Français/French Deutsch/German Italiano/Italian Português/Portuguese Español/Spanish 日本語/Japanese 한국어/Korean 中文(简体)/Chinese Simplified

Welcome!

I, God, welcome you to my blog!

The good book says only God is good, so it seems to me somebody needs to step up.

I hope you enjoy reading this, the Jesse Journal, as much as I have enjoyed writing it. Please feel free to subscribe, write me an email, request that I write about any particular topic you may want my perspective on, send a prayer, click on the charity link, or donate money to my bicycle fund! Have fun!

Your pal, Jess
L-I'm a straight, virgo/boar INTJ (age 52) who enjoys books, getting out into nature, music, and daily exercise.

(my email is JesseGod@live.com)

F.Y.I. There are about 2200 posts..

Here's a quote from Fyodor Dostoevsky to start things off right: Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an all-embracing love.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

The economist says to save nature, y'all

"Common birds are in decline across the world. Almost one in four species of mammals is in danger of extinction. If current trends continue until 2050, fisheries will be exhausted. As it is, deforestation costs the world more each year than the current financial crisis has cost in total, one economist argued."

I think we should play it safe, when it comes to nature, because we don't understand how much we depend on it, entirely. Conservationism shouldn't be a liberal or conservative issue. Fresh air and clean water and respecting the critters, including future food and medicine and who knows what else, is an absolute necessity, unless you really think that because meat tastes good that makes you a mean s.o.b. who doesn't care about animals, including humans. Which I don't. And I'm God.

Anyway, the economist goes on to say:
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is studying global warming for the UN, said 20-30% of species could die out if global average temperatures rise by more than 2°C or so. What does the loss of other species cost humans?"

“Ecosystem services”: natural processes that benefit people, such as the pollination of crops, the purification of water in wetlands and the sequestration of carbon in soil and forests, have value. A study released this year said the world was losing $68 billion in ecosystem services each year because of damage to nature." (I bet it's actually more; possibly in terms of future generations)

"A virtuous circle might happen if we take action (write your congressman): climate change could be slowed, biodiversity saved and poverty alleviated if forests were included in carbon markets. Deforestation is responsible for so many emissions that allowing countries to claim carbon credits for reducing the pace at which they cut down their forests could cut the cost of halving global carbon emissions from 1990 levels by 2030 by 50%. And, in the process, deforestation rates would be reduced by 75% by 2030. But this would cost the rich world money: $4 billion over the next five years, and a further $11-19 billion a year by 2020.

I believe it's worth it. Let's Do it.
We're waging war on nature. It could fight back, like in The Happening (Sara and I just saw it). In any case, we could get bit by our own pigheaded headlong rush into oblivion. Sorry, pigs. We might even be inadvertently waging war on ourselves. To continue my talking to myself, yeah, because we're a part of the ecosystem. We tweak it and manipulate for our benefit -and also our detriment. Letting humans, a part of nature, work through regulating nature naturally might not be the best thing for Nature, us included, lol.

Axis of Evil

Okay, so who is the Axis of Good? Or is it the Allies of Good?
Are there Allies of Evil?

the economist quote:
IT WAS one of George Bush’s catchier turns of phrase—the “axis of evil” consisting of North Korea, Iran and Iraq. How evil, or even menacing, they really were is debatable. And it was not much of an axis: Iran and Iraq hated each other. North Korea exported nuclear know-how, but probably no more than other countries such as Pakistan, a supposed American ally.

In any case, good and evil is subjective, and by anyone's definition, probably, resides in all of us in varying proportions. There's the phrase, "it's all good", and there's even brain chemistry that explains altruism and cruelty. Bible interpretation says everything is toward the furtherance of God's plan. There's the law of unintended consequences, and Jesus said 'they know not what they do," which parallels with the quote, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Maybe things aren't so cut and dry, black and white.

Maybe George W. Bush needs to listen to some lullabies.
Here's a collection of lullabies from the Axis of Evil.
Was Satan ever a baby? Ha.

God agrees with the economist

Don't make the poor pay for the mistakes of the greedy rich

from the economist:
"This credit crunch will be grim, but most emerging markets can avoid catastrophe. The biggest ones are in relatively good shape. The more vulnerable ones can (and should) be helped. In the short-term at least, the most vulnerable countries are all smaller ones."

"There will be pain as tighter credit forces adjustments. But sensible, speedy international assistance would make a big difference. Several emerging countries have asked America’s Federal Reserve for liquidity support; some hope that China will bail them out. A better route is surely the IMF, which has huge expertise and some $250 billion to lend. Sadly, borrowing from the fund carries a stigma. That needs to change. The IMF should develop quicker, more flexible financial instruments and minimise the conditions it attaches to loans. Over the past month deft policymaking saw off calamity in the rich world. Now it is time for something similar in the emerging world."

Why does borrowing from the IMF carry a stigma?
Jesus himself had stigmata...
If Jesus carries us (from 'Footprints'), then we can carry a stigma.
But if the stigma can be removed, then that, too.
Okay, I'm being weird.
Seriously, though, if money is needed, get it where you can, right?

