Even 9 year olds, it seems. From the Chicago Tribune, Monday, January 29th:

Some of Evanston’s youngest environmentalists have learned the benefits of recycling – and the sluggishness of bureaucracy – in their attempts to rid school cafeterias of white foam lunch trays.

Now I know that this piece is intended to be a condemnation of the slow wheels of government and an honoring of some intelligent and dedicated fourth graders. Instead, it is the final piece in a cog of exploitation and agenda-pushing that quite honestly disturbs me.

The tagline of the piece claims that “[the students] did their research and presented the idea to the school board.”

I’m an educator. I teach very bright 12 and 13 year olds. I don’t believe that a 9 year old student is doing research completely unguided by an adult somewhere. And in this case, I think that adult had an agenda. More about the agenda in a moment.

WARNING: MATH CONTENT AHEAD!

Technorati Tags: Chicago, recycling, irrational, libertarian

Continue Reading »

I found myself perusing my history bookshelves this evening. (Which reminds me – it’s time to get back to cataloging books at LibraryThing.com.) Our humanities teacher is looking for accessible reading material about various social viewpoints on the American Revolution. How, for example, did slaves feel about the issues, or why would colonists remain loyal to the British crown? It seems that the material that is readily available is written for your average college history major.

Anyway, I found a book of primary sources (yes, this is no longer about what a 7th grader can read) which included a letter written by Edmund Burke to the sheriff of Bristol in 1777. Burke was a colonial supporter – he did not seek a colonial victory in the Revolutionary War, but rather a reconciliation of the two parties. He felt that the crown’s policies had provoked the colonists’ violent response, but that is should be possible for the two groups to find a reason to end the war before a total British conquest forced the colonists into further submission. (Note that even he did not envision a colonial victory!)

The letter in question was in response to Lord North, George III’s hand-picked Prime Minister suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus in an attempt to silence critics of the crown. (Now you begin to see where this is heading!) The parallels to today are striking. Have a look:

War suspends the rules of moral obligation, and what is long suspended is in danger of being totally abrogated. (Burke)

Technorati Tags: libertarian, politics, history, commentary

Continue Reading »

From the McLaughlin Group (via Hammer of Truth)

McLaughlin:

“Erosions of civil liberties, religious fundamentalism also, have created a backlash. Personal freedom will now be in demand. Our culture and our politics will be modified by an attitude of favor toward libertarian thinking. This translates into political support for moderates and liberals. Authoritarianism is on its way out. The shackles are off, Pat. The mirth revolution is underway, along with the libertarians….”

When Pat Buchanan chimes in with “authoritarianism is not dead,” McLaughlin snaps back: “Libertarianism is on its way!”

If that’s true, I expect to need more bandwidth in 2007. I’m not headed to the bank just yet. After all, the authoritarianism and religious fundamentalism that McLaughlin refers to has a more easily seen (at least to the general public) and more successfully funded alternative: the Democratic Party. Folks don’t seem to mind the authoritarianism so much when it “only” affects their wallets.

Of course, one could always hope that the rumors are true, and that the Democratic Party is looking to shoot themselves in the foot yet again by wooing the fundamentalist sector of America more fervently. . .

I’m horrified.

I’m finally catching up on some old 20/20 episodes that I had Tivo’d. (Usually, I just watch for John Stossel’s “Give Me a Break” segment.) , so this may not be news to you.

Briefly, Northfield Labs, a local biotech company, is in phase III testing of their blood substitute product, Polyheme®. As part of this test 23 cities (now down to 20) had hospitals that would randomly choose severe trauma vicitms on site to recieve Polyheme ® instead of saline. Blood is too fragile to take along in ambulances.

All of this sounds fine, until you think about some of the implications of this study. These trauma victims are in no condition to consent to be part of this study. They are usually unconcious. But here’s the real kicker – in an admitedly unscientific sampling of “people on the street,” not one person had heard of this study. I certainly had never heard of it, at least not until V told me about this 20/20 story. And Chicago is one of the cities “participating.”

Evidently, in order to opt out of the study, one must wear a blue hospital wristband. 24/7. The rules for this study have been approved by the FDA, as all such studies must.

“Honey, be sure to wear clean underwear your wristband when you go out! You never know when you’ll be in an accident.”

Having to opt out of a study seems unethical on its face. But I understand the difficulty – there is no feasable way for a group to get clearances ahead of time. However, the fact remains that there has been NO reasonable attempt to educate the folks upon whom this experiment may be performed about the existence or ramifications of this study.

Here’s the conflict. The humanist in me wants to trust that the Northfield Labs did all of its due-diligence in insuring that their product was safe to go to field trials. I believe firmly that if this product is successful, it could revolutionize trauma medicine, saving countless lives. The libertarian in me, though, feels as though his blood has already been replaced – with ice water. Little in this universe is more sacrosanct than the blood that flows through my veins, and I damn-well want to know when this may be altered before it happens.

