of religion.

I'm not clear why the out-of-wedlock pregnancy is a big concern. In 2007, "the birth rate rose slightly for women of all ages, and births to unwed mothers reached an all-time high of about 40 percent, continuing a trend begun years ago. More than three-quarters of these women were 20 or older...for a variety of reasons, it's become more acceptable for women to have babies without a husband."

Really, it doesn't seem as if abstinence education can hope to reverse this trend, especially considering abstinence education focuses on teens whereas three-quarters of the women are older than teens. It seems as though out-of-wedlock pregnancy is becoming an accepted norm, rather than staying a shameful deviant. Whether or not this is 'good' for the country is hard to say, and certainly outside the scope of this inquiry.

It is sufficient, for our purposes, to say that out-of-wedlock pregnancy, while certainly stopped by abstinence, is rapidly becoming an accepted norm and it doesn't make sense that a major initiative via abstinence education will work to effectively reverse this trend. So, when we ask ourselves what the is purpose of abstinence education theory we must eventually come around to the conclusion that the most pressing concern for the public is the spread of STDs. Certainly, diseases such as HIV/AIDS, which could be largely stopped by abstinence on behalf of those infected, should have already become extinct before now if abstinence education theory had worked. Yet, the spread of HIV/AIDS goes on unabated.

From a public health standpoint, abstinence education theory would implement an action (abstinence) which would work to stop the spread of STDs more effectively than any alternative if it effectively conveyed the message and motivated people to action (or, I guess, lack thereof). If it is at all effective then it is worth continuing abstinence education but if it is not at all effective than perhaps we ought to move in new directions when confronting the STD threat. As is said, 'the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.'

Anyone want to chime in with thoughts on abstinence education theory or any of the points I made about it over the last three posts?

Natch Greyes is a Democrat providing commentary and analysis on elections and policy agendas in American politics.

Abstinence Education Theory - Review II

2009-10-08T14:21:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, I began a review of abstinence education theory as an intro into the new policy analysis side of this blog. Admittedly, my review, up to this point, has centered on weak arguments and focused in on the ambiguity of grammatical usage, i.e. disproving a conclusion through targeting its premises. Okay, today, I'm focusing on misinformation of one particular type. In particular, I want to address the issue of myths about contraception being widespread, as recently demonstrated in the UK (or easily available on a laughable enterprise like Yahoo! Answers (Possible NSFW Link)).

Much of abstinence education theory is aimed at teenagers. The education geared towards abstinence is, at least in some places, not supplemented with basic information on pregnancy and conception. If history tells us anything it tells us that people have this driving urge to reproduce and we just won't be able to stop that from happening (nor should we). But really, we do need to be more conscientious of making sure people are informed of basic information about the human body and the reproductive system.

The question we should concern ourselves with is how to effectively deliver this information. One of the main points I want to get across is that 'what you don't know can't hurt you' is not an effective approach to sexual relations. When one in five British women are listing bizarre uses of kitchen utensils as birth control methods we, Americans, should look at our own society, which probably isn't so different from Britain on this count, and reassess what and how we are informing our citizens. It's not that the focus should be on birth control methods. But, when we assess what demographics, what populations are most susceptible to contracting and spreading sexually transmitted diseases it follows that we should look harder at the groups who are ignorant than the ones who are knowledgeable.

Admittedly, knowledge doesn't solve everything. By all counts Ted Kaczynski was a pretty knowledgeable guy but he did commit some horrific crimes. So, we cannot necessarily say that people by having knowledge will necessarily make good choices. People are, unfortunately, likely to "use their malignity of mind every time they have the opportunity." But, it is hard to say that ignorance does not play some sort of role in acting malignantly. Certainly, people must make choices and those choices are necessarily contributed to not only by social convention and pressure but also knowledge or absence thereof.

Further, it is necessary that in discussing the subject of abstinence education theory we also discuss the only marginally related factors of social networks and other peer-to-peer interactions. These areas contribute substantially to the decisions of teens. When discussing these issues in-depth we come to the realization that such seemingly unrelated factors such as truth versus perception must also be discussed and somehow a coherent view of these factors must be conveyed to teenagers. It is a common error to believe that the perception of something is the same as the reality of that same thing. There are some things in our control, some things which we can act upon with certainty, those things are our perceptions. Those things we cannot control, those things which we err when acting upon are that which we call the perceptions others craft for themselves or others, namely reputation. Reputations are not reality, they are but amalgamations of opinions, others' opinions.

The problem when we discuss abstinence education theory is not necessarily the theory itself, or that which opposes the theory, but, rather, the very implementation of the theory. It is well and good to recognize the wisdom of Freud's insight into man's motivation being sexuality but that is a far step removed from controlling that motivation. Many smokers recognize that smoking is bad for their health but that in itself is not enough to stop them from smoking. It is an effort of personal will that allows smokers to stop smoking alongside other innumerable factors. Abstinence theory seeks to impart that 'effort of personal will' in teenagers in order to motivate them to stop having sexual relations. Abstinence theory seeks to create and control some of those other innumerable factors which will allow teenagers to abstain from sexual relations. This is well and good, in theory, but it must be hard for smokers to quit when their families smoke or cigarettes are handed out free on street corners. So too will it be hard to impart that 'effort' on teenagers who themselves are responding to the most basic and pure of biological urges. It is hard for reason to conquer desire. It is harder still to explain why what one perceives as reasonable is reasonable and should be conquering the alternatives. That, in a word, is the problem with abstinence education theory. It is unable to control the message and because of this it is unable to control the action and so there will always be teenagers having sexual relations.

