Adventures of Captain Fishsticks

Mrs. Paul and I are heading down river this week end. No posting until early next week. Thanks for stopping by.

Until I return.

Playing at the fringes of the autism/vaccine issue

A post on the “neurodiversity weblog” stemming from Lisa Randall’s letter to the editor responding to my June 22 column chronicles some activities on the Evidence of Harm discussion list, of which like the author of the post I disapprove. Randall’s personal information was posted on the list, which is maintained by parents that believe their children were damaged by vaccines containing thimerosal. As a result, Randall received a number of angry calls from parents, which I agree she should not have had to deal with.

The initial posting of Randall's personal information and the letter she wrote to the Pioneer Press are each an example of people losing focus on the science that will untimately decide the issue of whether or not thimerosal (mercury) produces autistic symptoms in children. I've responded to this post, which is I believe although factually correct as to the events it describes, is misleading. I also feel it is a missed opportunity to address issues rather than castigating people based on their beliefs.

The post reads as follows --

Last week, in Censorship, Incivility & Chronic Suspicion, I offered an account of two particularly nasty episodes on the Evidence of Harm discussion list, in which private citizens were targeted for ridicule, harassment and investigation by anti-thimerosal campaigners, in retaliation for expressing their dissenting opinions about the controversy over vaccines and autism. Today I provide an expansion and update on the first episode, the tale of Lisa Randall of St. Paul, Minnesota.

I had originally become familiar with Ms. Randall’s name when her letter to the editor of Salon in response to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s article, Deadly Immunity, was published on the same page as mine. Now, Ms. Randall was fortunate enough to see her letter to the editors of the St. Paul Pioneer Press published in their July 3 edition:

Craig Westover is wrong

In his June 22 column, Craig Westover writes, “The thimerosal connection to autism is first about science.” Actually, it’s about hysteria and money.
Hysteria distilled in the groupthink of autism advocacy groups that insist thimerosal causes autism—contrary to all reputable science—and cast anyone who says otherwise as a member of a global conspiracy to poison children.

Money for shady personal injury lawyers who lick their chops at the prospect of presenting a jury with a disabled child, some sophisticated-sounding pseudoscience, and the ominous fact that certain states have banned thimerosal.
Westover’s attempt to elevate this controversy to something more than a sociopolitical phenomenon crashes like a lead—or should I say mercury?—balloon.

Lisa Randall

Craig Westover promptly prepared a new blog entry, Calm down and explain my hysteria, commenting, “Ms. Randall, should be thanked for providing some balance to my column by sharing a firsthand example of a considerable amount of hysteria and paranoia on the part of one who denies there is any connection”—a surprising response, given the fact that her letter could fairly be called “sharp,” “sassy,” and “well-written,” but hardly “hysterical” or “paranoid.”

That evening, a call to action was sounded:

Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 23:38:20 -0500
From: “Tim Ziegeweid”
Subject: CALL LISA RANDALL AT X-XXX-XXX-XXXX TO EXPRESS YOUR OPINIONS TO HER.

Dear EOH Listmates. The following letter to the editor appeared in the 07-03-05 Saint Paul Pioneer Press. It is written by Mrs Lisa Randall who lives at (deleted). Her telephone number is (deleted) should you wish to call her and express your opinions on her thoughts… If any listmates would like to call Lisa Randall to express their thoughts you may call this bitch at (deleted). Or you can write to her at (deleted). .... Apparently Lisa Randall is some type of lawyer… I would assume that she is probably working for Big Pharma in some capacity. I called Lisa this morning to get her side of the story but her husband would not put her on the phone for some reason. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO POST THIS ON ANY AND ALL MERCURY-AUTISM LISTS! I HOPE THAT SOMEBODY GETS LISA ON THE PHONE AND FINDS OUT WHAT JUST WHAT SHE KNOWS ABOUT THIMEROSAL AND AUTISM! Tim Ziegeweid.

The list moderator, Lenny Schafer, promptly gave Tim the boot. Investigation of Ms. Randall’s genealogy and presumed ties to Big Pharma continued through the day and night, with No Mercury co-founder Lujene Clark at the lead. On the Fourth of July, after learning that Mr. Ziegeweid had sought to initiate a telephone harassment campaign, Craig Westover urged list members not to call Ms. Randall, but rather to “send an email to Letters to the Editor at the Pioneer Press.” He then went on to “plead (for) a little understanding for Tim. I think a reprimand is sufficient, and I’d urge you to, with a warning, return his group privileges.”

In the meantime, I phoned Lisa to let her know that her personal information had been broadcast by Mr. Ziegeweid on Yahoo. This was not news to her, for in fact, he had called her home seven times on Sunday and once on Monday, to “find out just what she knows about thimerosal and autism.”

Ms. Randall wrote to Mr. Schafer, requesting that the posts containing personal information about her and her family be deleted, but he did not respond. Ultimately, Yahoo’s abuse department stepped in and took care of the job for him. She also contacted the editors of the St. Paul Pioneer Press to let them know what had happened, and was assured that they “never publish letters generated by this kind of online campaign.”
Nonetheless, two weeks later, the St. Paul Pioneer Press generously and inexplicably provided the very instigator of such a campaign 174 words’ worth of space on the July 20 Letters page:

Glutathione causes problems

Because my daughter suffers from thimerosal-induced autism, I was offended by Lisa Randall’s July 3 letter, “Craig Westover is wrong.” She stated that the thimerosal-autism connection is “about hysteria and money.” She also said the thimerosal-autism connection was based on “money for shady personal injury lawyers who lick their chops at the prospect of presenting a jury with a disabled child, some sophisticated sounding pseudoscience and the ominous fact that certain states have banned thimerosal.” Thimerosal-induced autism has nothing to do with desperate parents or shady trial lawyers and has everything to do with a mercury detoxifier called glutathione. Dr. Jill James of the University of Arkansas found that autistic children have a severe deficiency in glutathione, the body’s most important detoxifier of mercury. Children who suffer from a glutathione deficiency cannot detoxify mercury from their bodies.

My daughter received all of her required vaccinations. In her first six months she received 112.5 micrograms of mercury. With each shot her mercury exposure exceeded the EPA-recommended safety guidelines 40- to 50-fold. Sheryl has thimerosal-induced autism.

TIMOTHY ZIEGEWEID

Ms. Randall promptly submitted a reply:

Timothy Ziegeweid would like us to believe that his daughter’s autism was brought on by thimerosal in her childhood vaccines. He cites a single small study for the proposition that autistics lack the antioxidant glutathione and concludes – with no information about his daughter’s glutathione level – that she must have a deficiency which led to her inability to process mercury and thence to autism. In fact, even if the results of this study can be replicated, they would not imply that glutathione deficiency causes autism any more than they would imply the exact reverse; the only finding of the study is that the two tend to co-exist.

Standing against the theory of thimerosal-induced autism, meanwhile, are five large, rigorously peer-reviewed epidemiological studies using multiple statistical techniques on diverse populations and concluding unanimously that there is no evidence to link thimerosal-containing vaccines with autism. There is also increasing uncertainty about the common belief that autism has become dramatically more prevalent in recent years.

My letter doubting a role for thimerosal in autism, which prompted Mr. Ziegeweid’s response, appeared in the Pioneer Press more than two weeks ago. Maybe he didn’t have time to reply sooner than he did because he was too busy trying to organize a stalking campaign. He posted my letter, along with my name, address, and phone number, to an 800-member anti-vaccine online message board with an exhortation to “call this bitch.” Other members of the group responded by searching public records for personal information about me and my family, and speculating about my motivations for debunking the alleged vaccine-autism connection.

I am happy to clear up the speculation. I am a stay-at-home mom who is concerned that the thimerosal scare may convince parents not to immunize their children. I’ve learned that we need community immunity to protect children who are too young or too sick to safely receive vaccines, and that it doesn’t take a very large share of the population going unimmunized to break down the protection that these children need. In fact, about 1% of children who receive a vaccine do not develop antibodies to the disease it aims to prevent, so even fully vaccinated children like mine are endangered by anti-vaccine campaigns. That’s why I want to see parents getting reliable information on the safety of vaccines.

Lisa Randall

I cannot help but wonder why the editors of the St. Paul Pioneer Press would publish Mr. Ziegeweid’s letter when they knew that he had published Ms. Randall’s personal information on Yahoo, urged his colleagues to call her and to sound the alarm far and wide, and had phoned her home numerous times over the July 4 weekend. I also cannot help but wonder why they have not published Ms. Randall’s reply. Their columnist, Mr. Westover, seemed to take quite personally Ms. Randall’s comments about the anti-thimerosal campaign, going so far as to state that she was “hysterical” and “paranoid.” In a June 2 post to his blog remarking on my letter to David Kirby, Mr. Westover lamented that I had “gone astray by focusing on militant comments, as unfortunate as they are,” and made the inaccurate suggestion that I disapproved of journalists discussing the thimerosal issue. It seems that many of Mr. Westover’s listmates are far more “militant” than he would prefer to admit. Or perhaps he is well aware of their militancy, but feels that parental tsuris gives them license to engage in abusive behavior. In his post requesting that Mr. Ziegeweid’s list membership privileges be reinstated after he violated both Ms. Randall’s privacy and Yahoo’s terms of service, Mr. Westover stated,

“I know that people are at all different levels of rage and reason on this issue. Getting a piece of hate email pales in comparison to what many parents have gone or are going through with their children.”

