Say what you want about him -- and I do -- but this is good stuff.

I have never really had all that much good to say about Bob Barr. I'm no fan of his stance on homosexuality and on a number of issues. But at this rate, I believe that comparatively speaking I might just swallow my pride and hold my nose come this November, and pull the lever next to his name (proverbially speaking)

What do I mean by "at this rate"? Here's what I mean:
(H/T: Last Free Voice.

Hulabaloo: Have Biofuels Really Failed?

There has been news all over the press about how the biofuels "solution" to the 'global warming crisis' just hasn't worked out. You can find it in a number of more conservative news journals, of course, such as New Zealand's Stuff -- which is of course owned by Fox-With-A-British-Accent. But if it's also hit Wired Magazine, then you know there's something to it.

Quoth said Wired article:

Several studies have intimated it, but two blockbusters published in the lofty journal "Science" yesterday confirm that biofuels cause more emissions than fossil fuels when everything is taken into account.

Both studies take a detailed look at the effects of converting large tracts of land worldwide into cropland used to raise fuel. While it is true that biofuel crops such as sugarcane, corn, switchgrass and the like absorb greenhouse gases as they grow, they absorb far less than rain forests and even scrubland. Also, turning plants into fuel creates its own emissions, especially when transportation is figured into the equation.

The "Science" article, "Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land Use Change," (subscription), maintains that the clearance of grassland for fuel releases 93 times the amount of greenhouse gas that would be saved the fuel made annually on that same land. Of course, not everybody agrees with the study.The Renewable Fuels Association, a coalition of ethanol producers, called the researchers' view of land-use changes "simplistic" and said the study "fails to put the issue in context."

[...]

This is of course a major issue. But the question is, how much of one is it, really? There are of course a number of angles -- a wide number of them -- that one could take to approach the problem that, apparently, biofuels produce more CO₂ than they pull out of the air. So what, then, are we to do? Is the world doomed to turn into a charred cinder thanks to the human contribution?

Obviously, such hyperbole answers itself: No. For one, no person who was serious about biofuels looked to corn ethanol or palm oil as even a viable solution to the fuel problem. Certainly, this author saw through that deception quite some time ago (at least, "quite some time ago" in political terms -- who remembers anything more than two years ago in that arena?):

To compare, the most effective gallon-per-acre biofuel crop right now is palm oil, which hovers around 680 gallons-per-acre. So this is more than triple the amount -- and it's good ol' fashioned gasoline to boot! Here comes the number crunching. In 2004, the US used approximately 318 billion gallons of oil. At 2,000 gallons per acre, that comes out to roughly 159 million acres of arable land -- and this is assuming that the cellulosic starch problem can be overcome -- for which there are no hypothetical solutions yet available. According to the CIA's "World Factbook", the US has 9,161,923 square kilometers of land, 18.01% of which are arable. That's 1,650,62 square kilometers. 1 acre = 0.00404685642 square kilometers, so the US has 407,739,281 acres of arable land. To maintain the energy usage levels of 2004 purely from biofuels derived from this process would require ~40% of all arable land in the nation.

For the record, the cellulosic ethanol problem has been pretty much licked -- or so the press reports would tell us, thanks to many different approaches, one of which piques this author's amusement simply because it calls on the same bacteria you'd find in the gut of a termite: moorella thermoacetica (depicted in abstract crystalline form below). The process is simple enough, yet of course that's only true if you're a science geek. From Biopact.com:

ZeaChem replaces yeast with a type of bacteria called Moorella thermoacetica, which can be found in a number of places in nature, including termite guts and the ruminant of cows, where it helps break down grass. Instead of making ethanol and carbon dioxide, the bacteria convert sugars into a component of vinegar called acetic acid, a process that releases no carbon dioxide.

To convert acetic acid into ethanol, ZeaChem turns to chemistry.

(The entire process is explained over at BioPact. H/T for this to Al Fin).

This development of course means that starchy or "woody" materials -- such as, oh say, wood) can be harvested for ethanol production. But there are easier, cheaper solutions than ethanol production: algal biodiesel is something that seems cannot be harped enough: Rather than a mere 2,000 gallons per acre, the current expected yields of the startups building factories or putting their factories into production now is 30,000 gallons per acre. This would reduce the needed landmass for energy production to .0036% of the available landmass (arable and non-arable combined).

