Who is DuWayne?

Why I'm wide open...

Part One of Who I am and Why I am this way...

Discussing Therapy...

Who I'm becoming and the framing wars...

Not Perfect, but Working on it...

Harm Reduction and My Addictions...

Addicted to Pain...

Old "about me and ADHD" post part 1...

Old "about me and ADHD" post part 2...(typical, I only finished 2 out of four posts about ADHD)

More on the Conversation that Never Ends

The last post garnered rather a lot of response, so I wanted to clarify a few things. Also, quite a few responses came via email. Please, comment publicly. There were several good points made, that I think could add a lot of value to the discussion. For those who are uncomfortable talking about this openly, I do allow anonymous comments - i.e. I don't get any information about you. I only ask that you sign off with some identifier, besides simply anonymous. I don't care what you choose to use as a screen name, just give me something to refer to. Unidentified comments will be deleted.

I would also take this opportunity to point out that another sciblogger has weighed in on this. Dr Free-Ride, at Adventures in Ethics and Science, makes some very similar points to my own.

First, Abel actually was referring to legal wrangling, when he talked about going over the line. And this is a very important factor in discussion of issues such as sex and drugs with our children.

This is a very real concern, for a lot of parents. The only real answer for it, is to be active and try to affect change in our communities. In many places it is possible to have one's children taken away or be otherwise oppressed for making very reasonable and sound parenting choices. And it's a catch twenty two. On the one hand, the only way to effect change is to talk about why these are perfectly reasonable choices. On the other hand, if one talks about it, it could be cause for serious legal problems. This is a tough enough issue that even living someplace as reasonable about these things as Portland is, it still makes me a bit nervous, talking about it.

I do know that this is a pretty big problem, one that is all the more difficult, having been raised to believe that the freedom of expression is akin to being a sacred ideal. Especially true when it comes to raising one's children and doing what we believe is right, to raise as functional, ethical and safe children as we can. There are no easy answers. Many contributors to the problem are rather obvious, but actually changing them, is as complex a problem as trying to break the deathgrip the republicrats have on American electoral politics. One advantage, is that this is very much a localized issue and we can all get very directly involved with local politics. It is still an uphill fight, but I think it is one worth fighting.

Drugmonkey also weighed in, with a very important point about risk assessment. This being that even a seemingly small chance, such as one percent, is not as small as it seems. To illustrate, take a group of five hundred kids, not far off the mark for a lot of graduating classes at high schools all over the country. If anything, it's probably a little small. But it works for illustrating the numbers easily.

Something that affects one percent of a teen population, is going to affect five kids in that group. But that leaves four hundred, ninety five kids who it doesn't affect, right? Of course it does, but I want you to consider exactly what this means. I want you to consider the odds of one of those five kids being someone you and your child knows. At the least, it is exceedingly likely that at least one of the five will be known to someone you/your child knows. Less likely, but still plausible, one of those five will be your child. So lets look at some numbers, kindly provided by Drugmonkey;

In this we are supported by the data in the sense that 50% of 12th graders have tried an illicit drug, 73% have tried alcohol and 56% report having "been drunk".

So lets look at how this translates into our group of five hundred kids. We have a full two hundred, fifty kids who will try an illicit drug. Two hundred, eighty of them will get drunk. And three hundred, sixty five will try alcohol. To be clear, it is virtually impossible that you/your child will not know several kids who will fall into one or more of those categories.

I would also like to take a look at the numbers for inhalant use among teens, from this context. Mainly, because this is the one that frightens me the most. According to a 2006 report by the American Academy of Pediatrics (Warning, PDF link), 11.1% of twelfth graders have used inhalants, holding steady since 2002. Finding statistics on the percentage of kids who use inhalants, who die of it is proving rather difficult, but according to this same report, of those who die, 22% are first time users. So of our group of five hundred kids, fifty-five or fifty-six of them will use inhalants. Here is a listing of likely side effects of inhalant abuse, from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Note the stats are a little different for the frequency of use. Keep in mind that until this page, we have been looking at statistics for use before high school graduation. NIDA's figures are for lifetime use, not just use among youth.

So while it is easy to point at figures like one percent, and assume that this means something is safe, the reality is that one percent isn't that far away from us, at any given point.

Finally, I wanted to clarify what I am trying to encourage parents to do. I am not suggesting that parents tell their children that if they really need to use drugs, do such and such, because it's safer than other options. While for some kids, that might well become a reasonable method of harm reduction, most kids really don't need that. What I am advocating, is nothing more than providing our kids with enough information, to make an informed decision, should they choose not to abstain. Make sure that you aren't going to find them cold and dead in their bedroom, with an aerosol can in their mouth. Make sure they aren't going to drive intoxicated, or ride with an intoxicated driver.

Drugs and Children, the Conversation that Never Ends

Abel Pharmboy has a great post up, about the dangers of prescription and even some over the counter medications, that kids use to get high.

Related to the DrugMonkey post, PharmGirl just tipped me off to this Benadryl nightmare at the Sweet Hill (OR) High School. Students have turned up in local emergency rooms after having taken 20 to 30 of the tablets, each containing 25 mg of diphenhydramine.

At high doses, diphenhydramine's central antimuscarinic effects become apparent as hallucinations but this is a terribly risky approach. Suppression of parasympathetic drive to the heart can cause tachycardia and lead to fatal cardiac arrhythmias. The story is deeply concerning...

He then goes on to describe the problems with a couple other commonly abused medications, well worth reading the entire post and comments. Towards the end of the post, he poses a very important question;

But it's stepping over the line to tell them if they're going to choose any illicit behavior, there are far safer alternatives.

How do other parents ethically approach this conundrum?