Considering that Mr. Ziegeweid had already revealed that he had crossed over the line from impulse to action by phoning Ms. Randall at home, I cannot help but wonder whether Mr. Westover feels that “getting a piece of hate mail”—or in this case, eight angry phone calls made to one’s home by an outraged stranger—should not only be considered par for the course for journalists who publish articles on controversial topics, but also for private citizens who express their opinions in the paper for which he writes—just as long as that hate mail comes from people for whom he already feels some sympathy.

My comment to this post follows:


I hope your readers take time to follow the links to my posts and columns, but for those that don’t, a few clarifications.

First—Lisa Randall’s letter refers to a column I wrote that specifically took issue with the tone and the misrepresentation of data in Kennedy’s Salon and Rolling Stone article. The purpose of the column was expressing my opposition to conspiracy theory over science. I do disagree with Randall’s position on this issue, on the science and on the way the government is handling the issue, but, as my column stated and she omitted from her letter, I don’t approve of Kennedy-like tactics or the tactics she describes in the letter—which I stated in the column.

Second—My reference to “hate mail” was premised on the hate mail and phone calls I received in response to my Kennedy column. Although I support the parents position, which I made clear in my column, I received a number of pretty vile responses for having the audacity to criticize Kennedy’s piece. I also received supporting email and some that agreed Kennedy’s piece was “over the top,” but felt that the parents had been put down so long, his approach was necessary to draw attention to the issue. Those responses prompted my hate mail comments in relation to my personal experience.

Third—When I found people were emailing Randall’s home, I immediately posted my disapproval on my site and posted to the list, which I seldom do, again expressing my disapproval. My comment about email to the letters to the editor specifically was an alternative for those upset by Randall’s letter—it was not a call to action, nor was it phrased as the call to action you imply. People have a right to appropriately object to Randall’s comments just as she had to object to mine. As a letter writer myself before having a regular column, I’ve received some of the most vicious racist mail for a column I wrote favorable to a play raising the issue of lingering racism. It’s wrong, but hate mail comes with the territory.

Fourth—I chose to characterize her letter as “hysterical” and “paranoid.” Her references to “shady personal injury lawyers who lick their chops at the prospect of presenting a jury with a disabled child” and lumping all parents into “distilled groupthink” strikes me as being as over the top as Kennedy’s remarks. To classify the parents as “anti-vaccine” is either ill-informed, intentionally misleading or hysterical reaction. Most of the parents that are prominent in the Minnesota movement specifically state they want safe vaccines, not the abolishment of all vaccines. Many simply want an adjustment to the vaccine schedule. You may choose to characterize her response as you will.

Fifth—I did make a request on behalf of Tim to be reinstated on the list. I met Tim as a result of my research on this topic. Several times he has sent me material that I have told him I disagree with and I’ve sent him a number of emails critical of conspiracy theory pieces he’s circulating and the posting of Randall’s personal information. Nonetheless, I also know a little of his family background, his personal situation, his daughter’s, and knowing that prompted my request, which is a far as it went. I don’t know whether or not he has been reinstated. I hope he has, and I hope he’s behaving himself.

Sixth—As you yourself have noted, I have and continue to look at both sides of this issue. I am not completely convinced that the parents are right on this issue, a disclaimer in every column I’ve written on the subject. What I am sure of is that the evidence of harm is sufficient that it warrants more research and attention than government agencies have or are giving it. While government falls back on five epidemiological studies, independent researchers concerned about vaccine safety are pushing the envelop of hard science, looking at how mercury affects the nervous system of young children, how the toxicity of mercury is enhanced or retarded in certain combinations, how mercury is absorbed by the blood, new genetic research. Any one of the hard science studies done in the last five years, with different results, could have conclusively disproved any link between thimerosal and autistic symptoms. None has. That doesn’t make the hypothesis correct, but it makes the case stronger. It shows a courage on the part of researchers betting their hypothesis on every study.

Whatever the ultimate resolution of the thimerosal issue, it is clear that the government agencies involved have not adequately responded to safety concerns. If they had, the parents movement would be losing steam or dying rather than gaining momentum. It is also clear that their safety methodology failed—there is no excuse for injecting the amounts of mercury into children that we do, not realizing it until 1999, not really knowing the impact. If there is no harm, it’s blind luck (which is why the government must rely on retrospective epidemiology to make its case—there is no primary data showing thimerosal in the quantities injected is safe).

Again, I hope your readers will explore the links, which I appreciate you making, to the source documents and draw their own conclusions of intent and fairness. Thanks.

— Craig Westover Jul 28, 06:03 PM #

To be perfectly clear, it is good that the thimerosal discussion is receiving more publicity. Neither side of the issue, however, benefits when the focus is on personalities and accusations. The focus ought to be on scientific research, on resolving the issue, not making a case that one side or the other is hysterical ill-informed parents or conspiratorial poisoners of children.

More on the spectrum of "public good"

King Banaian responds to my question about the existence of “public goods” with a brilliant economic analysis -- it contains Latin and a graph. And -- ceteris paribus -- King is as I usually find him to be, more right than wrong: “The decision to provide some goods collectively because ‘market failure’ would lead to non-optimal provision of the goods cannot be decided a priori.” Unfortunately, I do not think we are dealing with a situation where “all things are equal.”

In my post I suggested some criteria legislators might use to determine if an action represented a “public good.” King follows economist James Buchanan in belief that the question of public good is not a question about problem characteristics (which I make it), but a broad comparison of institutional alternatives; that in making judgments, we must compare “market failure” to “government failure” in terms of efficiency, a scenario where government efficiency virtually always loses. As King notes --

We do so because the optimal amount [of a good] is closer met (at lower cost) by private market decision making than collective decision making. . . .Wouldn't that be the right way to handle the question of what is a "public health" problem, rather than the list of problem characteristics Craig offers? [Bracket added for clarity.]

There is a old joke about a physicist, a chemist and an economist stranded on the deserted island with no supplies except a carton of canned beans. The physicist and the chemist develop a plan for using the sun’s rays to heat a can of beans to a temperature such that the structure of the can is weakened to a point where the top will loosen and can be pried off. The economist also puts together a plan. His plan begins “Assume that we have a can opener….”

I’m convinced the King is correct, but “King’s can opener” is that he assumes his argument will also convince the likes of state-wide smoking ban sponsors Ron Latz and Doug Meslow, new urbanists that live and breathe for light rail and legislators that never saw bonding for a stadium, a civic center or a par-three golf course that wasn’t a great investment. Until those folks see the light, I’ll stick to a problem characteristic approach -- at least to a point.

In an email to me, King correctly notes that there is both an economic and political aspect to this discussion. In our initial posts on this subject, I think King and I staked out positions in our respective areas of interest -- King makes a correct economic argument, while I take a political route. Given the insights in King’s post, however, I believe our two positions can be resolved into a cohesive approach to a (gasp) policy.

Allow me borrow from the Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto, who gave us the oft-quoted 80/20 rule, as in “80 percent of the wealth is controlled by 20 percent of the people.” In business management terms “Pareto Analysis” means identifying the “vital few” from the “trivial many.” For example, 20 percent of product problems cause 80 percent of customer complaints. A good manager will attack the 20 percent “vital few“ first, even if there are low-hanging fruit problems to solve among the “trivial many.”

Applying Pareto Analysis to the question of government spending on “public goods” (or creating public health regulation), must-pass criteria will eliminate the vast majority of supposed public good proposals before they get legislative legs. A product characteristic approach (legislation is the “product“) puts the burden of proof on the sponsor of legislation to show why/how the legislation is a “public good” rather than (as is currently the case) making the burden of proof fall on those that oppose legislation to show why it is bad. A product characteristic approach requiring criteria for a public good eliminates a lot of legislation right out of the gate.

However, King’s point is well taken, and once a piece of legislation has passed my criteria test -- or something similar -- it ought to be subjected to King’s economic efficiency test. Although a piece of legislation might meet criteria as a “public good,” it may be more efficient to leave resolution to the private sector.

King believes “the argument over the alternatives isn't about the characteristics of goods, but the choice of institutions.” I would agree, but in the practical world of legislation, a method is needed to determine what actions one is going to consider. The method is found in creating criteria for a “public good,” and insisting they be observed.

A little capitalistic advice for Drinking Liberally

Now let me start off by saying I have a soft spot for Robin, the Power Liberal. I see a little bird with a broken right wing that only needs to be made strong so she can fly straight, instead of flying in circles. Case in point, the Drinking Liberally crisis.

Drinking Liberally is the liberal equivalent of Thursday Night Trivia at Keegan’s, except that it proudly proclaims itself part of a national organization -- apparently not everyone is entrepreneurial as Atomizer when it comes to alcohol; some people apparently require incentives to drink.