Is it even necessary to worry at all? Well, current weather patterns would seem to indicate otherwise -- but don't expect to hear that from the mainstream media.

SCHIP: The Voice Of the Other Side

Like it or not, those of us whom are against the SCHIP expansion have been 'corralled', somehow, into being "Bushies". I, for one, am definitely in the "not" category on this one. That being said, while our media sources, the DNP leadership, and talking heads like Bill Maher busily demonize anyone and everyone who is against SCHIP's expansion -- i.e.; in support of Bush's Veto -- get to have their way with the American public; what exactly is the thinking in the mind of the man who would defy, we are told, the nation? Well, here it is -- and in his own words:

I would pay extremely close attention to the very end -- where he calls for "negotiation, to get the money to the kids who need it". And while you're doing that, please consider: Bush wanted SCHIP to continue. What he did not want, however, was an SCHIP bill that would push kids already insured privately onto the public dole, while simultaneously those funds being used to insure childless adults. What he did not want was an SCHIP bill that has one of the most horribly regressive funding sources ever suggested in recent history.

Sometimes I wish that I were a 'regular' person who could just have an opinion about people and things and not have to worry about facts and details.

Of Laffer, Deficits, and Poverty

Every once in a while, you see something that just plain makes your haunches bunch up in disgust. Apparently, this happens more to conservatives than it does to liberal, but I digress. Today, I should like to go over something that makes this happen to me every time I encounter it.

While looking into this little declaration from The Nation's Idiot, one area I thought I would start out with an examination into the continuation of Laffer-curve thinking. Whilst digging around on that, I found a piece apparently written by Laffer himself, from January of 2004. It is unfortunate, but expected, that this should appear on The Heritage Foundation's website -- unfortunate because The Heritage Foundation is as conservative a think-tank as MoveOn.org is liberal. This particular excerpt got me to thinking:

In 1913, the federal progressive income tax was put into place with a top marginal rate of 7 percent. Thanks in part to World War I, this tax rate was quickly increased significantly and peaked at 77 percent in 1918. Then, through a series of tax-rate reductions, the Harding-Coolidge tax cuts dropped the top personal marginal income tax rate to 25 percent in 1925.

That's right -- when the income tax was instituted, it's highest percentage was 7%. And within five years, it went to 77%.

This becomes all the more disturbing when we consider that not too long ago, someone took the time and effort to calculate the effective "flat tax" rate for America. And they found that this rate was ~40%:

The average marginal tax rate on incomes between $20,000 and $500,000 is 40.3%, the median tax rate is 41.8%, and the standard deviation of all of those rates is 5.3 percentage points. Basically, most of us pay about 40%, plus or minus 5.3 percentage points.

That's not a big range, particularly when you notice that it covers an income rise of 2,500%.

So I have a modest proposal: Ask your senators or representative if they have a clue about this. If they don’t, regardless of party, they shouldn't be in office. Vote accordingly.

So yes, while we discuss the FedGov deficit, what we fail to discuss is the impact on the expenditures and incomes of the average citizen; most especially the poor.

We have allowed ourselves to fall in to the fallacy of thinking that, merely because their incomes are untaxed, our lowest earners are themselves untaxed. And this simply is not so. Sadly, the practices of our government's "Glorious Leaders" seems to be equally economically inept: take, for example, the overwhelmingly under-reported fact that the most recent SCHIP expansion is based on a demonstrably regressive tax. And it is with this that this article comes full circle: While the national income tax's position on the Laffer curve is debatable, our sin-taxes are demonstrably and definitively on the right-hand side of the Laffer curve. And so, two things will result:

• The nation's poor will be unfairly taxed as compared to the rich, if Bush's veto is overridden.
• There will still have to be another source of revenue to cover the failure of this new, regressive, tax to generate $35 Billion.

And remember, folks -- I'm a proud, card-carrying member of the "He-Man President Bush Hater's Club". While it is arguable that this lack of economic understanding is itself understandable in the everyday man -- it's called "rational ignorance" for a reason -- the problem with making allowances for such when it comes to our leaders is that it leads, demonstrably and as evidenced above, in horribly frequent "unintended consequences".