First I would like to comment on the very notion that it's stepping over the line, to tell children there are far safer alternatives.

One of our very important responsibilities as a parent, is to do everything that we can, to ensure they survive childhood. The point that we decide that something this important is off the table, is the point where we really start to gamble with the lives of our children. Kids are all individual, different beasts. They each have unique needs, what works for one child, won't work for another. Thus it is important to recognize that one needs to tailor this discussion, to the needs of their child – also realizing that the approach you take with one of your kids, may not work for the next one that comes along.

This is much akin to the discussion of sex. It's a hotbutton issue, with no easy answer. But just as we gamble with the life and well being of our children, if we refuse to teach them about making sex safer, we also gamble with their lives, if we just say no. It is not telling your child it's ok, to make them aware of ways to keep themselves safer. But we owe it to our children, to give them information that can and probably will, keep them alive and safe.

While every kid is different, there are some very standard, near universal steps one should take, when making their child aware of the dangers of drugs. Most of this also applies to every single hotbutton issue we should discuss with our kids.

Honesty – Always

This cannot be emphasized enough. There is nothing more important, than always being honest, when talking to our kids about sex, drugs, dangerous activities or any hotbutton issue. Never, ever lie about anything. Never even exaggerate anything with them. Always be honest with your child. If they ask a question your not comfortable answering, at the very least tell them your not comfortable talking about that. The best policy is to be open with them, occasionally telling them you will be happy to discuss it when they are a little older, if it really isn't age appropriate. But if you just can't bring yourself to respond, then have the courage to tell them that.

The point that we start to lie or overstate the case for something, is the point that we lose all credibility about that issue. Do it enough and we lose credibility all together. For a good many kids, the credibility we are talking about, is a lot easier to lose, than it is to ever regain it, should it be lost. If the goal is to have a child that is confident and comfortable with bringing up any and every topic they wish, then this credibility is essential. We throw that away at our own peril. More importantly, we throw that away at our child's peril.

Get Your Facts Straight

Do not approach the topic of drugs, without doing your homework. If, like me, you have personal experience to draw from, by all means use it. Even if your experience is limited to only small aspects of the discussion, they are far more valuable than anything else you will bring to the table. First, this is establishing credibility. They know you're being honest, when you discuss your own failings, or even less dire experiences, with licit or illicit drugs. Too, they place a lot more value on your actual experiences in life, than they usually let on.

For those with less experience, or even those with a lot of them, read and question people who've been there. Don't depend on sites the government provides. Read a wide range of information, from different perspectives. Call organizations such as narcotics anonymous and even alcoholics anon. Tell them you are interested in finding someone who can talk to you and your kids about substance abuse. I can virtually guarantee that they can and will be very keen on helping you. The perspectives of people who have lived the worse of drug use, are extremely valuable.

But the most important aspect of this, is to never overplay the very worse of consequences. Talk to your kids realistically. Taking alcohol as an example; Focus the majority of your attention, on the potential consequences to their bodies development, especially the brain. Make it clear that in their early to mid twenties, the consequences of having a drink, are far less dire. The brain is pretty well developed, having a drink or smoking a little pot, is going to do far less damage. While the brain is still developing, THC or alcohol (not to mention a whole lot of different drugs) will inhibit proper neurological development. It may not translate to significant loss, but there is no getting around it, they will impair neurological development.

Use Realistic Risk Assessments

Yes, you are right in sensing a theme here. But it is critical that we make sure we use the best possible information. Risk assessment, is where a lot of drug campaigns really falter. They want to scare kids out of using drugs, so the focus is on the very worse potential consequences, consequences that are the least likely to be observed by the child. Meanwhile, the milder, but far more common consequences are virtually ignored.

The thing is, most kids, unless they are sheltered to an extremely unhealthy degree, are going to observe the milder, more common consequences of various sorts of drug use. The more dire consequences are less likely to ever be observed. Focusing more on the realistic, provides another source for the credibility that is so important.

To take an honest risk assessment approach, means that you will be telling your children that there are safer, albeit still dangerous alternatives out there. Such as, you will be telling them that smoking pot isn't nearly so dangerous as huffing canned air or gasoline. You will be telling them that freebasing cocaine (crack) is more addictive and dangerous than snorting a line of cocaine. You will be saying that it is far safer to only drink where it is safe and stay there, if they decide to drink, instead of following their parent's advice. Because always, above all else, we have to focus on safety first.

Do Not be Afraid to Tell Kids How to be Safe

We can be clear that something is a bad idea, while maintaining that there are things that can make certain activities far more dangerous than they inherently are. To tell a kid to use a condom if they are going to have sex, does not have to mean we condone them having sex. Likewise, telling a child the difference between smoking crack and smoking a joint, is not telling them they should go smoke pot. What we are doing, is refusing to gamble with our children's lives.

The consequences of having unsafe sex, can be as bad as death, or at least a horrible, ravaging disease. The consequences of using various substances to get high, can also be as bad as death. There are all sorts of potentially dire consequences, to all sorts of activities. There are also ways of reducing the potential for the very worse consequences, for any number of activities. Some people, in the name of ideological or dogmatic purity, feel the need to take an abstinence only approach to all of these topics. They want to make it as simply black and white. Then they trust that there kids will just do as they are told and abstain.

This is nothing less than gambling with your child's life. You are doing nothing less than throwing your child to the wolves, without the least bit of protection. You make them vulnerable to perfectly natural impulses they may be unable to control. If they are going to break down and have the sex, they're going to do it. Statistically, it is far more likely they're going to than they're not – no matter what try to teach them. Likewise, it is entirely likely that they are going to use some sort of inebriant, some time in their youth. The only question becomes; What sort of risk assessment are they going to use? Because if one's just as “bad” as the rest, one of the easiest ways to get high, is using highly toxic, very dangerous inhalants. They are bar none, the easiest to get their hands on.