I’ve attended a couple of times -- once when Nick Coleman reneged on a promised appearance. I’ve even chipped into the communal pitcher fund (from each according to his ability to pay; for each according to his capacity). The conversation is . . . interesting.

Recently, the cruel world of capitalism evicted the local Minneapolis group from their accustomed meeting place.

As you all know, Drinking Liberally has been meeting at Liquor Lyle's for the last few months, through good time and more often than not, through bad. Last night we lost our backroom to a new Texas Hold'Em promotion, and it appears it may become ongoing.

So what was the liberal response to finding a new place to have a beer with friends? A plan. No, not quite a plan -- a strategy. A strategy that would become a plan -- or a preliminary plan until a final plan that included St. Paul can evolve. Of course, everybody’s input was solicited.

So, now is the time for your voice to be heard. I'm looking for suggestions of better places to hold DL- Minneapolis. We had a few brainstorms last night, and I'm posting a few finalists. We are looking for location (preferably easy access for the most Minnesotans, at least until we can decide how to get St. Paul running as a stand alone), price (no more 17 dollar pitchers, please), room for a band of merry misfits, and parking and bus access.

We may have doubts about the country, but in Drinking Liberally land, we are still a democracy.

It’s a perfect metaphor for liberalism -- a top down organization and centralized planning is required just to have a beer with the gang -- with a price cap on the beer.

A bit of evil free-market capitalistic advice to my liberal friends -- if the company and conversation are worth it, people will show up to just about any location. Some might even car-pool.

More on the spectrum of "Public Good"

King Banaian responds to my question about the existence of “public goods” with a brilliant economic analysis -- it contains Latin and a graph. And -- ceteris paribus -- King is as I usually find him, right: “The decision to provide some goods collectively because ‘market failure’ would lead to non-optimal provision of the goods cannot be decided a priori.” Unfortunately, I do not think we are dealing with a situation where “all things are equal.”

(There is a old joke about a physicist, a chemist and an economist stranded on the tropical island with no food except a carton of canned beans. The physicist and the chemist develop a plan for using the sun’s rays to heat a can of beans to a temperature such that the structure of the can is weakened to a point where the top will loosen and can be pried off. The economist also puts together a plan. His plan begins “Assume that we have a can opener….”)

In my post I suggested some criteria legislators might use to determine if an action represented a “public good.” King follows economist James Buchanan in belief that the question of public good is not a question about problem characteristics (which I make it), but a broad comparison of institutional alternatives; that in making judgments, we must compare “market failure” to “government failure” in terms of efficiency, a scenario where government efficiency virtually always loses. As King notes --

We do so because the optimal amount [of a good] is closer met (at lower cost) by private market decision making than collective decision making. . . .Wouldn't that be the right way to handle the question of what is a "public health" problem, rather than the list of problem characteristics Craig offers? [Bracket added for clarity.]

I’m convinced the King is correct, but “King’s can opener” is that he assumes his argument should also convince the likes of state-wide smoking ban sponsors Ron Latz and Doug Meslow, new urbanists that live and breathe for light rail or legislators that never saw bonding for a stadium, a civic center or a par-three golf course that wasn’t a great investment. Until those folks see the light, I’ll stick to a problem characteristic approach -- at least to a point.

In an email to me, King correctly notes that there is both an economic and political aspect to this discussion. In our initial posts on this subject, I think King and I staked out positions in our respective areas of interest -- King makes a correct economic argument, while I take a political route. Given the insights in King’s post, however, I believe our two positions can be resolved into a cohesive approach to a (gasp) policy.

Allow me borrow from the Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto, who gave us the oft-quoted 80/20 rule, as in “80 percent of the wealth is controlled by 20 percent of the people.” In business management terms “Pareto Analysis” means identifying the “vital few” from the “trivial many.” For example, 20 percent of product problems cause 80 percent of customer complaints. A good manager will attack the 20 percent “vital few“ first, even if there are low-hanging fruit problems to solve among the “trivial many.”.

Applying Pareto Analysis to the question of government spending on “public goods” (or creating public health regulation), must-pass criteria will eliminate the vast majority of supposed public good proposals before they get legislative legs. A product characteristic approach (legislation is the “product“) puts the burden of proof on the sponsor of legislation to show why/how the legislation is a “public good” rather than (as is currently the case) making the burden of proof fall on those that oppose legislation to show why it is bad. A product characteristic approach requiring criteria for a public good eliminates a lot of legislation right out of the gate.

However, King’s point is well taken, and once a piece of legislation has passed my criteria test -- or something similar -- it ought to be subjected to King’s “failure” efficiency test. Although a piece of legislation might meet criteria as a “public good,” it may be more efficient to leave resolution to the private sector.

King believes “the argument over the alternatives isn't about the characteristics of goods, but the choice of institutions.” I would agree, but in the practical world of legislation, a method is needed to determine just what alternatives one is going to consider. The method is found in creating criteria for a “public good,” and insisting they be observed.

Is there such a thing as a "public good"?

On Taxpayer’s League Live this past Saturday (AM 1280), David and Margaret had great discussion about the legislative session and the state budget with King Banaian, of the Department of Economics at St. Cloud State University (SCSU Scholars). I find it interesting when King talks economics because he has the ability to talk about macro economic issues, like the state budget, and bring it down to the level of individual incentives; in other words, why are programs in the budget going to achieve, or fail to achieve, their objectives.

King did however, make one statement that surprised me; that is, King stated in passing that there is no such thing as a public good. To the pure libertarian, that's true, but sticking to that "truth" as a matter of policy leaves the door open for politicians to step into the vacuum and define “public good” anyway they want to -- with usually disastrous political and economic repercussions.

Although I lean well to the libertarian position, I’ll argue that politically it is a much better strategy for those of us that believe in limited government to force government to set standards for defining a “public good” that necessitates government intervention.

For example, I am a firm believer that a health issue becomes a “public” health issue only when three criteria are met -- 1) a person is exposed to a risk to which he did not consent; 2) the risk is widespread and can affect everyone or anyone; 3) a reasonable person cannot avoid the risk.

Looking at those criteria, government does have a role in assuring clean air and water (one can always argue the “how” of the way they fulfill that role, but not dispute that clean air and water meet the criteria of government intervention). However, applying those same criteria, government has no business implementing a smoking ban on private property that reasonable people patronize voluntarily. Criteria make the difference.

For an action to be a public good, I submit these criteria for consideration (HT to Charles Murray “What it Means to Be a Libertarian“):

1) A public good must be non-exclusive, similar to second criteria above. A public good benefits everyone or anyone. Think national defense. Everyone benefits. (Again, one can argue that money spent on discrete national defense initiatives is wasted, but national defense is clearly a legitimate government function.)

2) A public good can be consumed by one person without diminishing its availability to others. Clean air is a good example. My breathing clean air doesn’t impact your ability to breathe clean air. Street lights are another example. I would also argue education as a public good, something some libertarians would not. It’s also a classic example where there is plenty of opportunity to argue the “how.”

3) A public good has a substantial neighborhood effect that is difficult to charge for. For example, roads benefit people that do not drive in that most goods delivered to retail outlets arrive by truck. Therefore, using general fund dollars to pay for roads can be a “public good.” On the other hand, light rail has a very limited neighborhood effect beyond actual riders.

In order to be public good, something that can be funded by government through coercion (i.e. taxes), an action or program must at least meet all three of these criteria.

The point is, it’s unrealistic to assume government can ever be convinced to abandon the idea of “public good” -- and I’m not convinced that it should. But there definitely has to be some criteria for judgment. I think that’s the road we ought to pursue.

COLUMN -- Spiraling toward a strike

Wednesday, July 27, 2005


Absurd as it may sound, some situations are not President Bush's fault. Not every presidential decision is made in a conspiratorial context. "Appearance" is not the same as fact.

Four years ago when the National Mediation Board declared contract talks between Northwest Airlines and its mechanics union at an impasse, Bush involved the federal government and a strike was averted. The rationale was that an airline strike threatened the economy. Last week when an impasse was declared, the mediation board found that a strike would not substantially disrupt interstate commerce. Consequently, no federal involvement is foreseen.

In 2001 the mechanics opposed intervention "while indications were that Northwest wanted the White House to get involved," wrote Pioneer Press business columnist Dave Beal in his July 23 column. "Bush appears to follow NWA management's lead." This time, neither side wants federal intervention.

Beal concludes, "Both times, the Bush position has reflected the view of Northwest's management. It's just that this time, management's view has changed." But then, so has the economic situation.

Beal cites John Budd, an industrial relations professor at the Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota, saying the airline industry has too much capacity and therefore a strike would not be as disruptive as in 2001. Budd also notes that NWA management is in a stronger bargaining position, having outsourced many mechanics' jobs.

And that gets us to the hub of the issue.

NWA specifically, and legacy airlines in general, face real challenges in the marketplace. The symptoms are many, but the singular cause is legacy airline business models are simply no longer viable and haven't been for some time. NWA is no exception, but rather than risk the bet-the-company changes necessary to compete in a changing business climate, it has sought survival by preserving its existing system. Rather than change, NWA has sought cost relief from labor and regulation exemption from government.