So, then -- for those of you still paying attention, please consider the following: Rather than leaving the welfare of our nation's poor -- you can't really call them destitute; we don't have people starving to death here like still happens in other first-world nations like Japan -- wouldn't we be better off if we, you know, reduced that 40% flat tax rate to something more sane?

The poor would be able to purchase more, or have more left over -- so the actual loss in tax revenue there would, you know, go to a good cause, like upwards mobility amongst the poor. And as to the rich... well, it is still arguable that decreases in their tax rate will still generate higher revenues.

Can A Transhuman Future Survive Without Libertarian Ideals?

As a transhumanist, I am all too keenly aware of the good and the ill that can come of technology. One technology, however, that seems to have only ills springing from it these days is that of surveillance technology. Consider, for example the perhaps not so infamous as it ought to be 'dragonfly spy':

The little robot you see on the fingertip is a prototype created by the Harvard Microrobotics Lab. While it does not carry any optical equipment -- there are optics of sufficiently small size to fit. More on this particular topic can be found at the Sydney Morning Herald's article, "Washington abuzz with talk of dragonfly spies". There are many obstacles to the development of such machines -- and, to be frank, they offer a multitude of uses beyond mere surveillance. For the moment, however, we'll discuss 'merely' surveillance.

There is another, perhaps more insidious, approach which has been suggested which entails literally growing insects around MEMS devices. What possible benefit to the would-be super-spy is there in this, you ask? Well, the answer to that question becomes more prevalent when one considers that researchers have already -- if crudely -- decoded the neural activity of a cat's brain into visual information.



So you see -- we may come to a point where it will literally be possible -- from a sensory point of view -- to be a "fly on a wall." This becomes all the more troublesome when we consider that -- regardless of Ray Kurzweils's 'law' of accelarating returns -- technological development is outstripping society's ability to regulate our machines. There's nothing really new about that idea -- but still; it is strongly worth paying attention to when we consider the advocates of regulation for new, 'existentially risky' technologies -- such as molecular manufacturing, or synthetic biology, or viral engineering, or... well, by now the point is clear. Surveillance, however, is the name of today's game. More and more, we are told that the new cameras being installed are for our own protection; that they are to prevent crime and the like. Now, numerous studies have shown that they really can't be said to do any such thing:

According to the information, London police solve only 21 percent of all crimes, and the rate of success does not appear to have any correlation to the number of CCTV cameras installed in each borough.

The numbers led a spokesperson for the group to say, "Some of this money might have been better spent on police officers. Although CCTV has its place, it is not the only solution in preventing or detecting crime and too often still, calls for CCTV cameras come as a knee-jerk reaction. It is time we engaged in an open debate about the role of CCTV cameras in London today."

So what, then would the impact -- let alone impetus -- of such advanced technologies as 'bug-cameras' be on society? Given the FBI's now infamous abuse of "national security letters" to bypass the 4^th Amendment (that'd be the one that protects "a bloke" from "unreasonable search and seizure"), is there any doubt that, left in the hands of government agencies, these devices would find their way into uses we could not now either imagine nor approve? But, of course -- as I already hinted at -- such devices almost never stay solely in the hands of our governments -- trustworthy or otherwise. And as technology itself becomes more and more readily manufactured by the private citizen, the question facing us is this:

How, exactly, will we adapt to the fact that legislation will be completely inadequate to the task of protecting us from our own ingenuity?

And that's a very, very serious question -- however, it doesn't seem to be one that even my fellow transhumanists recognize, which I personally find troublesome. Consider this another political screed, then: it is abundantly clear that our technologies will never be sanitized, never be made safe by bureaucracies nor by legislation. The 'kiddy porn' epidemic is only another example of this -- things that are legal and perfectly fine, such as a fourteen year old engaging in sexual acts on film, in some former Soviet Bloc countries; these things are profoundly illegal (let alone immoral) here in the 'States. This, 'once upon a time', wouldn't have been an issue -- but communications technology has changed that, as it seems everyone is now aware. As it is, it remains abundantly clear that our government is either incapable or else simply lacks the desire to react to new technologies and techniques. Much like the constant white-hat/ black-hat divide -- or the ongoing 'hacking the iPhone' saga -- bureaucratic organizations; such as religious institutions and yes, the ubiquitously mentioned yet nebulously referenced, "Government", are simply incapable of doing anything more than react to the machinations of "Progress." It's the nature of the beast. This leaves us with a simple question:

What possible solution is there to even mitigate the risks to society that new technologies and techniques present?