Build Confidence

The more confident the kids, the less likely they will fall prey to peer pressure. Peer pressure is a huge part of using various substances. Most dangerous, it takes the control out of the hands of our kids, and gives it to their compatriots. By themselves, our kids are probably in pretty good shape for staying safe and listening to us parents. It's when they feel it's more important to fit in, than to be safe (or safer), that they really can get into the worse trouble.

Start Early

It is never too early to talk about the hard stuff. Make it a habit from the git go. We first discussed drugs with our son, when he was three. He saw a friend of ours rather drunk and the conversation began. A few months later, we saw someone smoking crack in the streets. When he was five, he actually had quite the q&a with a guy he saw hitting a crack pipe. He has also talked with a friend of mine, who has been dealing with some serious substance abuse issues for much of his life. We started with very general, very basic ideas and haven't progressed far beyond them. But we have begun the habit of talking about drugs and inebriation. Likewise, we have done the same with topics such as sex, bigotry, hatred, environmental issues, social issues. It doesn't take much, but with even the tiniest foundation, you pave the way for talking about it when these issues become very relevant to your child.

Showing them you have the courage to talk about difficult issues, also makes it more likely they will want to involve you in their decision making process. As much as I would love to see my children retain their virginity until they are secure, mature adults, I would settle for them being comfortable asking my advice, when they decide they are going to do it anyways. Likewise, I would love to see my boys forgo smoking pot or drinking, until they are much older, if ever. But I will settle for them talking to me about it, before they decide to do those sorts of activities. Remember, if they don't feel they can trust you, they aren't going to talk about it. They will however, likely make decisions you aren't going to like anyways – you just won't know what it is.

This means biting your tongue. It also means standing your ground and making it clear what the consequences are likely to be. It means knowing your child well enough to know when they are likely to do something dangerous and when you just have to bite it and do what you can to keep them safe while they do it. Because it may be the difference that prevents them from transmitting HIV, or means they have a beer instead of dying with a can of air freshener in their mouth. Most importantly, it means making sure that they never have to question your love for them, no matter what they choose to do. Let them know when you are disappointed, but never let them question your love. Like your credibility, if they question the love, you've lost important and hard to restore ground.

There is plenty more involved with this topic. I would love to go on about it far more than I have here and may well do so, but these are what I consider the most important keys to keeping one's children safe. For certain, they are pretty universal.

I am also going to just have to admit that it is unlikely I will get to a lot of things any time soon. We just have a lot on our plates and things aren't slowing down anytime soon. I will keep up posting as much as I can, but please bare with me, it will be slow.

A quick interjection about beggers...

I am basing this assertion on what I have observed in Portland and mostly intend this for my local readers, but it is probably relevant in more places than this.

It is with much dismay, that I have noted a horrible discrepancy between the "take" that different groups of panhandlers take in. To whit, there are a few different groups out there.

My favorites, are the ones with something to offer in return. One group is a number of folks in substance abuse recovery. They are forbidden by their supporting organization, to beg. So they are provided with boxes of candybars to sell in return for donations. Another major group that does this, is one that sell copies of a homeless issues newspaper. Finally, you have the entertainers. The problem that I have, is that these are the least funded of all the beggars. Which is sad really, as they have gone out of their way to actually provide something in return for your change.

Then there are the disabled, whether physically or mentally. They get the midrange of funding. I have no problem with these folks, indeed, I try to take one or two a week, out to lunch. (actually, I try to do that for some member of this group or the last) I wish I could do this more often, but I am not exactly rolling in the dough. The thing is, that I discovered it is really a lot of fun. Especially with some of the more colorful members of the mentally ill.

So now we get to the last and most highly funded; the lazy. The lazy are not mentally ill, not physically disabled. Now I am the first to accept that crap happens. I am all about a safety net to help a brother out, as it were. But many that fall into this category are there by choice. The thing is that they are far more mobile, than the others. They find creative ways to convince others to give them their hard earned money, all the while never even considering actually going to work. Yet they get far more money out of people than the other two groups.

So if you see someone who has something to offer for the change they are asking for, please give it to them. If it's the homeless paper, take it and read it. If it's a candy bar or somesuch, either give far more than it's worth, or politely decline to take any. Encourage the folks who are trying to do something. They, along with those less able, actually deserve the help.

Now back to our regularly scheduled blogging. Ominous as it is, private security contractors wins out. With one vote in comments and two by email, all for that one, there we go. It was rather atop my list too, so sorry Donna, I will get to the abolition of marriage ASAP. (I also am shortening the list of posts on the front page, in hopes of getting it to load faster)

Sorry about the silence

Complete and utter chaos, would be an understatement. Life is absolutely insane these days. But I do have several issues that have been grinding at me, that I hope to hit on soonish. Not sure what the priorities will come out as, but here are the topics;

The abolition of marriage as a civil institution, beyond marriage equality for GLTs. More and more, I am finding that I am far from alone on this. I have a lot to say on this issue, but in short, even allowing gay marriage, would still restrict marriage rights to those who are in, or are willing to claim to be in a romantic relationship. I for one, find this ridiculous.

The absurdity of simplistic dichotomies (to steal a phrase from my brother). As the primaries are getting into full steam, the stench of partisan politics is enough to make the strongest of iron stomachs retch. From republicrats, to the conservative/liberal dichotomy, where do I fit in? Where do you? When you really think about it, do the labels we are pegged with really fit, even if they are self imposed? I am prochoice, progayrights, for ending the drug war and believe in a comprehensive, if a not so comfy welfare state. I am also progun, fiscally conservative and dead against affirmative action.