So if you want to blame Bush in the NWA situation, criticize the 2001 intervention, which basically gave NWA another four years to tweak a failing business model. Non-intervention is the right decision. An NWA strike might disrupt air travel somewhat, but the shakeout is necessary to force the airline to make itself competitive.

Want to blame big government? Consider regulations created for a business environment that no longer exists. Recently Northwest sought antitrust exemption so it could set prices in conjunction with foreign airline partners. American Airlines objects because of the impact on its domestic service. Whatever the decision, government is picking the winner and loser. And we wonder why there's money in politics.

Want to blame big labor? It has a different angle, but it's just as resistant to change as the management it opposes. A strike or a settlement will cost jobs, but labor unnecessary in one area frees capital to provide real value elsewhere. That is bad news for a Northwest mechanic, but good news for a new hire at a business paying lower airfares on business travel.

Want to blame NWA management? Aside from the failure to make career-risking decisions necessary to be competitive, there is the ethical question of supporting a dying business model by sucking the life out of employees. Givebacks are not a permanent solution for the company or its labor force. Givebacks only delay the inevitable.

Even in the cold world of economic reality, employees ought not to be as disposable as obsolete machinery. Make decisions and cut employees loose. Don't string them along only to drop them when the company is in a better bargaining position.

The NWA situation may be a bitter pill to swallow, but neither the problem nor the solution lies in "close ties to the Bush administration."

Either Northwest — management and labor — recognizes the need for change, or it suffers the consequences. Neither the government nor the flying public should subsidize delaying the inevitable.

Dean comment on Kelo is inexcusable

(Funny hat tip to the KAR)

Okay, political rants that spin the truth are one thing. Lying to cover your butt is at least understandable. Running with an unsubstantiated fact might just be laziness. But to concoct a statement that is obviously outrageous and false with no intent but to deceive the uninformed is inexcusable. Case in point is Howard Dean’s latest rip of President Bush.

He [Dean] also said the president was partly responsible for a recent Supreme Court decision involving eminent domain.

"The president and his right-wing Supreme Court think it is 'okay' to have the government take your house if they feel like putting a hotel where your house is," Dean said, not mentioning that until he nominated John Roberts to the Supreme Court this week, Bush had not appointed anyone to the high court.

Dean's reference to the "right-wing" court was also erroneous. The four justices who dissented in the Kelo vs. New London case included the three most conservative members of the court - Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Associate Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was the fourth dissenter.

The court's liberal coalition of Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer combined with Justice Anthony Kennedy to form the majority opinion, allowing the city of New London, Conn., to use eminent domain to seize private properties for commercial development.

"We think that eminent domain does not belong in the private sector. It is for public use only," Dean said.

Dean’s comment, no matter how you slice it, is just plain inexcusable. Best case, the head of the DNC doesn’t know which judges on the Supreme Court are considered conservative and liberal; worst case, he doesn’t care and he’s going to blame anything perceived as bad on George Bush even if it’s blatantly false. I put these comments right up there on the list of crimes with sitting across from a little old lady and conning her out of her life savings.

However, lest we get too irate over Dean’s rant, there is a hidden danger disguised in his comment "We think that eminent domain does not belong in the private sector. It is for public use only." Despite feeble attempts by the left to spin Kelo as a big business decision, eminent domain coupled with tax increment financing is a major tool of new urbanists. In fact, the New London project that spawned Kelo was an urban redevelopment project that Pfizer agreed join late in the process. Pfizer did not initiate it.

It’s just as wrong to take a person’s property to build high density housing as it is to take a person’s property and build a corporate campus.

Dueling conservatives -- Eibensteiner and Hinderaker challenge Strom and Wigley

A political debate about reality is more than a little oxymoronic, but seizing on a line in the opinion piece critical of Governor Tim Pawlenty by David Strom and Mike Wigley in Sunday‘s Star Tribune, that’s the tack taken for refutation by former Republican Chair Ron Eibensteiner and John Hinderaker of the Powerline blog.

Mike Wigley and David Strom of the Taxpayers League wrote in last Sunday's Op Ed section about the "bubble of unreality that is the governor's office." On the contrary, they need to be reminded of reality. We believe that the narrow view they expressed is not good for conservatives, the Republican Party, or Minnesota.

What is the “narrow view” of Strom and Wiggly? Is it so narrow that it is not good for conservatives, the Rpubl;ican Party, or Minnesota?

Eibensteiner and Hinderacker focus their piece on the good things that have occurred during Pawlenty’s term in office -- a low 3.7 percent unemployment; “minimum government intervention“ in basic industries, which are making good progress; the BioScience Initiative; blocking a 1.4 billion tax increase proposed by Democrats; and cutting the rate of government growth to 7.3 percent per biennium, bringing it in line with population growth and inflation. In doing so, they come to the cheery conclusion that “Minnesota has the best governor within memory,” but with that broad sweep of Pawlenty pluses, they ignore the fundamental premise of the Strom/Wigley piece. They mischaracterize this "fundamental" statement of Strom/Wigley as "narrow" --

Nobody expects a politician to be absolutely rigid and never change his mind, no matter what the circumstances. But how many flip-flops does it take to make you wonder whether the Governor is merely flexible, or is perhaps losing touch with his core principles?

. . . That’s why it is so important that campaign promises mean something. The Governor asked us to vote for him based upon what he said and promised during the campaign. Is it too much to ask that his promises mean something?

Strom and Wigley note for three years Pawlenty has insisted that “Minnesota doesn’t have a tax problem, it has a spending problem.” Yet in a reversal of his position as a state legislator Pawlenty has spent enormous political capital to advance state-run/state partnership casino gambling as a source of additional state revenue. As Rep. Phil Krinkie noted, it’s one thing to change positions when circumstances dictate, but on the casino issue and on the “health impact fee” on cigarettes, Pawlenty made no such explanation. Nor did he offer an explanation of changed circumstances for his support of expanded light rail, use of automobile tax revenue for public transit, or support for publicly financed stadiums.

The issue of commitment to principle is not a fantasy of “unattainable purity” as Eibensteiner and Hinderacker characterize the Strom/Wigley position. It is essential in developing an agenda that moves conservative principles forward, which is good for Minnesota. If “minimum” government intervention is a victory, a cigarette tax an achievement, and subsidized career development for teachers is education reform, then let conservatives call themselves moderate Democrats, because that’s what they are becoming.

In his essay “Why I Am Not a Conservative,” Friedrich Hayek notes that conservatism traditionally lacks any agenda other than to resist progressivism. Consequently, any time conservatism compromises with progressivism the end result is movement to the left. Hayek writes --

[Conservatism] by its very nature cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving. It may succeed by its resistance to current tendencies in slowing down undesirable developments, but, since it does not indicate another direction, it cannot prevent their continuance. It has, for this reason, invariably been the fate of conservatism to be dragged along a path not of it’s own choosing.

Now I disagree that Hayek’s description is a necessity, but it is a pretty fair description of the Pawlenty administration. All of the session compromise moved Minnesota further to the left. The one area where Pawlenty showed signs of a real agenda -- education reform -- he showed little support for and less leadership.

Strom and Wigley put the principled questions very plainly --

Is government too big, or not? Does it tax too much, or not? Is gambling a good way to fund government, or not? Should people be forced out of their cars into government-run transportation, or not? Are baseball and football teams private businesses that don’t need government money, or not? These are not complex questions, and most of us vote at least partly based upon how the candidates answer them.

Eibensteiner and Hinderacker close their paean to Pawlenty with this note --

We have fought in the trenches for a long time for conservative values and Republican candidates. So has the Taxpayers League, which performed a great service for Minnesotans. But it is no service to divide the Republican Party, in search of an unattainable purity, at a time when Minnesota has the best governor within memory, Tim Pawlenty.

But dividing Republicans is not the intent of the Strom Wigley piece. It is not disloyal to remind one‘s party that it is moving away from its principles. Nor will division come to pass unless the reaction to criticism leveled by concerned conservatives is met by placing party loyalty above advancing conservative principles and bettering Minnesota. As Strom and Wigley note --

Pawlenty still has some time to recover, but the first thing he needs to do is recognize he has a problem, and one made a lot worse by the bad decisions he made during this legislative session.

Let me add -- he needs to put forth an agenda that has positive goals (let‘s start with “meaningful school choice“). He must recognize that not giving Democrats as much as they want is not a victory. Victory for conservatives, for Republicans and most importantly for Minnesotans is when the state moves to the right, however slightly. And therein is where Pawlenty failed this session, and failed miserably. That’s the reality that Eibensteiner and Hinderacker miss.

Response to Bogus Gold -- Canadian legalization of same-sex marriage should not determine U.S. policy

Doug at Bogus Gold issues a public memo to me regarding the legalization of same-sex marriage in Canada.

Now that Canada has volunteered to be a laboratory for this social experiment, I contend that the conservative position is to wait on this issue in the U. S. We should study the state of marriage in Canada in the next decade or so (I'd prefer something a bit more generational, but can live with a decade) to determine whether legalized same-sex marriage provides Canada the social benefits you have asserted it will, or the social damage I have contended it will. I see no conservative reason to rush ahead changing this institution in the United States before we can take advantage of this new information.

