Stossel on the Costs of Playing it Safe

The indispensable John Stossel turns his attention to the latest scare campaign: the effort to keep parents from vaccinating their children because of supposed uncertainty about the risks of the vaccine. I for one, have heard a great deal about the increase in diagnosed cases of autism, and speculation about the link to children's vaccines. I'm glad to read Stossel's explanation of the likely reason for that increase:

"I think that it's perfectly reasonable to be skeptical about anything you put into your body, including vaccines," said Offit. "And vaccines do have side effects. But vaccines don't cause autism."

Offit can say that with confidence because the National Academy of Sciences recently reviewed the science. They concluded that 19 major studies, tracking thousands of kids, all show no link between vaccines and autism.

"The question has been raised, it's been answered," said Offit. "Vaccines don't cause autism."

Then why are so many kids being diagnosed with autism? Because kids we once said had other conditions are now being called autistic.

As researchers from the March of Dimes put it, "improvements in detection and changes in diagnosis account for the observed increase in autism." Their data on autism rates in California showed that the increase in autism diagnoses almost exactly matched a decline in cases of retardation: autism prevalence increased by 9.1 cases per 10,000 children, while mental retardation dropped by 9.3 per 10,000.

"People that we once called quirky or geeky or nerdy are now called autistic," said Offit. "Because when you give that label of say, autistic spectrum disorder, you allow that child then to qualify for services which otherwise they wouldn't be qualified to get."

Read too, Stossel's criticism of his own show - 20/20.

And here's the sad conclusion:

Mary Catherine recovered, but she's one of many kids who are coming down with diseases doctors once thought were nearly eradicated, like mumps, measles, and whooping cough.

These diseases are coming back because pockets of frightened parents won't vaccinate their kids, some, after they search for information and end up on websites like Barbara Loe Fisher's. I asked Fisher about how sites like hers scare parents.

"You're really the vaccines' scare center. When you scare people stupid, and they don't get vaccinated, that spreads nasty diseases," I said.

"I don't think I've scared anybody stupid. We do not tell people to vaccinate or not vaccinate," she replied.

Fisher says she can't say whether vaccines are "good or bad."

"You can't say vaccines are good, vaccines haven't done more good than harm?" I asked?

"It's a complex issue," she said.

Take the risk: vaccinate your kids.

The Matrix Has You

I'm trying to free your mind, Neo. But I can only show you the door. You're the one that has to walk through it.

Of course, if your Second Life is under attack by nuclear armed terrorists, you may want to stay on this side.

Thank You, Rambo

More on the story of the Afghan civilian who saved American troops from a would-be suicide bomber.

Great story over at VodkaPundit. Check it out.

The One-Mile High Skyscraper

It's on the way, and will be built within 23 years, apparently.

The only question is where:

In October, at the premier international conference of skyscraper builders, the first speaker announced without a hint of irony or doubt that by 2030, somewhere, a mile-high skyscraper would be built. Five thousand two hundred and eighty feet. One-tenth of the way to the ozone layer. More than three times as tall as anything now stand­ing and exactly as high as the most fantastic towers ever dared conceived...

Indeed, sitting there in rows, a half-story below ground in an auditorium on the Chicago campus of the Illinois Institute of Technology, were the very people who could build a tower one mile high: the foundation engineers who already knew how to pin such a thing to the earth, the structural engineers who could keep it standing in a 100-year wind, the architects who would give it form, the contractors who would know how to phase the behemoth’s con­struction—even the guys who would have to figure out how to wash the windows. And there are going to be a lot of windows.

A tribute to hubris? Maybe. Read the whole thing.

Hat Tip: RCP

When Does Romney's Run of Bad Luck End?

I'm just like George Bush; he was pro-choice before he was pro-life.

Umm... he wasn't?

Update: And the hits keep on coming.

On Brazil...

It's interesting to see what's happening in Brazil as that country prepares for President Bush's visit in a few weeks.

First, they're preparing to receive a shipment of sulfur from Hugo Chavez, who wants to make sure they welcome 'the devil' properly.

At the same time, they've instituted a ban on the shipment of nuclear materials to Iran.

'80s Rewind

Thirty minutes of openings from 1980s cartoons:



I had forgotten completely about 'Gilligan's Planet' (around the 9:10 mark).

We now return you to our regularly-scheduled pithy political commentary.

Who'da Thought?

South Dakota raises taxes on cigarettes; people buy them elsewhere.

Darned free market! It's almost as if you need to think about the effect of tax increases before you enact them!

Hugh & Rudy

Good interview of Rudy Giuliani by Hugh Hewitt.