Crazy Music

I've got a crazy idea. How bout a mashup of all the crazy songs? CRAZINESS!!

(from Wikipedia)
Crazy by Julio Iglesias
Crazy (calypsonian), a calypso singer from Trinidad and Tobago
"Crazy" (Willie Nelson song) (1961), popularized by Patsy Cline
"Crazy" (Five Star song) (1984)
"Crazy" (Kenny Rogers song) (1985)
"Crazy" (Icehouse (band) song) (1987)
"Crazy" (The Boys song) (1990)
"Crazy" (Seal song) (1991), later covered by Alanis Morissette
"Crazy" (Barenaked Ladies song) (1992)
"Crazy" (Aerosmith song) (1994)
"Crazy" (Eternal song) (1994)
"Crazy" (Alana Davis song) (1998)
"Crazy" (Leah Haywood song) (2000)
"Crazy" (K-Ci and JoJo song) (2001)
"Crazy" (Dream song) (2003)
"Crazy" (Simple Plan song) (2004)
"Crazy" (Gnarls Barkley song) (2006)
"Crazy" (Kevin Federline song) (2006)
"Crazy" (Snoop Dogg song) (2006)
"Crazy" (Expatriate song) (2007)
"Crazy" (Lumidee song) (2007)
"(You Drive Me) Crazy" (1999), a song by Britney Spears
"Crazy" (Pylon song) (1981)

If there's any audio of Einstein saying what crazy is, that could be a coool overlay.
With different definitions....
At the MIC (mad insane crazy).
Remember, all progress is made by unreasonable men...
(is progress unreasonable? or is being unreasonable reasonable?)

espanol
loco en la cabeza
faltarle un tornillo
Estar zafado de la chaveta.
Estar chiflado.
Estar zafado.
Perderse el seso
quebrarle el mente

1.Lelo, fatuo, simple, loco; acometido de enajenación mental (mad, foolish).
2. Quebrantado, decrépito, cascado, caduco.

Clean Green!

Greener Cleaners
from a CSMonitor article about Women's Voices for the Earth.
6 small paragraphs, 3 recipes, and a link.

WVE put out a report in 2007 called Household Hazards in which they examined more than 200 chemical ingredients in commercial cleaners. The report found that many of those chemicals were harmful to the environment as well as “linked with asthma, infertility, birth defects and reproductive harm."

Some of the chemicals of concern in the WVE study, commonly found in laundry detergents, all-purpose sprays, and disinfectants, include: alkyl phenol ethoxylates (found to harm aquatic animal and plant life), monoethanolamine, ammonium quaternary compounds (both linked to asthma), glycol ethers and phthalates (linked to fertility and reproductive problems).

Greg van Buskirk has been a Clorox scientist since 1980. “I do believe that misinformation is causing people more concern than is justified by the actual data,” he says. Clorox rigorously tests all its products, says Dr. van Buskirk, so “the risk of people getting something like cancer or birth defects is zero.” Also, “there’s “no significant impact on the environment due to bleach usage,” he says.

WVE, however, thinks Buskirk is being slimy:
But these commercial cleaner studies only look at single household use, says Ann Blake, an environmental and public health consultant. The chemical ingredients are cumulatively dangerous, she says. “What the fish and wildlife are getting is a constant dose of [chemicals] at low levels,” says Dr. Blake. “And that’s what’s causing the environmental disruption.”

I agree. He's probably being slimy, to look through my scanner darkly.

Plus, store-bought natural cleaners are costly. “Home­­made all-purpose cleaner is 38 cents, and store brand costs $4 to $8,” party guest Melissa reads from a WVE pricing comparison. That’s another reason to make your own cleaners.

-reason for the sliminess? money, of course.

I believe WVE over Clorox:
Clorox’s Zerrudo cautions that because there are no chemical preservatives, the formula might not stay stable over time and could “grow bugs or bacteria.” WVE’s recipes claim that essential oils, distilled vinegar, and vegetable glycerin are natural preservatives, but recommend refrigerating cleaners made with lemon juice.

These are from the Women’s Voices for the Earth (WVE) party.

All-purpose cleaner (for countertops, windows, mirrors, kitchen floors):
2 cups white distilled vinegar (other vinegars will stain surfaces)
2 cups water
Optional: 20 to 30 drops essential oil (orange, peppermint, etc., for scent)
Mix in a spray bottle, apply to surface, and wipe off. WVE recommends using an industrial-strength spray bottle (a clean, empty Windex bottle, for example), as vinegar degrades ordinary plastic bottles.

Creamy soft-scrub (for bathrooms, stoves, countertops):
2 cups baking soda
1/2 cup liquid castile soap (Dr. Bronner’s, for example)
4 teaspoons vegetable glycerin (a preservative)
Optional: 5 or more drops essential oil
Mix together in bowl, store in sealed glass jar (shelf life: two years). For cleaning, apply some soft-scrub on sponge or rag, scrub and rinse.