Do you disagree? If so I would be curious to know your reasoning.

It’s not a binary question, but to answer directly, I agree that we should not rush ahead, we should watch Canada and learn from what happens there. I do not agree that “not rush” means make no progress toward same-sex marriage while we window peek at the Canadians. The United States, especially conservatives, ought to pursue our own policy. I maintain that same-sex marriage is a "deeply conservative" issue.

Canada took the liberal approach to same-sex marriage -- let’s do it now, all at once, because it is the “right thing to do.” I’d be surprised if there aren’t problems. You’ve got a generation divided between straight people raised to believe that if homosexuality is not actually the spawn of Satan, there is certainly something wrong with it that makes “those people” not quite as close to God as the rest of us. On the other hand, you’ve got a generation of homosexual people raised with no expectations that they would ever, or more importantly should ever, form a permanent personal relationship. There is no accepted tradition of same-sex relationships as a model. And Canada jumped right to the end game. Let me revise my comment -- there’s got to be problems.

So what should the U.S. do? I think the approach of “Okay, let’s watch Canada and do nothing” is wrong. That’s not a conservative approach; it’s a reactionary one. It’s not based on political principle. Canada’s decision doesn’t change the situation in the United States. We still ought to encourage stability of the growing conservative segment of the gay population. We ought to move slowly, but we ought to be moving. We ought to be removing barriers that prohibit or make complicated the ability of same-sex couples to form the legal relationships automatically granted by marriage -- without any formal recognition through “marriage” or even “civil unions.” As that is put in place, then move some more formal recognition like civil unions. Ultimately, if the sky doesn’t fall -- in the United States, not Canada -- then we move to recognition of same sex-marriage. And this should all be done on a state-by-state basis through legislation, not at a national level and not through the courts.

That approach probably angers both sides of the issue. It angers conservatives because it makes same-sex marriage a real objective that society ought to move toward. It angers liberals that want the Canadian approach -- same-sex marriage right now. But, I still agree with Dale Carpenter, that same-sex marriage is a “deeply conservative” issue that is not only just, but an overall benefit to a stable society. The conservative approach is move prudentially in that direction.

UPDATE: The basic issue of a conservative case for same-sex marriage was dealt with in a fisk I did of a Katherine Kersten column. That post drew well over 100 comments and some great, non-contfrontational disccusion of the issue. I posted here and here posts by people that disagree with my position. It's good background -- especially the comments.

The only new issue raised by Doug's post is whether or not we should essentially maintain the status quo in the United States and see how the Canadian legislation works out. This goes beyond the same-sex marraige question to the heart of U.S. policy making. Certainly, we should look at what other countries do, but isn't the conservative contention that the U.S. should have it's own policies and objectives?

Isn't the quote attributed to Davey Crockett -- "Be sure you're right, and then go ahead" -- the American way? I don't think Crockett was referring to a double-blind study with statistically significant results. I think he was talking about a larger sense of "right" that we don't need to look north to find. That's the first issue to wrestle with. Once we've slayed that "bar," then we can look at the best way to "go ahead." The Canadian experience can only help with the latter.

John G. Roberts and a dose of media bias

I am not holding out much hope that the political battle shaping up over John G. Roberts' nomination to the Supreme Court will yield any brilliant bits of judicial insight, and that will not be the fault of Judge Roberts. Politicians don't get it; neither does the press. Case in point, the lead two paragraphs from a Knight Ridder Washington Bureau story in today’s Pioneer Press.

WASHINGTON — As one of Washington's top appellate lawyers, Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. represented big business against employee claims, coal companies against polluted communities, and contractors seeking an end to government race preference programs.

But Roberts also defended a town's right to prevent development on private property, fought for indigenous people's rights to self-determination and helped welfare recipients who feared losing their benefits.

Okay, what does a reader take away from those paragraphs?

Well, we learn that there is some qualitative difference between representing “big business,” “coal companies” and “contractors” and representing “towns,” “indigenous people,” and “welfare recipients.” The placement of the “but” indicates that the first set is somehow “bad” compared to the second set, which is “good” and somewhat redeeming.

When people talk about “media bias,” that’s what they are talking about. I think one would have a hard time finding a reporter on the planet that would have reversed those two paragraphs to read --

WASHINGTON — As one of Washington's top appellate lawyers, Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. defended a town's right to prevent development on private property, fought for indigenous people's rights to self-determination and helped welfare recipients who feared losing their benefits.

But Roberts also represented big business against employee claims, coal companies against polluted communities, and contractors seeking an end to government race preference programs.

And even that positioning doesn’t eliminate loaded verbs like “defended,” “fought for,” and “helped” in the first paragraph and loaded adjectives like “big business” and “polluted communities” in the second paragraph (of the rewrite). Roberts “good” cases are still pretty much delineated from his “bad” cases.

But it is that kind of analysis -- looking at desired outcomes rather than principles of law -- that defines an “activist” judge, which is what the consensus is nobody wants -- unless of course “activist” means deciding cases the way the royal “we” would like them to go.

The question that should be asked is the judicial philosophy, in Judge Robert’s opinion, that ties together legal principles behind fighting for indigenous people and representing coal companies? What is the principle that provides consistency to the decisions he might render?

The point is, politicians, urged on by we the people, want to pass judgment on Roberts based on outcomes and not principles of law. The first test for Judge Roberts is how well he can keep the discussion on the latter.

Go ahead, Margaret . . .

tell us how you really feel about the governor.

The King and I (on Q-Comp)

King Banaian has a couple of excellent posts that comment on my Q-Comp teacher pay for performance post and column. King’s economic perspective provides some valuable insights.

In this post, he cites a comment from a teacher that questions the value of economic motivation for “great teachers.” King quotes --

Teaching is a calling, not a job. Great teachers are born, not made and economic incentives don’t work for teachers.

There is only one incentive that works on teachers. FREEDOM!Freedom to explore and create is the only thing that will excite good teachers. It is the only thing that will turn children into students.

Soooo, if you want great teachers, offer them an economic incentive program and fire all the ones that accept it. Give all the ones who don’t 20 kids in a class and let them go to college in the summer for free to learn more about anything they want. Pay them a middle class wage and ask them occasionally what they are up to. That is how you will get the best teaching force.

King notes that the writer is missing the point --

… which is this: How do you find more Michaels [great teachers] when you have more students? There is not an infinite supply of Michaels in the world; there are competing claims for their time and talent outside of teaching.

We don't pay finance professors double what we pay history professors because the finance professors are any better; we pay them that way because there are more competing claims willing to pay more for a talented PhD in finance than for a the talented PhD in history. Michael may not see this because he assumes everyone is like his circle of friends. And he may wish that others acted like that circle. But it cannot. The market operates on teachers whether or not Michael likes it. If he wants more talented people teaching around him, he should support economic incentives.

In an earlier post, King notes --

Teachers need to buy into the fact that they are going to be rewarded for something that is objectively measured and something that their efforts can in fact control. That is important: The problem teachers have, from the ones I speak with, is that the accountability tests on which the performance is based measures something over which the teacher has little influence. I don't see that as being an unreasonable position to take; proponents of more accountability need to show the connection between teacher effort, teacher reward and student achievement. If it's just more achievement-->more reward, reward might simply go to teachers who luck into better students.

This point was also made in an e-mail comment I received.

Teachers need to teach well, and students need to learn well. Those are not the same thing. Holding a teacher responsible for a student's learning performance is akin to holding you responsible for your reader's unanimously agreeing with you. It isn't going to happen.It's not that teaching isn't correlated with satisfactory performance from learners. It's just that the major part of the performance variance must be attributed to the learner. The parents also play a big role. The teacher is an important, but distant third.

Make no mistake, though. There are many behaviors teachers must perform well for their students to do well. Those can be measured. But measuring the students' performance on a standardized test to see how well the teacher is doing makes as much sense as polling your readers to see how well you are writing. Correlation is not causation. Drinking and being led to the water are not the same.

When I was working in the St. Paul schools some years ago, one of our elementary schools serving a poorer east-side neighborhood had a typical 35 students in the classroom when we did the fall enrollment count. It also had 35 students when we did the spring count. The problem for the teacher was that none of the 35 students was the same. How could you hold the teacher accountable for student performance when the students had moved to another school, or on any given day a third or more of them are absent, or over half of them did not speak English?

You are right. Teachers need to teach better. More importantly, however, students need to learn better, value it higher, try harder, seek mentors and learning buddies. Parents need to care about their child's learning, work more closely with the school, check to see that kids do their homework. The list goes on.

But tying teacher performance to their student's standardized tests makes no sense. We need better solutions than that.

Point taken, and in many ways, I agree with King and the reader. In general, I'm not a fan of standardized tests and have written about problems I have with such tests and consequently with the NCLB Act. Nonetheless, if you're not going to operate in a choice system where education consumers ultimately make the decision on what is "good" teaching, that is a parental school choice system, then what are you left with? Subjective criteria, I believe, don't cut it.