And by the way, is it just me, or is 'Mayor' not a great moniker for a national politician? It conveys authority and implies leadership; it constantly calls to mind the accomplishments during the tenure (as opposed to say, 'Senator); and it comes across as friendly and approachable. I'm serious: I think the title - and all that goes with it - is worth a few percent of the vote in a national election.

Anyway, about the interview: the most interesting thing to me is how polished Giuliani sounds. He's learned a ton since he first ran for office in New York (nearly 20 years ago). It seems he is a master of his talking points, and always on message. For example:

HH: Richard Land, I’m sure you saw, he was on record this week saying I don’t think Evangelicals will vote for Rudy. I disagree with that, but how do you get past that kind of a block?

RG: Well, I have spent a great deal of time over the last three, four years in various places, talking to many, many people including clergy, who are, who would describe themselves, I think, as Evangelicals, They are. Some of the people working on my campaign are very committed as Evangelical, born again Christians, and I have a great knowledge of religion, and a great respect for it, and I think there’s a great deal of commonality. And I find that when we spend time together, or in other words, I talk to groups that would describe themselves as Evangelical Christians, or very committed to religion, that they come away feeling that on most issues, there’s agreement. There are some disagreements, but that there’s a basic core of looking at the world in very much the same way.

HH: Now the other outsider in this race, Governor Romney, is also getting some Evangelical blowback, because he’s a Mormon. What do you make of that issue?

RG: I think that the Governor’s religion is not an issue in any way in the campaign, and any more than John Kennedy as being a Catholic was an issue, or Senator Lieberman as being Jewish when we ran for vice president. I mean, these things…I think we’re way beyond that, and I don’t think it’ll be an issue. I mean, obviously, by an issue, people will comment on it, but I think the American people have gone way beyond that, and they’re willing…what they want to do is look at the person, and what kind of…how have you performed in public office, what have you done, have you acted as a fair, impartial person in dealing with people of all different religions or whatever. And if that’s the case, those are the issues, not is what is someone’s religion, but how have they acted.

Very smooth. A strong defense of himself, no criticism for his opponent - an above-the-fray approach by the perceived front-runner - with no attempt to overpromise.

I also like this part:

RG: That was the longest speech I ever gave (laughing).

HH: Yes, it was, actually. It may still be going on.

RG: (laughing) I remember it. I remember it.

HH: I was in the back of the room saying who is this guy?

RG: Ted Olson and Bob McConnell, and all my old pals keep…always tease me about that.

HH: You know, you picked up Ted Olson’s endorsement, taking a digression. That’s a big deal. Will he be playing a role in your campaign?

RG: He sure will. I mean, Ted Olson is someone I have…first of all, he’s a very, very good friend. I mean, he’s someone…he’s been my friend since those days, and we’ve been through a lot together. Yes, Ted will play a very big role in my campaign, and I mean, if Ted weren’t my very, very good friend, he’d be somebody I’d still want to rely on as probably one of the biggest experts on the Constitution in this country, and the person who probably has argued before the Supreme Court more than anybody I know.

HH: He or Judge Starr, one of those two are the two most…

RG: He or Ken have probably argued before the Supreme Court more than anyone that I know, and their knowledge of it is remarkable. I mean, it’s a great asset to anybody.

HH: Will he help you pick judges if you are the president, and you’re making Supreme Court selections?

RG: He’d be one of the first people that I’d turn to for advice and help and assistance. And I was involved in the Reagan administration in the judge selection process, although that was run by the deputy attorney general, and I was involved in the U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals. But I watched all of it, and I appointed 100 judges myself. And it’s something I thought of, when I was the Mayor, as one of the most important things that I did.

HH: Did you have a litmus test for those hundred?

RG: No. No, not a litmus test on a single issue, a philosophical test, meaning what I wanted to know was what’s their view of how you interpret the Constitution and laws? Are they…do the Constitution and laws exist as the thing from which you have to discern the meaning and the intent? Or are you going to superimpose your own social views? And I want, I like the first kind of judge, who is a judge who looks to the meaning of the Constitution, doesn’t try to create it.

HH: A pro-life voter looking at you, knowing that you’re pro-choice, but not concerned that presidents really matter so much in that, except as far as judges are concerned, what do you tell them about who you’re going to be putting on the federal bench?

RG: I’m going to say I’d put people like…I mean, the best way to do it is to just say I would, I could just have easily have appointed Sam Alito or Chief Justice Roberts as President Bush did, in fact. I’d have been pretty proud of myself if I had been smart enough to make that choice if I were the president.

HH: Do you expect justices like Roberts and Alito to come out of a Giuliani administration?