Yes, yes -- I know: I'm being about as subtle as a lead ingot dropped on your head from the top of the Empire State Building (how's that for a visual?) And of course the answer -- or at least the one I propose -- is equally as 'subtle'... and equally as simple.

Entrust the protection of society to... social expectations. It is my proposition that the only societies which will survive the raw power that futuristic developments represent will be ones that, much as with the advent of nuclear weapons, are possessed of powerfully strong social mores against their improper use (power plants = okay, global thermonuclear warfare = bad). And here's the catch: So long as we expect our bureaucratic institutions -- and those institutions alone -- to provide for our security and provender, we are essentially doomed to the abuse of new devices -- such as our friendly dragonfly spy cams. And that, ladies and gentlemen of my audience, is exactly the reason behind the "libertarian" argument: socializing the idea of personal responsibility, of the idea that being irresponsible is perhaps the single most immoral, or reprehensible, behavior one can engage in. To get there, we libertarians realize, will require a great deal of change in our ways of doing business and in what we believe government is "good for." It's a simplistic screed -- but it's a vitally important one, if we expect to have the best of all possible outcomes.

Corrupting Free Society, One Child At A Time

For every sequence of events, there is always more than one perspective which can be had. Another way of putting that is to say that the truth has three 'sides': your side, his side, and fact. Today, I hope to take you on a little journey through the mind of someone who hates President Bush, but loves his vetoing of the SCHIP renewal bill.

I know, I know -- it's hard to understand. How could someone want to make the children suffer, like that? How could I be such a heartless bastard? Am I truly so selfish that I'd rather have a few extra dollars than see the nation's poverty-stricken children have quality healthcare?

In a single word: No. No, I'm not that heartless -- no I'm not that greedy, and no, I don't want to see the poor suffer. And yet, I still stand against the new SCHIP bill. I understand that for the majority of you reading this, this must seem somewhat confusing, if true -- so either I'm a liar or I'm mislead. Right? It occurs to me that I'm getting somewhat ahead of myself here, so perhaps I ought to do a little bit of explanation as to what this whole SCHIP thing is really about. Take, for example, this piece from Sunday, Oct. 7^th, 2007, found in the New York Times:

Democrats believe they have Republicans — short on campaign cash, contending with a spurt of retirements and quarreling — on the run over the legislation, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. Party leaders say the willingness of so many House Republicans to stick with Mr. Bush in the face of bipartisan backing for a $35 billion expansion of the program to provide insurance for poor children will prove costly as Election Day looms a year from now.

[...]

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is taking on eight Republicans in competitive districts with a series of automated calls and radio advertisements that remind listeners that their lawmaker gets taxpayer-paid health care while opposing the expansion of the program administered by each state.

Beginning Monday, a coalition of liberal and labor groups will start a $1 million advertising effort, with a national advertisement to run on cable channels and local advertisements aimed at specific lawmakers. The national commercial shows a series of children beginning with a baby girl and states, “George Bush just vetoed Abby.” It says Mr. Bush puts excessive war spending over health care at home.

“The president’s ‘yes men’ in Congress need to stand up to Bush and stand up for families who work hard but simply can’t afford insurance,” said Brad Woodhouse, president of Americans United for Change, one group leading the effort.

There's so much here that there's really no way to account for it all, up front. But let's begin with a few tiny points:

1: "The national commercial shows a series of children beginning with a baby girl and states, “George Bush just vetoed Abby.”"

Am I, honestly, the only person left in the world whom is disgusted by the continued exploitation of those who can't possibly understand what they're being used for, simply for cheap promotionals like this? Look, we get it: You kissed the baby; you're a good, caring guy. You can stop now.