Private security contractors in America. Another topic my bro has written a lot about lately, I would like to hit on it from a different angle. Though this article does a particularly great job of expressing what the America with PSC's might look like, I think it's important to look at where they already are. Do you have PSC's operating in your towns business district? Portland does and it is a problem.

The War on Vice. Because gods know, the guy down the street smoking a joint is causing irreparable damage to your lifestyle. Especially if he has a hooker once in a while. And that friendly poker game in his basement once a week, how dare he skirt the state and native monopoly on gambling. So lets spend billions upon billions annually, persecuting these folks. Lets continue to incarcerate a larger percentage of our population than any other country* in the world. Yeah! We're number one!

*Keeping in mind that China tends to execute, rather than incarcerate. And they're not alone.

There are these and more. Including more on ADHD, bipolar and neurodiversity. More discussions of rights in the abstract. More thoughts on euthanasia. More about denialism. And a discussion about about CAM "medicine" and a (hopefully) soon to be published print article, by your's truly. Indeed, if all goes well, I will have a print article out, about the HIV/AIDS denial (and denialism in general) as well as the CAM article.

So what do you think I should focus on first?

By and by, my baby has discovered the things that flop around him are hands and he controls them. He has also started smiling and giggling, though the giggles are rather a disturbing sound. Unfortunately, he seems to have some distaste for the camera, so the smiles are yet unrecorded.
Homeschooling is definitely starting to come together, though it is slow and unweildy as of yet. But we have found even more resources and are starting to get a stride.

The new baby arrived safely

It has been a hectic week. David arrived safely, everyone is home. Another post should come soon, possibly even tonight.

It has come upon us...

We will be having the baby, sometime after one tomorrow.

Eugenics Is Not A Four Letter Word

Quick note, the baby is not here yet, though momma is bursting at the seams. We are incredibly busy all around, preparing for the baby, preparing for Christmas and preparing for our adventures into the world of homeschooling. I have managed to find some work to cover a little break that I didn't need, which should keep us afloat. On to the posting at hand then.

I have paid little attention, as I have been busy, but Seed's SciBlogs have been been hammering away at one Jim West of the Discovery Institute, a “think” tank devoted to pushing the teaching of creationism into U.S. Public schools. Suffice to say that DI is nothing more than a PR organization, rife with dishonesty. PZ Meyers started in on West a while ago with this post, which I admit I haven't actually read (I include the link for context only).

Lately, sciblogger Greg Laden joined in the fray, ruffling the feathers of sciblogger Orac. In short, Laden made some rather outrageous claims about the origins of forced eugenics programs, both those that happened in the U.S. (dark enough themselves) and those of the Nazis (i.e. The extermination of millions of Jews and other undesirables). Orac corrects the mistaken notion that the intellectual propagators of these atrocious eugenics programs were mostly Christians. In comments on both Greg's and Orac's posts, Colugo adds a lot of very interesting information to the mix.

Now I am not going to argue that the early part of the twentieth century was not to a strong degree, a world gone mad with some truly frightening notions about eugenics. From forced sterilizations, to mass exterminations, forced eugenics was a very ugly, fundamentally bigoted beast. But that is not the whole picture, not by a long shot. There is something important missing in this discussion of eugenics, that is the notion that not all eugenics is bad. Indeed, much of what falls under the heading of eugenics isn't even controversial. Unfortunately, some of it is controversial. Some of it skates very fine, ethical, dare I say, moral lines. The problem with making eugenics into some bogey man, is that it inserts a certain hysteria into a very important discussion.

So what is eugenics?

Let me start with this simple exercise. When you were choosing a mate (assuming you are a breeder of some sort), did you ever consider what your children might look like, if this person or that, was the mate you chose? Did you ever consider their intellect, for the same reason? In short, was one of the factors in choosing your mate, what they might contribute genetically? If the answer to any of these questions is yes, congratulations, you practiced a very basic form of eugenics. Not the least bit controversial, evil or unreasonable.

Lets then up it a notch. I have gotten to know quite a few folks in the world of neurodiversity. Many of them great folks. Several of them have made the conscious decision not to reproduce, because they do not want to pass on what are likely genetic disorders (at least influenced by genetics) to the children they would produce. I.e. They have identified some genetic trait that they believe it would be best not to propagate and therefor chosen not to reproduce. This too, is a form of eugenics.

Now we get to some meat. Herein lies a more controversial aspect of the discussion of eugenics, one that I will state outright, I don't have a problem with. Nonetheless, there are plenty of people who have serious objections, including readers of this blog. Right now, today, medical science has progressed to the point that we can identify many disorders and congenital diseases, in vitro. My partner and I had a bit of a scare, when the nurse called about an elevated risk for downs syndrome, with the baby that is due any time now. Lets just say that she handled it badly – leading us to believe it was a significant risk, rather than a less than three percent risk.

We want this baby. Our whole family is excited (no matter how I whine about it). But with a child already, who has followed in his papa's ADHD footsteps, there is no way that we could raise a child with those sorts of special needs. Not without seriously undermining the care and attention that the son we have now requires. Nor would we find it reasonable to burden society with such a child. It would have been a hard, but simple answer; abortion. For those who have rather profound objections to the notion of abortion, please do not judge me too harshly. Yes, this decision was reached without very much discussion. Mostly we just looked at each other, already knowing the way it would be. It took little time to consider it. This is because we are all too aware of the implications.

Nor is this limited to down syndrome. There are a host of disorders that can and routinely are diagnosed in vitro. While it is not a frequent occurrence, this does lead to decisions to terminate pregnancies. This too, is eugenics.