Using raw scores on state tests, I agree, might not be a fair approach. However, using tests to measure improvement can be. In a previous life I worked in quality assurance. We used statistical process control to measure manufacturing quality and to verify improvement when we changed a process. Using statistical methods, we were able to determine whether or not the change we made had a positive or negative effect. That type of analysis can be applied to teachers.

In fact, Jay Greene at the Manhattan Institute has done somewhat that kind of study in a much more complex setting. He developed a Teachability Index that rated how difficult kids are to teach based on subjective characteristics like low-income, single-parent family and the like. He then determined an expected test score for cohorts of students based on how difficult they are to teach. He then looked at individual schools and whether or not their test scores were higher or lower than expected for the degree of difficulty of their students. Not surprisingly, he found some schools scored significantly higher than might be expected. Shouldn't those teachers receive merit pay even if the raw test scores are not in the top percentile?

The point of my column is simply that because objective criteria are hard, that doesn't mean a) we should give up finding them and b) moving to arbitrary subjective criteria isn't an acceptable alternative.

Read King’s comments. They provide the economic dimension to need for a pay for performance system for teachers.

COLUMN -- New teacher pay scheme is a far cry from reform

Wednesday, July 20, 2005


Minnesotans confused, frustrated and properly insulted by word play that spawned a "health impact fee" on cigarettes, prepare yourself for more Orwellian sleight of tongue. The "performance pay for teachers" — or Q-Comp, as it is known — included in the omnibus education bill (HF 141) is as much of an "education reform" as a health impact fee is a way of increasing state revenue without raising taxes. Moreover, the legislation is not effective policy.

The newly renamed "Alternative Teacher Professional Pay System" is little more than a $78 million taxpayer subsidy for vaguely defined teacher development.

Its stated objective is to "provide incentives to encourage teachers to improve their knowledge and instructional skills in order to improve student learning."
Q-Comp was a "restructured teacher compensation system" (original language) not an "alternative" pay system.

Folks, we did not get a restructured compensation system. We did not get a merit pay system based on student achievement. We did not get education reform. We got a career advancement subsidy that puts process (improving skills) ahead of results (student learning). The only criterion of student performance — standardized state tests — is optional.

Struck from the Q-Comp bill is all language about "replacing" the existing "steps and lanes" system that pays teachers based on a combination of longevity and continuing education. The new language talks about "reform" of steps and lanes and ensuring that no teacher's compensation will be reduced, regardless of performance. True, if a district implements the alternative pay system, at least 60 percent of any increase in compensation will be based on teacher performance. But there's a catch.

Written into the legislation, teacher performance can be measured by student achievement on statewide standardized tests or locally selected standardized assessment outcomes including undefined measures of student achievement (think Profile of Learning-like portfolios). Teachers can be evaluated using "multiple criteria" selected by a trained evaluation team that "understands teaching and learning."

Further, all performance criteria must be developed with "substantial participation by the exclusive representative of the teachers," that is the union. In non-union charter schools, 70 percent of the teachers must approve any plan — the seed of unionization.

In other words, "teacher performance" means whatever the teachers union agrees that it means. Making testable student achievement optional obscures any meaningful objective standards of teacher performance. Is it any wonder Education Minnesota, which becomes apoplectic at the mention of merit pay for teachers, has been stunningly restrained on this legislation?

The "Professional Pay System" was negotiated outside the Education Working Group in closed-door session among Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Commissioner of Education Alice Seagren, Senate Education Policy Chairman Steve Kelley, D-Hopkins, and House Education Finance Chairwoman Barb Sykora, R-Excelsior.

Notable by his exclusion was House Education Policy and Reform Chairman Mark Buesgens, R-Jordan, one of the most reform-minded members of the working group, a frequent and effective counter to Kelly's protectiveness of system status quo, and co-author of the "meaningful school choice" legislation that was one of Pawlenty's big four proposals in return for the cigarette tax.

Neither Buesgens nor the co-sponsor of the school choice legislation, Sen. David Hann, R-Eden Prairie, had discussions with the governor about school choice legislation during the special session. Nor, they say, did the governor's staff return their phone calls. Meaningful school choice, it appears, was never a meaningful option. When push came to shove, it was children who were pushed aside to shove more compensation to adults for improving their resumés.

Compared to the (at least) two-year planning and implementation cycle before students receive any benefit from their newly "developed" teachers, meaningful school choice would have had an immediate impact on children and the state budget. According to the fiscal note prepared by the state, the Hann/Buesgens legislation would have cost the state an additional $2 million in 2006 and returned a net savings to the general fund of more than $8 million in 2007 (compared to the $78 million cost of the Alternative Pay System).

"Government can't fix the system. That's a silly concept," Buesgens said. "Markets and people make education decisions."

He's right. Merit pay is reward for performance set by whom one serves, not self-determined, vague criteria with no objective reality. Parental school choice — the ability to opt out of the system if dissatisfied — creates a very objective reality.

"We squandered a lot of money," Buesgens said. "And we didn't get any reform."

Like playing word games with the cigarette tax, to claim so is neither honest nor honorable.

CDC Media Briefing on Vaccines & Child Health

The political battle shaping up over whether or not the mercury preservative Thimerosal used in childhood vaccines is a cause of autism heated up today as the CDC held a press conference in Washington DC to tout vaccine safety just one day before a capitol rally -- “Power of Truth” -- intended to draw national attention to the theory that mercury in childhood vaccines can and has caused autism in thousands of children.

In a press release from rally sponsors characterized the press conference as “a secret press conference” and “an invitation-only meeting” It criticized the CDC for not notifying anyone from 13 organizations involved in the rally of the press conference and not inviting any of the national autism groups to speak, nor share any copies of what will be presented with these groups.” Well, to set the record straight, I was sent an announcement this morning from the Department of Health and Human Services with a call in number. Dan Olmstead, a UPI reporter who has written in support of the position that there is a connection between thimerosal and autism was in attendance -- so the characterization of secret is a little unfair.

I make this point, first because like Olmstead, I find the hypothesis of a connection very convincing and to call a Washington D.C. press conference “secret,“ especially when people like Olmstead and myself who have been critical of government on this issue are included on the list damages the credibility of those making what I believe is the stronger argument. Further, the irony is that any thinking reporter who listened to the press conference should come away with more doubts about the government’s position than he or she had going in. If the arguments presented at the press conference were the best that government agencies could muster, if I were a DC reporter, I’d be out to the rally tomorrow to hear what the other side had to say.

Indeed, one of the first questions asked by a reporter, who obviously had some background on the issue, was to the effect of “Why are we here today. I’m hearing no new information. Are we here because of the parents rally at the capitol tomorrow?”

The answer is obiously yes, but Dr. Julie Gerberding clumsily ducked it with condescending comments about providing information on vaccine safety, without even acknowledging the rally.

The thimerosal issue is out in the open now. It may not be a popular position with the organizations sponsoring the rally, but while releasing anger at the government might feel good, the high ground of reasoned argument is what will ultimately win the day.

As noted, I listened in via teleconference. Questions were only taken from reporters in attendance. Participants were --

Dr. Julie Gerberding, Director, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention

Dr. Duane Alexander, Director, National Institute of Child Health Development, of the National Institutes of Health

Dr. Murray M. Lumpkin, Acting Deputy Commissioner for International and Special Programs, Food and Drug Administration

Dr. Eileen Ouellette, president-elect, American Academy of Pediatrics

Dr. Robert M. Wah, member of the Board of Trustees, American Medical Association

Dr. Peter Hotez, father of a child with autism and medical researcher

Dr. Gerberding of the CDC gave pretty much a mom and apple pie presentation of dedicated government officials. We all have one purpose, she noted, and that is a firm commitment to protecting health of children in our country and the world. She defined the purpose of the press conference as talking about vaccine safety and some of the steps being taken to ensure safety. Also to look at new research into autism.

She made comments like we know the issue is near and dear to the hearts parents. But, she stressed, the issue is not just Thimerosal. The focus is vaccine safety. The job of government is to help people feel safe. It has the responsible to speak out to assure people about vaccine safety, which is what the press conference was for.

Gerberding acknowledged that autism is heart-wrenching, and presents special challenges, which everyone on the panel wanted to prevent. Parents want answers and the agencies represented have a collective responsibility to help find those answers.

She stressed that we don’t know what causes autism today. We don’t have a complete scope learning, of early signs, of detection and treatment. She emphasized that we have a long way to go to understand the current status of autism and what it means.

In what was probably the most significant comment she made, Gerberding seemed to back off the 1 in 166 number saying that it came from a relatively small sample. More studies are needed to to get a true picture of the prevalence of autism. Expected to have a better grasp next year. My take is the CDC might be moving to a “What epidemic?” strategy.

Gerberding then addressed the heart of the matter by saying that some people say thimerosal is a cause in some children. She repeated the mantra that studies have looked at thousands of children with autism, and the preponderance of evidence shows no connection between vaccines and autism. She noted that she can’t say with 100 percent certainty -- science can never say never or prove a negative. However, the preponderance of evidence doesn’t prove a link. She says the CDC has been looking hard for such a link and more studies are underway.