In discussions with my wife, who works in biotech for a pharmaceutical company, I presented this argument. I understand that prior consent is impossible, and I even concede that the field work is a necessary step. But how STUPID can Northfield Labs be? What a PR nightmare! 20/20 needed to do little spinning to make both the doctor in charge of the study in Denver and the FDA look like they were involved in a massive cover-up of a shady study. In fact, were they so inclined, I can’t even see how 20/20 could have spun this story to be supportive of this study. This study could only take place after every attempt at educating the general populations of the cities involved. My wife points out that this advertisement would cost millions. Damn right. That still beats the 100’s of millions that the class action lawsuit is going to cost. The perception will be (and how can you even argue against it) that Northfield Labs, the hospitals, and the FDA were intentionally underhanded in what the general public was to know about the conduct of this study.

It’s secrets like these that an open society must abhor.

On an even more questionable note: part of the protocol of the study required that any patient who was started on Polyheme®, they must be kept on the substitute for 12 hours. What is the purpose of this? I would hope that before the truama trials, that this product has already been tested on humans in more controlled conditions, with folks who could give prior consent. So then the trauma trials should be to determine whether or not the product increases survivablilty from accident site to ER, right? So once they are receiving surgical treatment, what is the point, from a study standpoint, of keeping them on the Polyheme®? They should already have hospital results, right?

All of this makes me queasy.

For those of you not hip to my rad reference, Monkey Tuesday is a weekly theme for Penn Jillette’s radio program on Free Frequency Modulation.

Why monkeys? Because if 100 monkeys are left alone in a room with 100 typewriters for 100 days, they will fall one vote short of passing one of the most un-American ideas imaginable. And not we’re not just talking law, here, ladies and gents. This time, they were looking to amend the U.S. Constitution.

Let me explain. Today, the U.S. Senate, in its infinite wisdom, voted down Senate Joint Resolution 12: Ammendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibiting the physical violation of the American Flag. By – one – vote. That’s right, true believers, 66 of our U.S. Senators are so afraid of Free Speech (Guaranteed by Senate Joint Resolution . . . whatever – the First Ammendment of the BILL OF RIGHTS), that they almost told you and me that a piece of cloth, a symbol, is more important than the rights that it represents! Which way did your senators vote?

I just have to stop here to say this: the irrationality drives me nucking futs!

I am a military veteran. I’ve never served in combat, but I was an Army officer for eight years, and my proudest moment as a serviceman was each and every time I was priveledged to salute Old Glory. I went out of my way to be outdoors at 17:00 every evening so as to participate in the retreat of the colors. I own and fly my own American flag outside my house every day. I watch the Olympics largely for the thrill of seeing my flag flown to the strains of The Star Spangled Banner. One of my favorite sports moments is from 1976, when Chicago Cub Rick Monday stopped a fan from burning the flag in the outfield of Dodger stadium. (Video causes a launch of Microsoft Media Player)

I cheer every time I see that clip. I cheer for the way Mr. Monday acted, and I also cheer for the response that the episode engendered from the crowd that day. And I cheer that I live in a country where someone has the right to make a strong statement by burning a symbol. Were I on the field that day, I probably would not have been able to show the restraint that Rick Monday displayed. I find that form of protest reprehensible, disgusting, and foul. That flag is a symbol for the best and brightest country in the world.

But here’s the crux. It’s a symbol. It is not the country. Its fabric is not the fabric of this society, nor is it what makes this country great. What makes this country great are the rights that the flag symbolizes. And one of those that affects you and me every day is the freedom of speech. Burning a flag is an expression of that freedom. A disgusting expression, but then again, free speech that we all like doesn’t really need protecting, does it?

And just so you don’t think that it’s only the Libertarian that is repulsed by the Senate’s latest attempt to pander for your future votes, let me spend a moment sharing my rationalist viewpoint. How insane is it for our government to attempt to abridge our right to free speech by using the symbol of that very freedom? Is the irony too rich for our great and fearless leaders to grasp? The cynic in me thinks that that cannot be true; more likely is that many of our elected leaders choose to ignore the irrationality in favor of the emotional content. People vote more and more frequently from their emotions than their intellect, and our Senators know that. They want to cash in on our respect for those who defend what we find important. But really, it’s those military men and women overseas and training here in the U.S. who should get that respect, not a group of wealthy and entitled professional cynics. Our service men defend us and our freedoms, not just a piece of cloth.

So, check out the vote. If you’re lucky enough to have one of the 34 senators who chose to affirm our rights instead of defending a symbol, write him or her a thank you letter. If not, well, perhaps you could send him or her a symbol of your disgust.

By the way – how many flags have you ever seen burned? I thought so. Glad to see that our money is being spent stopping that epidemic.