2: "radio advertisements that remind listeners that their lawmaker gets taxpayer-paid health care while opposing the expansion of the program administered by each state."

Talk about talking out the side of your face. So, we are to believe, because our government employees are receiving healthcare from their employer (the government), they are bad people for denying public assistance to non government employees?

3: "Party leaders say the willingness of so many House Republicans to stick with Mr. Bush in the face of bipartisan backing for a $35 billion expansion of the program to provide insurance for poor children will prove costly"

Once again, we are told that SCHIP only benefits the poor children of the nation. And yes, primarily, this is true. But the existence of SCHIP isn't what's up for debate here: Bush himself wants SCHIP renewed.The White House is stressing that Bush wants the CHIP program renewed and wants to increase its current level by $5 billion over five years, but Bush wants it to target poor children. The compromise includes some children in levels above the poverty line.

By way of explanation of what possible madness could be going through the nation's Idiot-in-Chief's head, that he could demand that SCHIP "target poor children", please consider: SCHIP in its current form provides insurance for those who have an income of up to 200% the federal poverty line. The expanded/renewed form will take that number to 400%; for the 'prototypical' family of 4 (2 parents, 2 children), that's an income of ~$82,600 -- For a single-parent single-child household, that number is ~$54,760. (All from the same, most recently linked, source. See Table 2.) All this number-crunching, however, is meaningless without something to compare it against. The best number to do so, the most revealing, is the median average income of the United States. That number, as of 2004, was $44,334 -- as reported by the US Census.

Now, ask yourself, people: Is the average home in America poor and in need of government handouts in order to get "quality care"? As a corollary, if it is, is a simple handout going to fix that problem? As a secondary corollary: If things are that bad, can we afford for the government to be the agency we rely upon?

By way of insight, I provide this reference to a previous article, "The Tyranny of Compassion":

Foreign aid was first put into practice almost sixty years ago, under the Truman Administration, in 1948. What has been the result of essentially six decades of attempted monetary aid in Africa? Practically the entire continent remains in squalor. Why, precisely, is this? How is it even possible? The general sentiment on this issue falls into two lines:

• One: We just haven't spent enough; if only we rich Westerners would be willing to sacrifice a little more in the name of compassion, we could turn that continent around tomorrow!
• Two: We are suppressing the entrepeneurial spirit and creating reliance, thus destroying prosperity and hope for a better future.

Which of these is correct? Well, six decades have taught us that there is no amount which will be the magic bullet to cure Africa's economic woes.

Now, all of this has been somewhat heavy-handed. And I can understand if you haven't followed through to the end here, but for those of you whom have, I have just one last query/insight/thought: It is said that the measure of what power we ought allow into the hands of government is to consider what the worst person possible would do with it. To those of you whom think things like SCHIP are so necessary that a little over-spending or universal healthcare under the radar concerns are simply silly, I profer this: the "Christian Right" is poising itself to exploit government compassion efforts as a tool for its takeover of American society. Considering that private agencies -- such as charities like the Christian Children's Fund -- could be established to provide for the nation's children, I ask you: is it really worth the risk of expanding SCHIP like this, if it opens the door for a fundamentalist theocracy in America?

I, for one, do not welcome our new religious overlords.

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodies?

Tragedies can strike anywhere, at any time. There is no real pattern to be discerned from when and where mad gunmen will strike -- saving that they tend to commit their mass shootings on so-called 'gun free zones' -- but when the mad gunman is himself a policeman, we have to ask: who will protect us from the people whom are supposed to protect us?

Insanity At The Gates

So I admit it -- today is a bit of a slow news day. But those of us with a Transhumanist mindset also tend to keep our eyes on the future; while many also take on the label of "progressive", not all of us do. Either way, however, this eye on the prize, as it were, gives us a perspective that not everybody else can perceive. Today I will share the benefit of this perspective with you, my reader. Forgive me if you've already seen this particular item already.