Finally, we come to even more controversial aspects of the discussion; where is the science going?

Our understanding of genetics and DNA, is increasing at an exponential rate. Already we have developed many gene therapies for treating certain disorders, Tays Sachs being a huge one. We are very close to viable therapies that can be started in vitro (I believe some already are). The question becomes, what is acceptable? What can we reasonably eliminate from our society? For instance, what about ADHD? Bipolar disorder? Schizophrenia? Autism? What about homosexuality?

The flip side of this, is the discussion of enhancements. What if it becomes possible to enhance certain characteristics, such as intelligence, endurance, fine motor skills, or spacial reasoning? What about absolute engineering, such as Aldous Huxley describes in Brave New World? A vast panacea is opening up before us, right now. Unfortunately, we are too busy freaking out over the terminology to actually have a serious, coherent discussion. Eugenics is not a four letter word, but it does carry rather serious implications, that require their time in the limelight.

Lots going on...

Wow, it's been a while. Sorry about that. I am still waiting on a connection at home and dealing with a lot of things at once.

We are having a baby in a matter of weeks now. Not really prepared enough but working on it. Unfortunately, I am going to have a break from working that I really need not to have. I will probably come up with something, but it's very stressful timing with Christmas and a baby coming quickly.

On top of it all, my five year old is really having issues at school. We have bent over backwards and jumped through hoops to make it work, to create continuity between school and home. His counselor has also gone the rounds to help us create a workable solution. Part of the problem is the school, part of it is his ADHD. So we are pulling him out at the semester turnaround. As much as we hoped to avoid it, we will be teaching him at home.

To a certain degree, this is kind of exciting. There will be many advantages to home schooling. Ultimately, I think it is probably the best way to educate someone with severe ADHD. One on one teaching would have done a lot for me. But it is also very intimidating. It will all be in our hands and on our heads.

It also means that we are going to have to make some serious changes to the way our household operates. This in itself would not be such a problem, but it comes at a time when we are already going through serious changes, what with the baby and all. It also means that there is little possibility of momma going back into the workforce (not that this was likely to happen in the near future anyways).

On the upside, it is motivation to write more about education. I have been wanting to get a forum going to discuss parental supplementing and home schooling. We are actually getting a new internet connection soon, which will get me back to doing more blogging. We will also probably both be getting into writing about our experiences, both good and bad, with educating our son. I am also interested in hearing from others who are either home schooling or actively supplementing their child's education. I am also keen on hearing from parents who are done (or mostly done) with that sort of thing. Educators are also of interest, as are those who just have an opinion about it all.

I will probably be starting a new blog for this endeavor. Expect it after the holidays. I don't intend to blog less here, indeed with a home connection, it should go on the upswing again. But I will probably do more on the new one, as I hope my partner will too.

Again, I am sorry that it has been so sparse lately. But as you can see, I've been busy.

Putting it All Together

Thanks to Kurt for finishing his series on rights. I would like ot apologize to those stopping by for my post on the vice war. It will be up when I get the time. I just picked up a last minute, pre-holiday bathroom remodel. Between this and no internet at home for the moment, I just didn't have time.

So far, we have looked at a Theory of Culture, and then various tests to its validity, including the Right to Life. We have concluded as a result of this study that Inalienable Rights do not exist in any positive sense. At least in the real world, rights exist only to the degree that a culture grants said rights.

From this point, what follows is pure speculation and wishcasting. Admittedly, I am doing so based upon a solid model, but all this means in reality is that the speculation is theoretically provable (or falsifiable, depending on which side of that particular philosophical nit you pick).

The Founding Fathers had no idea of the Leviathan they were creating. The intention was merely to bring the quarreling states together for purposes of defense and foreign affairs, and to coordinate efforts which required a national scale, such as providing for a postal service amd a national currency.

But one of the things about markets (and politics is a market, albeit a very inefficient one) is that over time they do tend to favor greater efficiencies, especially of scale. And one of the rules of economy of scale is that regularity and predictability must be present to take advantage of the efficiency. Thus we see two trend lines beginning in Medieval Europe and then rapidly growing through the Rennaissance and into the Enlightenment. First, the size of states grew larger, incorporating growing and often diverse populations. At the same time, the complexity of the legal system grew. Things which were once regulated (if at all) by custom became covered by Guilds. These later gave way to Statutes of the King, which were in turn supplanted by legislative management. Finally, a permanent beaurocracy was created.

One aspect of regularity and predictability that the states did not intend to create was "rights" for individuals. I think it is safe to say that until the Declaration of Independence no state or would-be state had ever recognized such rights willingly. Power for the individual meant less power for the King, or so the thinking went. One of the great leaps forward of the Enlightenment was to recognize this as a logical fallacy: Power is not a zero sum game, and by ceding power to the people (or some component of the people) the government could vastly increase its own authority over time.

Increased freedom brought about increases in the things people care more directly about: More food, sex, leisure, etc, at least as measured by the sum total of people enjoying these things. And hence the paradox I have mentioned earlier but not discussed: The more personal freedoms grow, the more they are constrained by government regulations. The more regulations, the more power government has also, and hence the more power to interfere with those freedoms. It's an interesting circle.

There are two ways to take this state of affairs. First, it will always be in the interests of some "Faction" (in the Federalist 10 sense) to use the regulatory power of the society to increase its own position at the expense of others. This happens all the time through the political process. Just look at how Federal spending changes in the US according to whether a Democrat or Republican is President.