RG: I hope. I mean, that would be my goal. I mean, they’re sort of a very high standard, and so is Justices Scalia and Thomas. That would be the kind of judges I would look for, both in terms of their background and their integrity, but also the intellectual honesty with which they interpret the law...

Hugh is either gracious, or on the take. Giuliani slips a mention of Ted Olson into the conversation, which allows him to begin talking about Olson's anticipated role in selection of judges. This had to be the way Giuliani wanted the conversation to go, but Hugh continues as if it was coincidence. Then Giuliani hammers home his message: Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito. Get used to that list; you're going to hear it a lot.

It seems to me that Giuliani is well-prepared for this run.

Update: The PowerLine guys had the same reaction.

Iraq: When Hindsight is not 20-20

Jane Galt looks at arguments that we should have stayed out of Iraq because:

1. Millions of French, British, and Canadians can't be wrong;
2. We lacked a UN mandate; and,
   
3. It was a war of pre-emption.

She concludes that none of these hold water:

...it's as if other countries had no agency or interests; they're like experts voting on our behaviour. But other countries opposed us in war (to the extent they did; I note that the French were the ones who got us into Vietnam, and the British et. al. were military advising right along with us until things got hairy, at which point they bugged out not because of concerns about our capabilities, but because of worries about their own soldiers getting killed) for all sorts of reasons...

More fundamentally, this is the problem that I was talking about when I said earlier that I had trouble teasing out principles by which I would have prospectively made a different decision about the Iraq war--i.e., not knowing either that Saddam had no WMD, or that Iraq was destined for civil war. It is not that no one suggested these possibilities; but the overwhelming number of arguments I heard involved things like the moral principle of preemption and the fact that we were going in without the imprimatur of the UN.

I don't want to cut and paste the entire thing, but it's a sound analysis. Go read it.

AP: Media Doing Poor Job on Iraq Reporting

AP reports that while most Americans can properly pin the US death toll in Iraq accurately at approximately 3,000 (hardly a surprise given the daily attention to the figure), they underestimate the Iraqi civilian death toll:

The number of Iraqis killed, however, is much harder to pin down, and that uncertainty is perhaps reflected in Americans' tendency to lowball the Iraqi death toll by tens of thousands.

Iraqi civilian deaths are estimated at more than 54,000 and could be much higher; some unofficial estimates range into the hundreds of thousands. The U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq reports more than 34,000 deaths in 2006 alone.

Among those polled for the AP survey, however, the median estimate of Iraqi deaths was 9,890. The median is the point at which half the estimates were higher and half lower.

Christopher Gelpi, a Duke University political scientist who tracks public opinion on war casualties, said a better understanding of the Iraqi death toll probably wouldn't change already negative public attitudes toward the war much. People in democracies generally don't shy away from inflicting civilian casualties, he said, and they may be even more tolerant of them in situations such as Iraq, where many of the civilian deaths are caused by other Iraqis.

"You have to look at who's doing the killing," said Neal Crawford, a restaurant manager in Suttons Bay, Mich., who guessed that about 10,000 Iraqis had been killed. "If these people are dying because a roadside bomb goes off or if there's an insurgent attack in a marketplace, it's an unfortunate circumstance of war — people die."

Gelpi said that while Americans may not view Iraqi deaths through the same prism as American losses, they may use the Iraqi death toll to gauge progress, or lack thereof, on the U.S. effort to promote a stable, secure democracy in Iraq.

To many, he said, "the fact that so many are being killed is an indication that we're not succeeding."

Whatever their understanding of the respective death tolls, three-quarters of those polled said the numbers of both Americans and Iraqis who have been killed are "unacceptable." Two-thirds said they tend to feel upset when a soldier dies, while the rest say such deaths are unfortunate but part of what war is about.

If the American people are not aware of this, it is at least partly due to the fact that this is a difficult count to do accurately. It is also partly due to the general failure of the news media to report responsibly on the issue. In particular, they have legitimized ridiculous, politically-driven estimates. It would not be a surprise if people failed to focus clearly on 'reporting' that tends to be discredited.

And how often do you read stories that mention the count? Doing a google news search, the most recent story I can find mentioning 'Iraqi civilian deaths' - and not counting variants of the AP story here - is from the Washington Times, a month ago. If the media fail to report the information, people will not know it.

One might also ask whether Americans have a good handle on the number of Iraqis who died under Saddam's rule (over 600,000 according to the Documental Center for Human Rights in Iraq). That's another critical statistic which has received scant attention in the ongoing debate about Iraq.

If you want a closer look at the estimates of the Iraqi civilian death toll, there is a recent CRS report on the topic available here.