Natch Greyes provides commentary and analysis on elections and policy agendas in American politics.

The Abstinence Clearing House

2009-10-07T19:10:00.002-04:00

I'd make excuses about not updating recently but like my good friend Byron I'm trying to balance my political commentary with the possibility of not annoying potential employers. Of course, to kick this off I'm going to comment on a post on 'The Abstinence Clearing House Blog.' It's not that I disagree with the idea behind 'Abstinence Education' that prompts me to publish these comments, it's just that I think rational discussion on this, and many other issues, has been hijacked by people who aren't willing to question their beliefs and biases and make adjustments to their public advocacies which will maximize the benefit to the majority of people. The fundamental feature of government which we must keep in mind, a one of the philosophical bases of our great Republic, is that government must serve people and do whatever is most beneficial to the majority of people rather than allow, for instance, people to make decisions based on what is to the benefit of the stronger. It is not that I do not recognize that benefiting the stronger, the majority party in power is not a valid governmental politic but that doing simply what appears best may, in fact, be detrimental not necessarily because of what is desired but because of what is derived from what is desired.

Now that I've gotten the esoteric argument out of my system, let me begin by saying 'The Abstinence Clearinghouse Blog' came to my attention via FailBlog, in this post. As a result, I visited the site to discover this post which is written by Dr. Allen Unruh, a Chiropractor in South Dakota.

Dr. Unruh makes quite a show of displaying ambiguous usage of language and subtle rhetorical tricks to persuade the reader of his points. The first I spotted was "Public policy should always encourage moral restraint and responsibility. It’s the foundation of freedom." If we follow traditional English grammatical usage the "it" in second sentence of Dr. Unruh's statement refers back to "public policy" in the first sentence. Ergo, we find "[Public policy is] the foundation of freedom." Well, obviously. But, public policy is also the foundation of all things which are inherent in governance. Of course, being savy readers we understand that Dr. Unruh means to say that "moral restraint" and "responsibility" are the foundations of freedom. But really, what do "moral restraint" and "responsibility" have to do with "freedom?" Can we really say Ronald Regan was a bad president because he ate too many jelly beans? What I mean by that, of course, is to question how we are relating the two variables, the two premises, with the conclusion. How does "moral restraint" and "responsibility" translate into "freedom."

Next, he says "Too many young people have bought the lie that ecstasy and utopia are only found in temporary emotional highs. When the low comes back they search for another fix." Again, we have a problem with the usage of language. Clearly, "low" in the second sentence can only refer back to the first sentence's "highs," (which can be concluded from the opposition of these two terms). Yet, "they search for another fix" is highly ambiguous. Clearly, "they" means "many young people" but "another fix" is simply difficult to understand. "Fix" in this context is meant to convey a sense of action, it is, in essence, a verb. But, "another" implies that there was both 'a prior fix' and there is probably 'an alternative.' Thus, when considering the first sentence we find that 'have bought' is the passive verb and that this is to what 'fix' must refer back. This opens the possibility that 'many young people who search for another fix' search for an alternative to 'ecstasy and utopia.' Of course, Dr. Unruh doesn't mean for his words to be interpreted this way but he leaves this open as a possible interpretation.

Then he says, "The principles of teaching abstinence are the only proven and tested ways to promote a life of success, health and happiness." So, what are "the principles of teaching abstinence?" I'd like to know because I'd like "a life of success, health and happiness." You know, this makes me think of my grandfather. He's had a successful life, he's been sick all of three times and is, by far, the happiest person I know. I don't recall my grandfather following the "principles of teaching abstinence." So, I am forced to conclude that either he really isn't successful, healthy and happy or Dr. Unruh is deeply confused about what it means to be successful, healthy and happy. Faced with the evidence of a healthy family life, monetary gain, medical evidence and wide-ranging social engagement it follows that my grandfather really is everything I described. Therefore, Dr. Unruh doesn't know about success, health and happiness. (I could insert a joke about Sophists here but I'll refrain).

Next is said "Where is the evidence that young people can play Russian Roulette with their lives and hope for the best. Are the odds in their favor." First, the second sentence really seems to be taking the form of a question so it's hard to understand the period at the end. Secondly, to play Russian Roulette you necessarily play 'for your life,' i.e. you have a 1/6th chance of losing your life, i.e. dying. So, it's not really a question of evidence there. But, I suppose one could wonder how one could play for Russian Roulette and "hope for the best." Again, Dr. Unruh is ambiguous in that he does not define "the best." Does this mean winning the game and dying or does this mean losing the game and living? If he defined "the best" perhaps it would be possible to show evidence that young people or, people in general, can play and "hope for the best."