The second approach is to take the view that maximum freedom for all individuals will bring the maximum return in terms of meeting the culture's wants and needs. Loosely speaking, this is the Libertarian philosphy. In a sense, this was Bentham's position, and it underlays Marx's arguments as well, as has been pointed out in the comments to prior posts. Marx' logic, of course, was that to lead to a state of true freedom, an intermediate period would be required. He didn't use the term "Philosopher Kings" to describe his Dictatorship of the Proletariat, but it is clear he had Plato in mind.

I see no particular reason to distinguish between a Dictatorship "of the Proletariat" from one "Not of the Proletariat." The extremes of either approach are unattractive, in the sense that for the majority they suppress the very freedom which is helping to generate the abundance.

Before I continue, I need to knock down a major fallacy that often bogs things down at this stage of the argument: Cultural evolution is not a continuum, nor does it have any intelligence of its own. There is the idea in most racist writings (for instance) that some cultures are superior to others. This is no more true than the scientific theory that a human is a higher order of being than a sea anemone: All we can say is that both are exquisitely adapted for their current ecological niches. Just as biological evolution is best viewed as a bush, rather than a tree, social evolution likewise is best viewed as cultures adapting in different ways to different circumstances and environments. There is no plan or order to any of it, and certainly not an over-riding intelligence directing developments.

Culture is not a moral agent. Our society is not superior to hunter-gatherers because we have perfected the cheese-flavored microwavable snack. In many measures, the hunter-gatherers have the best of it. In most studies by anthropologists, hunter-gathers work less, eat a healthier diet, and get more sex than the average American. Most of them have never even heard of Britney Spears or Ann Coulter. There are downsides, too, such as a lack of dental care and the inability to mitigate natural disasters or the aggressiveness of neighbors. Still, the pursuit of happiness is available equally in both.

That being dealt with, I also need to address another problem that my whole argument seems to raise, which is this: If I define rights functionally, ie, as the package of behaviors which a given culture permits, how do I avoid the trap of legal positivism? The topic has not been raised so far in this series, but I am hugely critical of legal positivism elsewhere on the blogosphere, particularly on DuWayne's brother Ed Brayton's Dispatches from the Culture Wars.

About.com gives a pretty good definition:

Legal positivism is the legal philosophy which argues that any and all laws are nothing more and nothing less than simply the expression of the will of whatever authority created them. Thus, no laws can be regarded as expressions of higher morality or higher pinciples to which people can appeal when they disagree with the laws. The creation of laws is simply an exercise in brute force and an expression of power, not an attempt to realize any loftier moral or social goals.

My argument against this is not that the statement is incorrect: I agree wholeheartedly that this is how law has operated for most of human history. Rather, my complaint is that it is incomplete, failing to take into account ideas of political philosophy and government -- and also religion -- that have been around since at least since the Sixth Century BCE, the time of Gautama, Confucius, and Pythagoras.

Yes, cultures are mostly shaped by economic forces. But ideas matter, too, and have consequences. At the margins they may be powerful forces themselves. For instance, I have no doubt that the Arab population was under great stress and perhaps greatly wanted to sweep away Byzantine control of Egypt and the Near East. Yet it took Mohammed and the idea of Islam to set the flood in motion (Note: There are historians who dispute this and argue that Islam only became a factor after many of the conquests were complete; I'm not convinced). Likewise, it is pretty clear that Buddhism was initially a reaction to overpopulation in the Indus valley and the resulting deforestation and ecological crisis. But the ideology clearly played a part, too, shaping the responses that the culture adopted.

My second objection is that the definition of legal positivism has another flaw: It assumes that because cultures are not moral agents, that we cannot make values-laden statements about them. This is preposterous. No, we cannot make statements such as, "That law is unjust because it violates the right to free speech." No such right exists. But we can make the statement, "That law is counterproductive because it infringes on free speech and free speech brings the following benefits to the culture:" with a list to follow. In other words, there would be no particular reason to favor free speech in the abstract if free speech did not bring tangible benefits to society. And many cultures have put restrictions on speech for precisely this reason: They see no benefit to it.

This approach also allows us to apply a framework to ideas which challenge liberty. I am a free speech absolutist, for the most part, and strongly oppose efforts to ban "hate speech," for instance. In general, it is best to oppose bad speech with better speech. However, if it could be shown that "hate speech" (however defined) has absolutely no utility to the overall culture, that would be a strong argument as to why it should be banned. A very similar argument, for instance, lies at the restriction on speech known as copyright: We guarrantee a writer exclusive rights to her work for a period of years in order to encourage new works to be produced.

This, then, is the solution to our paradox of power: As cultures become more complex. it is always in the best interest of the overall society to allow greater freedom, if not to all, at least to a certain class. Cultures evolve freedoms because greater freedoms allows for more good things, both materially, and increasingly, idealistic. I need to add that Marx was correct, religion is, indeed, a commodity, as much a part of a culture's happiness as many material components. And one very hopeful sign in the "New Atheism" of recent years is the understanding that a wholistic worldview that focuses on more than the self is compatable with atheism. Sam Harris seems ahead of the pack here.

I haven't read Mill's On Liberty in over 20 years. If I am recreating a lot of his arguments, I fully acknowledge the debt here. I am sure I also owe a great deal of my argument to Milton Friedman, Christopher Lasch, and my favorite professor at UNC Asheville, Bill Sabo. I've thoroughly enjoyed working on this series, and haven't had this kind of intellectual thrill in a long time. I imagine I'll be back to visit Inalienable Rights soon. Thanks to all for your patience, your comments, and just caring about the topic to begin with. Blessings.