What is it, precisely, that I'm talking about? That would be nothing short of the apparent revivalism of the Soviet/American "Cold War". Now, this has been discussed by this blog before, when I asked: "Could Somebody Please Tell Me What Year It Is?" So some of this is apparently just recision, or iteration, for my 'regulars'. For those of you whom are not -- consider the following:

There's more to this, of course -- a good deal more. Today, I pull -- perhaps hedonistically would be too strong of a word? -- from the AP:

President Vladimir Putin announced in August that Russia was resuming long-range bomber flights over the Pacific, Atlantic and Arctic oceans for the first time since the breakup of the Soviet Union.

Russian Air Force officials in Moscow could not be reached for comment after hours. They have repeatedly said that the planes were not violating any nation's airspace or any international agreements.

But in mid-September, British and Norwegian jets intercepted Russian military aircraft after they breached NATO airspace close to the U.K. and Finland. And on a handful of occasions this year, NATO nations including Britain and Norway have sent fighters to escort Russian bombers nearing their territory.

Now, on it's surface this is no major fiasco; no huge problem, as it were. If a nation wants to saber-rattle, a little, that's just fine. But take this into context; with the opening up of Atlantic-ocean resources, it would seem that the term cold-war could take on more literal meanings than in days past. Further, take into context the fact that Russian law-makers are voting -- unanimously -- to censure former Soviet Union countries for siding with the US over Russia. Add into that the fact that the US and Russia remain the world's largest suppliers of arms to 'developing countries' such as China, India, Pakistan, and the Middle East. It is worth noting that in the last four years -- that is, since 2002, more than 70% of all US arms deals were with Middle Eastern countries.

(Hey, while we're at it, here's a thought: If we're so miffed about Iran supplying the insurgents weapons, why don't we stop supplying the insurgents with weapons first?)

In the meanwhile, however, if the US and Russia are to renew the cold-war era conflicts between one another, which it would seem Vladimir Putin is seeking to accomplish, we have to ask ourselves: who would be cast as the totalitarian police state this time around? I don't mean to be biased -- truly I don't. But between Russia and the US, it is my country that has domestic spying programs. It is my country that wants to use SPY SATELLITES ON ITS OWN POPULACE. It is my country that has an effective real taxation rate of roughly 40% on its entire populace. It is my country that is engaging in extraordinary rendition, and it is my country that is torturing innocent civilians. (See Section IV, second paragraph.) So Again: Which of us is the totalitarian/authoritarian state? Throw in the blatant corporatism of the medical, agro, and energy companies, and the picture gets even worse. Remember; the Soviet Union was defeated due to economic collapse. And if David Walker -- the Comptroller General of the United States -- is only half right, the US isn't that far away from one of its own.

We can't afford to replay history, folks. We "plain and simple", "straight and narrow", can't afford it. At a time when we should be curtailing government spending however possible -- even if by transferring our social security, welfare, and medicare over to private non-profits (as opposed to not-for-profits) so as to benefit from the massive increase in efficiency per dollar spent (This considering that the US has a higher welfare spending rate than any other OECD-listed country save Luxembourg, on a per Capita basis), and thus avoid the need to increase spending over time -- we are instead arguing with ourselves over whether or not to expand the SCHIP program -- meant to care for the nation's poor and needy children -- to cover families which make almost twice the national median income.

Whether it be the revival of the Cold War, the selling of arms and armaments to our sworn enemies, or the spending of money we don't -- and will never -- have, this insanity has got to stop.

Video: Over-the-Phone Lie Detectors

The technology is called Voice Stress Analysis. It is used extensively in insurance call-centers, and has been around for a few decades. Essentially, it detects what statements you make which you feel an unusual amount of stress about compared to your "baseline" -- and thus makes guesses or assumptions about your mendacity. Now here's a question: With the "Bush Wiretapping Scheme", what makes anyone think that this sort of technology isn't being used, to pick up the conversations that people feel "anxious" about? Observe:

Without Critical Thinking; Breath Is Just A Clock, Ticking.

I'm going to talk about three things today, and they're going to seem somewhat unconnected. Rest assured, however, that they in fact are connected. Those three things are the FDA's rejection of another over-the-counter category of drugs; Mr. -- never "President"; I never voted for him -- Bush's vetoing the proposed renewal of SCHIP, a program he supports the existence of; and the current plans by the White House to invade Iran with 'surgical airstrikes'. Just how they're connected is something I'll attempt to explain below.