Perhaps the most ambiguous and confusing paragraph in the entire post is the following:

"A kid believes the “resist the establishment lie” and starts smoking, his friends say, Let’s go to marijuana, how about crack cocaine? The highs are higher and last longer, They can’t go to a party without booze, and the faster they drink they may win a contest. Their inhibitions are now weak and why not engage in promiscuous sex, or go along with the craze of “Hooking up.” After all, it’s all fun. “Man is motivated by pleasure,” said Freud and the only purpose of life is “sexual gratification.” “If it feels good do it,” becomes their worldview. But loose women usually fall apart. Deep down they’re pretty shallow."

Let's begin at the beginning of the paragraph. What is the "'resist the establishment lie'"? And how does it relate to "smoking"? (I will maintain that there should be a period after "smoking" and the 'h' in "his" should be capitalized, otherwise the sentence makes no sense to me unless it is to be understood as "A kid believes the 'resist the establishment lie' and starts smoking, his friends say." (Yet, there are obvious problems with understanding the usage of the clause "his friends say" in this context).) Further, the usage of "they may" is inconsistent with the context of the rest of the sentence. Dr. Unruh clearly means "the more likely they will" when he uses "they may." The word "may" in the present context makes little sense if it cannot be understood as 'more likely.' Then, we need to separate the next sentence into: "Their inhibitions are now weak. Why not engage in promiscuous sex or join in the craze of 'hooking up?'" The corrections I propose allow this sentence to make logical sense. One problem does still exist, however, and that is the repetition inherent in saying both "promiscuous sex" and "hooking up" as both phrases mean the same thing. Next, the quote from Freud is fine except it seems as if Dr. Unruh himself proposes "the only purpose of life is 'sexual gratification'." It seems more likely that it is Freud and not Dr. Unruh who proposes this 'purpose' yet it is impossible to tell via grammatical usage. The last real problem with this paragraph is the sudden shift in subject. Dr. Unruh goes from "his" and "'Man'" (though 'man' is an ambiguous term in the context of historical interpretation) to 'women.' Unless the subjects Dr. Unruh is writing about suddenly change gender the comments on 'women' do not follow from the rest of what he is saying.

Then Dr. Unruh begins to discuss GPS and uses it as a metaphor for abstinence. He says "Without a GPS, teaching them their decisions they make at a whim can affect them the rest of their lives, they will end up in ruin." As far as I understand it he means to say "Without a GPS, teaching them [young people] the decisions they make on a whim can affect the rest of their lives...[is not possible]. They will end up in ruin." Note that my interpretation is substantially different from the text as written. I have to say that I find it hard to believe that sexual relations is the only context in which young people can learn that decisions they make on a whim can affect the rest of their lives. I'm almost positive that some other context exists.

I could continue in this vein but I think everyone gets my idea. It's hard to make a good argument when your language doesn't really nail down solid ideas. I know that I have had (and still have) problems with this and it was through the kindness of certain Professors that I was able to make substantial improvements. In light of that fact, I'd like to offer to help Dr. Unruh (or anyone else for that matter) with proof reading and language usage. While I know it won't necessarily make the debate about abstinence (or any other issue) rational and geared towards the betterment of everyone it will, at least, elevate the debate to an intelligible level.

Natch Greyes provides commentary and analysis on elections and policy agendas in American politics.

Massachusetts Edges Closer to an Interim Senator

2009-09-18T07:50:00.002-04:00

I've been covering a lot of the goings on in Massachusetts recently and I think I'll be continuing to do so for some time.

I just wanted to give a quick update on Massachusetts moving closer to an interim Senator. Last night the Mass. House approved a bill in a 95-58 vote to allow the appointment of an interim Senator. Considering it is expected to pass the Senate easily it could be law as early as next week.

The story seems to be that Michael Dukakis would likely be the first choice for interim Senator.

Natch Greyes

Mass. Senate Race

2009-09-17T13:37:00.002-04:00

According to Suffolk University's recent poll Martha Coakley will be the next U.S. Senator from Massachusetts. While Joe Kennedy II would have easily won the seat, Coakley is the next pick with a favorability rating of 53 percent with 47 percent of expected voters in the Democratic Primary picking Coakley over any other candidate.

In the General Election 54 percent of voters chose Coakley, and 24 percent chose Brown, with 20 percent undecided. It's looking like a turkey shoot for Martha Coakley.

[Note bene: I've been supporting Coakley for a couple weeks now]

Natch Greyes is a Democrat running for Senate in 2020. His campaign platform may be found at natchgreyes.com

New York City Primaries

2009-09-15T22:19:00.002-04:00

The results for the New York City Primaries are coming in now. The most interesting race, for those of us who don't live in the City, is the Democratic Primary for Mayor. It seems that William Thompson will be the Democratic Nominee with 70.08% of the vote and 85.60% of Precincts Reporting. (More at the link above)

Natch Greyes is a Democrat running for Senate in 2020. His campaign platform may be found at natchgreyes.com