Kurt A. Ehrsam

Homeopthic Thuggery Thwarted

Aww, that poor SoH. Us nasty old bloggers are just too mean. From the SoH;

The Society of Homeopaths took the content of the 2006 BBC Newsnight programme on malaria very seriously and responded via press statements and media interviews promising action if it were required. We contacted the programme makers directly to ask for their evidence that any Society members had given dangerous or misleading advice to members of the public. They were unable to provide a single example. The Society's professional conduct procedures cannot be invoked without a specific complaint, an alleged offender or any evidence. In these circumstances, The Society was unable to investigate a specific case. Nevertheless, as a further precaution, we reissued our Guidelines on advice for the prevention of malaria and sent a copy to every member within a day of the programme being aired.

The Society instructed lawyers to write to the Internet Service Provider of Dr. Lewis' website because the content of his site was not merely critical but defamatory of The Society, with the effect that its reputation could have been lowered. Dr Lewis, in his article, stated as fact highly offensive comments about The Society and it is for that reason that The Society decided it had no option but to take action. The very crude abuse posted on various websites and e-mailed to The Society since our action suggests that these bloggers/authors are not people who are interested in a real debate on the basis of either science or the public good but who simply want to attack homeopathy, for the very sake of it.

Due to the unpleasantness and surprisingly vitriolic nature of the postings on the Quackometer website and others, The Society has taken a conscious decision not to respond to these bloggers.

As a commenter at Orac's opined;

It's kinda like my five-year-old whining about me sitting in her imaginary friend's seat.

I think that sums it up nicely.

I will have a post up soonish, about this and other methods of chilling speech. But as my last post mentioned, I am without a connection at home right now, so it could be a bit.

Sporadic to the Extreme

I am currently without the internets at home. I will hopefully have changed this in the net few weeks, but until then, things will be really sporadic, including responses to comments. Thanks for your patience.

"Nationalism, is an infantile disease."

-Albert Einstein

I have meant to write about this for some time. I know that I have other, pressing things to write about, but I believe that this is important too. I would like to start out by clarifying that, while I agree very strongly with the above quote, I am a patriot. I am not proud to be an American, not because I don't think that being an American is a good thing, but simply because I never had to make any sacrifices to be one. I was born an American, because my German grandmother made love with an American G.I. and brought my mother here when she was a young child. I never had to work at becoming an American, it was an accident of birth.

I do not love my country either. I have a profound and deep seated passion for the ideals upon which this nation was founded. I have a passion for the nation that I learned about in school. But I do not love even that. My country is not a person, nor is it a religious faith, it is nothing more, or less, than an attempt at freedom that at the time of it's founding, the world had never seen. Neither is my country, the country I learned about in school. It never really was. So why the melancholy and mirth?

A few weeks ago, I learned that another nation of recent greatness, Russia, has developed a great big bomb. A devastating and dangerous bomb. I also learned that Russia is starting to build up her military again. For the last few years Russia has been moving headlong into fascism. I suspect that this really began with the fall of communism and the end of the Soviet Union. Chaos ensued and while many Russians suffered under communist totalitarianism, toto is in many ways preferable to chaos, especially in the minds of Russians. The problem is that as Russia has begun to slowly stabilize, nationalism has reared it's ugly head. A super-power made largely irrelevant in the world arena, is rattling sabers, hoping to be somebody again.

So why the melancholy and mirth?

I would like you to pause for a moment, if your an American, and think long and hard about the questions I am about to ask.

Who are we, to the larger world community today? What makes us relevant in the global community? What does our super-power status really mean? Can we really be legitimately called a super-power? (if so why?)

Underlying it all; Why are we really in Iraq? Are we pulling the same sort of games that Russia is, just far louder and prouder? Even worse, does this not just speed up our drive into decadence and decline?

We embark on "noble" efforts of spreading democracy and "freedom" to other nations, while we have rampant poverty and killing in our own streets. While our leaders lie and attempt to destroy the bulwarks of liberty and freedom that have made this a nation worth having a passion about. While the power lies not with the people, not with the voters, but with those who can afford to influence power. While we the people practically beg our leaders to protect us, by taking away our privacy, by taking away our sovereign rights - by taking away everything that makes us Americans.

Decadence becomes us, a bitter, hollow existence. Spread the mediocrity and hope that the world only notices that we are making others like us, no matter how little like us we become in the process. Spread the mediocrity and lie to ourselves, pretending we are who we know we are, no matter how far down the path of decadence we go, no matter how much we give away, for an illusion of safety.

That silly big bomb the Russians made? So last year, when we tested our own. Sure the Russian bomb's bigger, but hey, we can build one that's bigger still, right? After all, we're Americans. And everybody knows that we have to have the biggest bombs. Everybody knows that we just won't be safe, without the power to blast the face of this planet into oblivion. The power to do it seconds before they can blast it into oblivion first. Because everybody knows that the country that annihilates the planet first, wins. Everybody knows that being a super-power means having the best ability to destroy us all. So you tell me;

Why the melancholy and mirth?

Throw me down into your lies, throw me down into your truth,
I just realized that I'm not God, the same could happen to you.

Comment Rules

I hate to do it, but here we are. When I have time online, I will try to sidebar this.

First, pick a name. I don't care if it's a pseudonym. If you post as anonymous, your comment will be deleted out of hand.

Second, I will not tolerate certain denialism type comments. They will stay or go at my sole discretion, but if you say things along the lines of HIV/AIDS do not exist, or HIV doesn't cause AIDS, do not be surprised if your comment disappears. You are welcome to comment in other places, such as Aetiology. You are not so welcome here. People like you, have killed someone I would really have liked in my life for many more years. I have no tolerance for it.

Finally, please try to be polite to each other. By all means, express yourself, but try to keep the profanity to a minimum (I use it too on occasion, just keep it reasonable). And please, attack the statements or ideas, not the person.