She also noted it’s important to keep an open mind. She noted that scientists have a responsibility to look at all hypothesis and base decisions on the best available science, not on fear. What is clear is that children live better because of vaccines. Gerberding cited statistics of how many people came down with polio at the height of its epidemic, measles, rubella and the like. She noted that these viruses haven’ gone away. They exist in other parts of world, and we are just one traveler away from an outbreak. There was a measles this year in Midwest. We must continue to vaccinate our children until diseases disappear throughout the world, and that is far away.

An editorial aside here -- Gerberding’s theme here was echoed by the other speakers. Specfically, she made a point of all the good vaccines have accomplished and that the risk associated with vaccines does not outweigh the clear benefits. Here implications was that to question vaccine safety is to favor not vaccinating children. This is a bit of a disingenuous argument on both fronts. In the latter case, the majority of people questioning vaccine safety are not anti vaccines nor do they want people not to vaccinate their children. What they want are safe vaccines. To Gerberding’s first point, equating the damage caused by thimerosal to adverse vaccine reactions is apples to oranges. The risk of an adverse reaction of a vaccine is a rare and random event that cannot be foreseen -- an unknown allergic reaction and the like. Damage caused by thimerosal is preventable and is neither rare nor random. It is this kind of reasoning that makes people like myself question government science on this issue.

Gerberding goes on pointing out that technology has advanced. We can produce vaccines without thimerosal, with the exception of some flu vaccines. She emphasized that thimerosal is a preservative and needs to be used in significant amounts to be effective. We can package vaccines in single dose vials, without thimerosal, which is more expensive, but it’s worth it to ease parents minds. Government agencies and the pharmaceutical industry have worked to get thimerosal out of vaccines, but it is still used in the manufacturing process. Some trace amounts remain in vaccines but well below the preservative level -- anyone with common sense, would recognize that these trace amounts are not a health issue.

She repeated -- We know the benefits of vaccine. We’re committed to safe vaccines. The predominance of evidence says there is no risk.

My colleagues spent a lot of time listening to parents. Their voices are strong and caring voices, dismayed about children, want to know how to treat their children and prevent others from suffering. The one message we’ve taken is the government agencies must do more -- what are most important research steps -- how can you screen and treat autism -- lots of questions and lots of factors to review. If we learn more might be able to generate more robust hypothesis. That takes time. In the meantime we have to rely on the science we have, which indicates that vaccines save lives and protects our children

Dr. Alexander of the NIH was the first Gerberding echo on the theme that vaccines have done a lot of good and help children. Worst thing a parent can do is forego vaccines. The danger of disease is far worse. He said we hear parents and are listening to their concerns. (At this point it was clear he was reading a prepared statement.) He said the NIH is committed to research. He cited the IOM review and five studies to dismiss the thimerosal claim.

At this point, Alexander gave a detailed rundown of all the research being done by the NIH on autism -- detailed in the sense of inputs, the money and facilities and the technology being employed. He did not mention the context of the studies or any findings or results that have already been achieved. Some reporter ought to have asked about that -- one did during the question and answer period.

Dr. Lumpkin of the FDA expressed he was glad to be participating in the press conference as a parent, pediatrician and a member of the scientific community. Vaccination, he said, is one of mainstays of therapies to try to improve the human conditions. There are still devastating diseases in parts of the world.. As we look to future, as we look at diseases, vaccination provides hope for the future. But vaccination is only as good as those willing to take it. Major concern and goal is parents to have confidence in immunization. Extremely important for children and the community. Here he echoed the theme -- look at the benefits of vaccinations, look at the data, stringent scientific data, and the benefits outweigh the dangers.

To help parents to reduce environmental exposure to mercury, the FDA began working in 1999 to remove mercury from vaccines. Between 1999 -- 2001 all vaccines on the recommend list except flu contain no thimerosal except trace amounts less than one microgram. As soon as manufacturing issues are resolved, flue vaccines will be thimerosal free as well. Flu vaccine that became routine in 2004, there is a thimerosal-free version. We working to increase capacity -- we’ll get there.


Another editorial note. Removing thimerosal from the manufacturing process of flue vaccines might be a manufacturing problem, but it is a problem that was brought about by government interference in the market. During the early 90s as part of the Vaccine for Children program, the CDC was given buying authority for over 70 percent of all vaccines purchased in the united States. Consequently, government set the price and the price set had so slim a profit margin that all but two suppliers dropped out of the flu vaccine market, one reason for the shortage this past year. Low profit margins on flu vaccine is one reason manufacturing implementation has not kept up with production technology -- it’s just too expensive given government controlled profit margins. Another example of good intentions with unintended consequences.


Alexander reiterated the day’s theme -- the FDA is very concerned that people have confidence in products they use including vaccines. Dealing with a healthy child, we have shown that we can create a more healthy life for child. Looking at science to make vaccines even safer than they are now.

Dr. Ouellette off the AAP read her statement. She noted that pediatricians care about their patients. She did have a good line -- 23 percent of population are children, but they are 100 percent of our future. She then went into the history of pediatrics to reinforce the vaccine-good theme. She related how pediatricians spent the early years of the specialty taking care of devastating childhood diseases. Vaccines have made those diseases disappear from this county. When children don’t vaccine, diseases reappear. Pediatricians are concerned when parents don’t vaccinate their children. Pediatricians are parents and they vaccinate their children. Recommendations based on science led us to many benefits including immunization.

Organizations have reviewed literature and do not believe in a causation theory (vaccines and autism).. Evidence does not point to vaccines. Pediatricians are committed to services and the latest information. The AAP offers guidelines to physicians and publishes article in the Journal of Pediatrics. She’d like to see more government funds for autism research. She directed reporters to the AAP web site for more information.

She stressed we want parents to know immunizations are safe and save lives and urged parents to discuss immunization peditriicans. She understand importance of listening to parents. Working together can improve child health.

Editorial comment -- had I been able to ask a question, I’d have asked her what happens if a pediatrician decides it is less of a risk to delay vaccinations until a child is older and has more fully developed immune and neurological systems and weighs a little more. That was a question that didn’t get asked.

Dr. Wah of the American Medical Association was their to lend his support. He added little to what was already said, recapping the history of diseases that had be virtually wiped out in this country by vaccinations. He noted that it would be wrong to blame vaccines for autism.

Another question that was not asked -- virtually all the speakers raised the point that thimerosal was removed from vaccines in this country, but none addressed the potential problems of thimerosal for children in countries overseas where multi-dos vials are still being shipped. Does that give anyone in government pause?


Dr. Hotez a vaccine researcher from George Washington University gave the best presentation both emotionally and in context. The fact that he has an autistic daughter gives him emotional credibility. That he works first hand with devastating disease around the world gives him professional credibility.

He talked about the cruelty of autism and the financial and emotional impact it’s had on his family. Nonetheless, he is confident that his daughter’s autism has nothing to do with her vaccinations. Knowing what he knows today, he would still have her take the full compliment of vaccinations.

He then talked about characteristics -- head and brain size, patterns of heredity -- that distinguish autistic kids form normal kids that have nothing to do with mercury. He cited Minamata as the source for some of his comparisons.

Editorial note -- Having been following this issue for some time now, I see a pattern -- I fall into at times as well -- of using the catch all “autism” when writing about this issue. In fact, there are some distinctions.

First, I don’t think it’s correct to say that all autism is caused by mercury. Indeed, there is regressive autism, in which a child develops normally and then suddenly regresses, and other forms of autism where a child doesn’t seem “right” from birth. Indeed, Hotez daughter might not have autism because of her vaccinations, but that doesn’t rule out the hypothesis that due to genetic make-up, a significant number of children will be more susceptible to to mercury than others.

A second point is that when people claim that mercury causes “autism,” what they are really claiming is that mercury poisoning in children produces the same or nearly the same set of symptoms as “autism.” In fact, they may not be the same thing.

Hotez also cited the IOM report as evidence. He left reporters with two thoughts (nice wrap-up).

1) He has seen children suffer horrible from diseases that have been wiped out in this country because of vaccines. This would be a terrible consequence of not vaccinating children in this country.

2) He does not want to see an unfounded emphasis on vaccines detract from the real needs of families with autistic children -- structured activities for children when not in school, access to psychiatric medicines and doctors who know how to administer them correctly, more involvement fby insurance companies to cover cost, more government research. He said we need a war on autism, not a war on vaccines.”

Question and Answers --

A Washington DC reporter asked about the California DDS statistics, Her second question was very pointed. She noted that there seemed to be nothing new presented at the press conference. What is the purpose of this meeting? Is it response to rally tomorrow?

Dr. Gerberding took the question and noted that the California data is bouncing around. She compared to stock market, (a bad analogy) and referred the reporter to a CDC researcher following that data.

There was a pause before the reporter asked for a follow-up on the second question about the rally. Gerberding committed the classic PR error of appearing reluctant to address the question and then denying the obvious that of course it was timed to the rally. Instead she concocted some answer about this was an opportunity to gather resources in one place to present the information.