Clinton-Obama and More

Bob Novak picks up on the Clinton-Obama fight this AM:

WASHINGTON -- Democratic sources believe that the harsh response by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign to criticism by Hollywood producer David Geffen stems from an overreaction by Bill Clinton to any attack on his pardon policy as president.

Geffen sniped at the Clintons in his interview with New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd because President Clinton had pardoned financial contributor Marc Rich instead of American Indian activist Leonard Peltier. Geffen, a longtime backer of Bill Clinton, is backing Sen. Barack Obama for president.

The movie mogul's comments marked the first time Bill Clinton had been subjected to an attack from his party since the 1992 campaign. The former president was reported as infuriated, raising the question of whether he will rise to the bait in any further intraparty criticism of his wife.

OBAMA'S RETORT

Close supporters of Sen. Barack Obama's presidential candidacy were pleased for the short term by his campaign's sharp retort to Sen. Hillary Clinton's criticism of him but are concerned by its long-range implications.

Obama backers said his tough response demonstrated that as a newcomer to big-time politics, he could take a punch and then hit back. The broader problem is whether Clinton and Obama will engage in a continuous head-to-head struggle that would open the way for another candidate (especially former Sen. John Edwards).

A footnote: Obama's strategists were happy about him skipping the first Democratic presidential candidate forum last Wednesday at Carson City, Nev. (preceding the inaugural Nevada caucuses next Jan. 19). Obama did not want to tear up his schedule in order to get five minutes at the forum and felt Clinton wasted her time doing so.

I think this was a loss for Hillary. If Bill's political radar is so far off, and he's going to force Hillary's campaign to veer wildly over every attack on him or the candidate, then it's not going to be a smooth campaign.

I would not expect this Hillary-Obama fight to be a permanent thing though - as Obama's supporters fear. I would think it at least somewhat likely that Obama will be contrasting himself with both Hillary and Edwards. He represents the future; while they symbolize the past.

Check out Mickey as well, who seems to have sunken his teeth into this.

Bush, Brazil and Ethanol

In a few weeks, President Bush will visit Brazil, where Lula DaSilva will push him to increase US exports of Brazilian sugar cane ethanol. Apart from the pressure Bush is already hearing from corn producing states to reject the request, it's unclear how feasible this is.

I'll look at this more in a few days, but in the meantime, check out CEI's recent study on why the US can't produce ethanol like Brazil does, and a look at the ethanol partnership envisioned by Brazil.

Anniversary of the Flag Raising at Iwo Jima

With the recent success of both the book Flags of our Fathers, and the Clint Eastwood movie of the same name, it's hard to believe the day almost went by without my realizing it was the anniversary of the flag raising.

It took 36 days to secure the island. Almost all of the 23,000 Japanese troops on the island eventually died, along with 7,000 marines.

If you've not read the story, a brief summary is available over at Iwo Jima.com, and there are also interesting accounts here.

...Then They Came for the Thin Mints...

Conservatives have warned for decades about the creeping threat of nanny-statism. We said that responsible, informed adults have a right to choose whether or not to smoke, to drink, and to eat fatty foods. And in our argument, we always asked 'what will be next, and where will this end?'

Liberals accused us of alarmism, and said that we were trying to scare people - that we were trying to scare people with extreme scenarios.

Well, who's exaggerating now?

The Girl Scouts have marked their 90th year in the cookie business by getting most of the artificial fat out of all varieties of their iconic treats, which had been under attack by a few health-focused consumer groups.

The change reflects a movement by the scouts in recent years to add an element of health consciousness to their annual bake sale.

This year, about half of all Girl Scout troops are also offering a sugar-free cookie called the Little Brownie. A cookie with reduced saturated fat, the Cartwheel, was also introduced last year.

Tinkering with a popular recipe is something no cook does lightly, and Girl Scouts of the USA Vice President Denise J. Pessich said the changes were only made after the two commercial bakeries that make the cookies found trans-fat alternatives that didn't compromise flavor, texture or shelf life.

Pessich said she was confident fans would notice few differences. The recipe changes have also given troop leaders an opportunity to talk more about the importance of eating right, Pessich said.

"They know that, for one thing, you need to make informed choices. You need to read labels," she said...

The first "zero trans" Girl Scout cookies made their debut in the fall of 2005, including a reformulated version of the top-selling Thin Mint. The remaining varieties had most trans fats eliminated by last October.

Consumer reaction is still developing. Most troops take their orders in January and begin deliveries in late February or early March.

But — taste aside — the initial feedback has been positive, said Anna Ho, who organizes sales for Troop 805 in Parsippany, N.J.