Thank you very much. As always, comments stay up at my sole discretion. It is rare, but occasionally blogger eats comments. Sometimes, if a comment is off topic, I might delete it. If I do and you leave an email address, I will save it and let you know why I deleted it. I am happy to start different threads, if things want to wander. I am also happy to let people write a new post to start a thread off. If you don't leave an address and your comment disappears, please email to let me know. If I deleted it, I will either start a new thread or let you start one.

A Perfect WInter Storm Developing

I would like to thank Tara Smith, of Aetiology, for kindly giving me permission to disseminate this information to my readers, by posting it here. I think the information posted is very important and hope you will also take the time to click over to Orac's post on the topic as well. I do have some other crossposts to put up as well, I apologize but they will get up asap. This is rather important and took precedent.

My own short take on this, is simple. People who do not wish to vaccinate their children, should be allowed to make that decision, for whatever reason. But if they decide not to do so, they should not be allowed to send their children to public schools, nor should private schools be required to accept them. There are those kids who do not develop anti-bodies after being vaccinated. They depend on herd immunity to keep them healthy. They should not be put at risk, due to someone else's bad choices, religiously motivated or not.

From Aetiology;
Tara C. Smith is an Assistant Professor of Epidemiology. Her research involves a number of pathogens at the animal-human nexus. Additionally, she is the founder of Iowa Citizens for Science and also writes for The Panda's Thumb. Please note the views expressed on this site are Dr. Smith's alone and may not be representative of the groups mentioned above.

A few news stories hit my inbox all at once yesterday--and the combination of them doesn't bode well for childrens' health; more after the jump.

First, despite several years now of banging the drum for having kids vaccinated against influenza, they're still being overlooked when it comes to pandemic planning:

Children would likely be both prime spreaders and targets of a flu pandemic, but they're being overlooked in the nation's preparations for the next super-flu, pediatricians and public health advocates reported Wednesday.

The report urges the government to improve planned child protections, including how to care for youngsters if a pandemic closes schools.

"Right now, we are behind the curve in finding ways to limit the spread of a pandemic in children even though they are among the most at risk," said Dr. John Bradley of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which co-authored the report with the Trust for America's Health.

The story brings up 3 issues that haven't been addressed: no masks available in childrens' sizes (and even if they were, would kids leave them on? Certainly it's tough enough to get even adults to use them effectively). What about vaccine doses for--and efficacy in--children? There has been some investigation already into H5N1 vaccine for adults (with not-so-great results thus far), but to my knowledge, nothing has been done yet in kids. (And of course, that's assuming H5N1 would be the pandemic strain, which is far from certain). Also, they mention something I'd not even considered regarding potential school closings: what happens to kids who rely on the school lunch program, if the schools are shut down in the event of a pandemic?

In a second story which comes as little surprise, parents are increasingly lying about their religious beliefs to avoid vaccinating their kids, due to autism fears:

Sabrina Rahim doesn't practice any particular faith, but she had no problem signing a letter declaring that because of her deeply held religious beliefs, her 4-year-old son should be exempt from the vaccinations required to enter preschool.

She is among a small but growing number of parents around the country who are claiming religious exemptions to avoid vaccinating their children when the real reason may be skepticism of the shots or concern they can cause other illnesses. Some of these parents say they are being forced to lie because of the way the vaccination laws are written in their states.

"Forced to lie." Right. Meanwhile, because she's worried about discredited research suggesting a link between vaccines and autism, she's putting everyone's kids at risk:

"When you choose not to get a vaccine, you're not just making a choice for yourself, you're making a choice for the person sitting next to you," said Dr. Lance Rodewald, director of the CDC's Immunization Services Division.

(Orac also offers his take on this topic).

These two stories also feed back into what I wrote on Monday about regarding methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) increasing in the community, and specifically, recent outbreaks in schools. Following reports of a recent MRSA outbreak in a Virginia school comes news of another one in Texas.

So, more explicitly, how do all these stories tie into each other?

You may remember a few years back that there were reports of a spike in influenza deaths in children in the U.S.. These weren't due to influenza alone, but like many influenza fatalities, were caused by influenza complicated by secondary bacterial infections, including MRSA--which proved to be a highly fatal combination. Last year's flu season wasn't too bad, but still the combination of influenza and MRSA proved to be deadly for a number of children.

Kids still aren't getting influenza shots at the rate recommended, despite being in a high-risk group for influenza deaths (and being efficient little spreaders of the virus). Add in the resistance to vaccination that many parents are expressing (including to voluntary shots such as influenza), and the winter cold-and-flu season has the potential to be even worse than usual for kids in the coming years. Many schools are already increasing awareness regarding Staph infections, but as the article notes, they're incredibly difficult to control:

Rappahannock Superintendent Bob Chappell said school employees also followed a local hospital's advice to mop hallways and classrooms with a bleach solution. The cost of the cleanup: more than $10,000.

***

"What's clear to us is that this bacteria is coming into our schools from the community because the cases are so widespread, and there appears to be no pattern," said Montgomery schools spokesman Brian Edwards.

As always, washing hands and doing everything possible to keep one's germs to oneself are critical, but even our best efforts can be unsuccessful (as I can currently attest, suffering from a bad cold that unfortunately my son also caught). Once mainly a hospital pathogen, MRSA has become far more common in the community: as they note, it's widespread, and the isolates they've examined so far don't appear to be from a common source (which would likely be easier to get rid of). And of course, missed vaccinations don't only put children at a risk of serious complications from influenza, but a host of other diseases as well. I hope we don't need this kind of resurgence to make people remember how serious these diseases can be