Some of this seems, to me anyhow, that it should be simple enough to understand -- but obviously I'm wrong there, as this connection doesn't appear to be spoken of anywhere else, really. So forgive me if it seems like I'm talking down to you, my reader. I assure you I wish it were otherwise.

We'll start off with what is likely the least controversial topic: the fact that the FDA has recently declared it recommends no level of dosage for the use of cough medicines for children under the age of two. From ABC News:

They are widely available in drugstores across the country -- over-the-counter cold and cough remedies, with fruity flavors specifically marketed for kids.

But, there's a growing consensus that these medicines may not always be safe — and for young children, aren't worth the risks.
Related Stories

In a report released last week, safety experts within the Food and Drug Administration said they would recommend NO level of dosage for children under the age of two, "due to the lack of evidence of efficacy and safety concerns."

[...]

Even more amazing, the industry itself — while insisting its medicines are safe — now agrees they should not be given to very young children.

"Parents should not use these products for children under 2," says Linda Suydam, president of the Consumers Healthcare Products Association.

Suydam says the real problem is "misuse" and "overdose." The labels on most boxes suggest that parents "consult with a doctor" about the appropriate dosage for children under the age of 2. The FDA review called that warning "confusing," and said it appeared to be contributing to "medication errors, which can result in fatal overdoses."

There are two elements here I find somewhat objectionable: 1) It takes the FDA warning people before it becomes 'newsworthy'. 2) The article clearly makes it seem that without the FDA, parents couldn't figure this out for themselves.

Since when was it acceptable to state that using a manufactured synthetic in a manner other than how it appears on the label, unless a government agency tells us not to? How, exactly, is "consult a physician before using this" confusing? Have we grown so wool-headed now that this is what consists of doing our own research responsibly?

It should come as no surprise, then, that the general public opinion -- and hence the political climate -- supports the massive expansion of the SCHIP program. According to Wikipedia, In 2006, the median annual household income according to the US Census Bureau was determined to be $48,201.^[3]. The SCHIP renewal would have the program extended to households of 4 or less earning up to $83,000.00. For larger families, the limit goes higher. If the median income household is now in need of government assistance, then the nation has more serious problems than anyone is willing to admit, and a simple "Children's Health Insurance Program" isn't the solution. But even so, we are faced with events such as this to drive the support for this massive irresponsibility:

USA TODAY's David Jackson reports that President Bush's critics fired more shots this morning at Bush's plans to veto an expansion of a health insurance program for children.

SEIU, the public employees union, sponsored a rally in which children dragged little red wagons to the White House filled with petitions urging Bush to sign the legislation. (Jackson says the event had more reporters than children.)

During a rally at McPherson Square, three blocks from the White House, about 15 children chanted: "care for kids, care for kids."

Really. Children are your political mouthpieces? I'm willing to hear out disagreement on this topic; I will disagree, but differences of opinion can and do exist, and I recognize that. But when the oldest person in your little showpiece is twelve, I'm sorry -- you've just started in on child abuse. It's reprehensible, irresponsible, and disgusting. Nobody would put up with this sort of behavior if it was in support of "The War", now would they? What makes this any different? That it involves the kids? Well, think again: "It's For The Children! ... And Other Lies My Government Told Me." And the media would further have us believe that Bush is against the program at all. While I despise the man, this sort of sloppy journalism does no one any favors. Consider:

President Bush says he will sign emergency legislation to keep the government running past the start of the new fiscal year on Monday, and has criticized Congress for failing to pass spending bills.

In his weekly radio address Saturday, Mr. Bush said it is "disappointing" the Democratic Party-led Congress has not passed any of the 12 annual spending bills funding his Cabinet departments.

The emergency legislation will fund the Iraq war and a popular government-run child health insurance program.

The U.S. Senate voted on Thursday to add $35 billion to the health insurance program, but President Bush says he will veto the measure.

In his radio address, Mr. Bush accused congressional leaders of putting forth an "irresponsible plan that would dramatically expand the program beyond its original intent."

The truth ought to stand up for itself, and not need manipulation to make itself what it is. Unless, of course, those supporting what he's vetoing are trying to conceal that they w