Again, I understand the anger some parents have over this issue, but the government people do not have science on their side. They do not have a story. It is better to let them shoot themselves in the foot, as Gerberding did, than to be perceived, through wild conspiracy stories about a “secret press conference,” to be shooting them in the head.

There was a question from a UPI reporter (not Olmstead) about how an individual, not a community should decide whether or not to vaccinate a child, noting not much risk in not vaccinating an individual child in this country.

I believe it was Dr. Ouellette who took the answer (not sure). She pointed out it only takes a small number of non-vaccinating parents to create conditions for an outbreak. She went with a civic duty rationale for vaccination. It’s the right thing to do.

Another editorial comment -- rather than focus on conspiracy theory, a better approach is taking these people at their word and looking at the consequences. Does Dr. Ouellette really believe that it is okay to put 166 couples in a room, each holding their newborn and tell them that all their children are healthy, but after today, one of them will suffer autistic symptoms? That’s an extremely callous and arrogant position. But that is the position she is taking. I don’t think many people would find it acceptable.

I had a hard time picking up the next question, but it was a good one -- is any money being put into clinical studies, not just epidemiological studies.

I couldn’t pick up who answered, but he noted that doing a prospective study of thimerosal and vaccines was impossible because there are no vaccine with thimerosal in use in this country. Retrospective studies are difficult (and yet that is what the IOM study is). He noted that other studies on brain development and environmental influences are being conducted.

Again, imagine if that question had be asked by someone on the plausibility side of the issue. There is an abundance of hard science providing evidence that supports, but more importantly does not refute the plausibility the hypothesis that mercury in vaccines is connected to autism. This is another major distinction between government science and the independent research being done on vaccine issue. The government keeps coming back to the same epidemiological studies -- without ever addressing the flaws in those studies. The other side keeps pushing the boundaries of existing science. And for them, each new study is a risk. If on contradictory piece of hard science evidence is found that does not fit with the mercury poisoning hypothesis, the theory loses a lot if not all credibility. That’s what science is and does, and thant’s not what the government is doing.

I could not pick up the next question, but Dan Olmstead of the UPI followed with this zinger -- Have you looked at autism in a never-vaccinated population and if not, why not?

Olmstead has written an excellent series of articles looking for the “autistic Amish.” If the government’s contention is correct, the rate of autism among the Amish, who do not vaccinate their children, should be roughly the same 1 in 166 found in the general population. That is not the case. The only cases of autism Olmstead found were foreign children adopted by an Amish couple. The children were vaccinated before coming to this country.

Dr. Gerberding took the question with obvious reluctance, clearly hoping no one knew where Olmstead was coming from. She noted that vaccination is at a high level and it’s hard to find such a population that doesn‘t vaccinate and difficult to do an accurate, emphasis on accurate -- study. The problem is that genetics of a group -- “like the “Amish” --might influence the study, making a conclusion difficult. Good science takes time.

The final question was about speeding up thimerosal-free flu vaccine production.

Dr. lumkin took the answer, basically reiterating that delays were a manufacturing issue -- the capacity to produce single dose units. Companies are working on this -- as soon as they ready, the FDA will inspect. It’s a manufacturing issue hard to provide a timetable.

Reflecting on the press conference, if I were a new reporter to this issue, after this press conference I’d be very curious about the issue. Good reporters can detect BS and that was not difficult to do. Dr. Hotez was the only speaker that really offered a sense of credibility.

I wish there had been more time for questions -- and that reporters on the phone could have asked questions -- but I can understand why there wasn’t. Certainly the CDC et al can be criticized for not fully exploring the issue with the press and involving people from the autism groups in town for the rally, but that’s a bad strategy. Simple, honest refutation of what was said at the conference is the best response. The government was not impressive.

Update: From an email I received from Dan Olmstead of UPI with his impression of the atmosphere of the press conference.

Thanks for the mention. I think you did a real service by summarizing the event and offering comment where you felt it was needed. You were right on the mark. I have to say, I've never been to a press conference, or whatever it was, where the press was made to feel like such an imposition. Interesting, eh? Also, I've never seen a situation where those on the conference call weren't allowed to ask questions.

Olmstead's comments on the press conference can be found here.

Update: Gardiner Harris of the New York Times, who was in Minnesota to cover committee hearings on Minnesota's thimersoal legislation, which did not make it out of committee, writes about the press conference here. USA Today checks in here.

An NBC Nightly News report on the press conference and the "Power of Truth" rally can be found here. NBC has been criticized by Autism organizations for misreporting and presenting more favorable coverage of the position that there is no link between vaccines and autism. Although I think this piece is fairly balanced -- with one little dig at the end that leaves the impression this issue is about compensation for parents -- it points out the perception problem facing parent-champions of the theory that mercury in vaccines can cause autism. Comparisons come down to who are you going to believe -- A government scientist with a PHD, a board-certified pediatrician, or a housewife from New Jersey. That comparison is misleading. I've worked with many such parents in researching this topic, and they are drawing their knowledge from studies done at not only reputable, but prestigious research centers around the country. They have done their homework. They understand the science. They can make the connections to autism. The straw man set up by the media -- parents are simply hysterical and looking for someone to blame for the happenstance of their child’s autism -- is disingenuous. Newcomers to this issue -- new parents or parents to be with questions about vaccine safety should look at the science itself, not just at those purporting its veracity.

Thoughts on "Pawlenty Stumbles"

Doug at Bogus Gold posts on “Pawlenty Stumbles,” which triggered this thought -- conservatives might be spending a little too much time lamenting Pawlenty actions during this legislative session as a betrayal of his base.

Right or wrong, “Pawlenty’s base” is perceived as being rich, white suburbanites. To those suffering from over-exposure to the Democrat messages of class warfare, the “Pawlenty Stumbles” message isn’t all that bad. Already Democrats are spinning the disingenuous, but sweet-sounding song that Pawlenty broke his no new taxes pledge -- which they didn’t support anyway. Their message is, not only did Pawlenty break his pledge, but the tax on cigarettes he implemented falls primarily on the poor (but that didn‘t stop Democrats from supporting it). At least the DFL would have taxed the evil rich.

A letter to the editor in today’s Pioneer Press (commenting on a Soucheray education column) brings that point home. Attempting to be objective, the writer notes --

It is true the DFL sometimes goes too far to help the less fortunate, while Republicans sometimes go too far to defend the interests of the extremely fortunate. Both views are necessary for a balanced state government reflective of a diverse constituency.

That’s a bad position for conservatives to face, but fortunately one they don’t have to -- if they move away from the base-betrayal message exclusively. There’s plenty of constituency betrayal on the DFL side, which Pawlenty did little or nothing to take advantage of but which conservatives who opposed the cigarette tax can still grab.

First and foremost is the fact that in exchange for the 75-cent cigarette tax, Pawlenty got exactly zero of the four demands he made when he first offered the tax. At that time, Pawlenty listed as DFL options a provision calling for no strikes by teachers during the school year and "meaningful school choice." Both these issues, but especially the latter, are important issues to low-income and minority peoples. Both Pawlenty and Democrats turned their backs on these groups to curry favor with the teacher’s union and the education status quo.

The best education reform bill of the session, the Hann/Buesgens legislation that would have provided grants to low-income families that could have been used to pay tuition at private schools was introduced by Republicans David Hann (Senate) and Mark Buesgens (House) and opposed by Democrats -- specifically Sen. Steve Kelley (also a candidate for Pawlenty's job). The bill had strong support from low-income families and families of color. Many people that testified in favor of the bill were shocked and offended by the treatment they received from Kelley. This creates an opportunity for Republicans to capitalize on.

Let’s face it. Despite the GOP web site spin, there is not a lot of positive accomplishments to campaign on if one is a conservative Republican. Conservatives shouldn’t let Pawlenty off the hook for that, but that doesn‘t mean there are not visionary and reform issues to campaign on. The school choice issue is a great opportunity. [A caution -- if one campaigns on it, one ought to have the integrity to fight for it if elected, regardless of consequences.]

Democrats are too beholden to the education system to grab the school-choice issue. Conservatives have the opportunity to distance themselves from a governor unpopular with the base and make the case that Democrats also abandoned their constituency -- both of which are true. Plus, aside from politics, it gives Republicans a chance to push a policy that is really education reform, benefits all of Minnesota in general and specifically targets a non-traditional GOP constituency -- low-income families and families of color.

If there is a silver lining to the “Republican” meltdown on principle, it is the Democrat abandonment of its traditional constituency. The door is open for conservatives that can demonstrate the value of conservative policy to betrayed Democrat constituencies. School choice is the no-brainer place to start.

UPDATE: Margaret Martin scores and struts her stuff dancing in the end zone with this comment at Bogus Gold --

Conservatives shouldn't be just be angry about all the bad things he [Pawlenty] did do (gambling, transit, the "fee", canadian drugs) but because of all the reform opportunities missed: controlling spending for the future and reforming education. He punted in the first biennium and got sacked behind the line of scrimage in the second. The ball still isn't moving forward.