I do admire the Orwellian construction of the rationale behind this: 'people know they have to make informed choices.' I would not have said that in justifying the denial of a choice.

Forget gay scout leaders; this is an even more devastating deviation from tradition.

Coming Soon: Private-Sector Moonbase

Bigelow Aerospace explains their plans to MSNBC:

Even as Bigelow Aerospace gears up for launching its second prototype space station into orbit, the company has set its sights on something much, much bigger: a project to assemble full-blown space villages at a work site between Earth and the moon, then drop them to the lunar surface, ready for immediate move-in.

In an exclusive interview this week, Las Vegas billionaire Robert Bigelow confirmed that his company has been talking about the concept with NASA – and that the first earthly tests of the techniques involved would take place later this year. The scenario he sketched out would essentially make Bigelow a general contractor for the final frontier.

That role would be a good fit for Bigelow, who made his fortune in the real estate, hotel and construction business and is now focused on developing inflatable modules (or as he prefers to call them, "expandable systems") that can serve as the building blocks for orbital living complexes.

The first big step down that path came in July, when a Russian booster put Bigelow's Genesis 1 prototype module into orbit. Bigelow has said even he was surprised by the success of that mission, and he has committed himself to spending hundreds of millions of dollars to follow up on that first launch.

The next test module, Genesis 2, is due for launch in April – with a larger prototype, known as Galaxy, tentatively scheduled for liftoff next year. Bigelow's plan calls for launching the company's first space "hotel" capable of accommodating guests (or researchers, for that matter) in 2010.

Getting all that right is "Job One," Bigelow told me. But by 2012, the focus could start shifting from low Earth orbit, or LEO, farther out into space. One of the key places in Bigelow's plan is a point about 200,000 miles (323,000 kilometers) out from Earth in the moon's direction, where the pulls of terrestrial and lunar gravity balance each other.

Read the whole interview. It's fascinating. And the implications of getting the private sector truly involved in space travel and colonization are tremendous.

Noted With Interest

The US is sending F-22s to Japan; there is talk that Japan may be the first ally to whom we sell the plane.

Who will the F-22s be intercepting? Russians:

Although somewhat historic, data compiled by the Japanese Air Self Defense Force shows that in the first part of the fiscal year, there’s been a lot of activity to keep air-to-air interceptors busy. In the six months ending September 30 – Japan’s fiscal year starts in April – the Japanese air force had to scramble 149 aircraft to patrol its skies because of potentially hostile intruders.

What’s particularly interesting, and maybe reflective of a geopolitical shift in the region, is the source of most of those transgressions: Russia.

Russia has historically been the largest source of responses, but the scale of activity in those six months is notable. The figure is almost 20% higher than the number of times Japan’s air force had to take to the air to deal with Russian aircraft during the entire 2005 fiscal year.

By contrast, encounters between Japan and its other large neighbor, China, are on a major downturn and headed to more traditional, low levels. In 2005, Japan scrambled aircraft 107 times to deal with Chinese flights. That was a spike from the modest number of incidents in 2003 and 2004.

I wonder if this means anything - and if so, what?

Happy Birthday George Friedric Handel

Below is the well-known Hallelujah Chorus from Handel's Messiah - an appropriate selection for the early part of Lent:



This is recorded at the US Naval Academy. Picture is a little jerky, but I like the venue.

Chuck Hagel is Unserious

At least, that's how I think a real columnist (like George Will or Charles Krauthammer) would describe him.

Time Magazine has posted its '10 Questions.' Here are two favorites:

How do you respond to people who say passing a nonbinding resolution like the one you introduced in the Senate opposing the troop surge doesn't matter?

Of course it matters. We don't want to get into a position where the American people in six to eight months are so frustrated they demand an immediate cutoff of funds. That's not the way we want to have to leave Iraq, so you have these debates now.

You described Arizona Senator John McCain's support of a resolution backing the surge but calling for benchmarks to evaluate Iraqi performance "disingenuous" after he criticized your resolution. Has this affected your friendship?

This has nothing to do with our friendship. There is no one I admire or respect more than John. I thought [his resolution] was duplicitous. It lays out benchmarks for the Iraqis, but doesn't attach any consequences.

So it 'matters' to debate things in the Senate, but it's 'duplicitous' to offer rhetoric without consequences?

Clearly, Hagel is as nuanced as John Kerry. Let's see if it gets him as far.

Tom, We Hardly Knew You...

Vilsack is out:

Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack (D) will announce this morning that he is dropping out of the 2008 presidential contest.

Vilsack, who left office at the beginning of this year, is set to hold a news conference outside his Des Moines headquarters at 11 a.m. Central Standard Time.