Clogged drains:
1/2 cup baking soda
1/2 cup vinegar
Pot of boiling water
Pour baking soda into drain, then vinegar. Cover and let sit for at least 30 minutes. Flush with boiling water.

For more recipes and information on how to host or attend a green-cleaning party, go to: womenandenvironment.org.

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

SWBP: Disease Control

SWBP: Solutions for the World's Biggest Problems
Chapter 17, Disease Control, by Dean T. Jamison,
of Harvard and UCSF.
Summary and Commentary
Future D.C. policy from D.C.?

The chapter emphasizes opportunities in S. Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, and builds on results of a project (the DCCP) that engaged over 350 authors and estimated the cost-effectiveness of 315 interventions, some of which are more attractive, others which are clearly lower priority. Addressing multiple problems with constrained budgets will require hard choices, he says.
He summarizes with 7 interventions that range from 30:1 to 10:1 in their cost-benefit ratios.

There has been great progress in recent history, but challenges remain. Progress has been uneven. Microbial threats evolve; and HIV is still a big deal.

Specifically, life-expectancy for low and middle-income countries averaged 44 years in 1960, whereas in 2002 it was 65. Not too shabby (progress). Mortality is a key emphasis in this chapter. And keeping people alive should be the highest policy priority. Some countries have lagged on this score. "There are continued high levels of inequality in health conditions within and between countries." But I would also add that quality of life, and what has been called gross national happiness, are the vital component. If people are happy, they'll be more motivated to keep others alive. More hopeful about the human condition, if we feel good about ourselves. I would surmise that every country has room for improvement, and there is a role for all of us in making an alive, healthy, happy world. Good nutrition and fitness and a positive attitude, with healthy relationships, including maybe pets, seems to be the basic prescription. Maybe every individual has their own recipe.

Challenges
1.Uneven progress
by place: in Africa, China, and with indigenous communities:
by age: under 5, adult
by disease: some problems are cheaper to solve than others

AIDS in Africa
But because of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa, life-expectancies there, which were 40 in 1960, and 60 in 1990, went back down to 46 in 2002 (There's either a typo or a misunderstanding on pg. 297 (sub-Saharan Africa either lost 4 years or 14)).

Other regions, like Sierra Leone remain far behind, and the interior provinces of China lag behind the more advantaged coastal regions.

Indigenous populations, generally speaking, everywhere, have not joined the party, as well, so to speak. Technology diffusion, and education levels of the population are important factors in improved health, while income growth much less so.

Good News
Policies, he says, make a huge difference, and "today's tools for improving health are so powerful and inexpensive that health conditions can be reasonably good even in countries with low incomes." Cool.

Although health conditions in many countries remain unacceptably -and unnecessarily- poor, the outlook is good. Grief and misery could be said to be on the decline. Global inequality in health is declining faster than income inequality. That is to say, the world is becoming more equal, as regards health, toward the upper-end of life-expectancy. Highly effective and low-cost interventions financed by the public sector can improve welfare health and population health where the needs are greatest. (FYI: The average income is 7,880 dollars (2002) and the average human life expectancy at birth is 66.12 (2008 est.)).

I want to say, The graph of income distribution for humanity is here, and the graph of life expectancy for humanity is here. Health influences income, and income influences health; it's a virtuous spiral, and It can also be a vicious downward one, and the relationships can be mathematically defined, or maybe painted in broad strokes...But basically, the chapter just says Income growth is neither necessary nor sufficient for sustained improvements in health. Which is good, and a lot simpler for me :-)

To meet the MDG-4 (reducing under-5 mortality by 2015), treatments for diarrhea, pneumonia, TB, and malaria, in addition to immunizations, to reduce stillbirths and neonatal deaths, are all highly cost-effective. TB treatment stands out as the most cost-effective investments, for all ages, because of it's C:B (cost-benefit ratio) of 30:1. It is also has a "high level of financial risk protection," moderate systemic requirements, and a large size disease burden potentially averted. For an annual cost of 1B$, 1M adult deaths would be averted per year. Many countries need to get their butts in gear on the millenium development goals. Besides official national policy, I think every doctor should be a member of MSF (Doctors without borders), too. Any doctor that doesn't have his hands full already, I mean, which I imagine is probably a rarity. What is the global demand for doctors? Anyway, if the people lead, the leaders will follow. We should lead by example. But we should also lobby for effective policy. 23 countries had their under-5 mortality rates remain stagnant or increase between 1990-2001, while another 53 countries were less than half-speed to be on track to meet the goal (including China).

Some categories of progress:
Causes of childhood mortality
There's a table of 11 causes of under-5 mortality, with the numbers of neonatal (0-27 days) and 0-4 deaths. The causes are HIV/AIDS, diarrheal disease, measles, tetanus, malaria, respiratory infection and sepsis, low birth weight, birth asphyxia and trauma, congenital anomalies, injuries, and other. The total, worldwide, for 2001, was 13,874,000 (est., by the GBD [initialism for?]). Only 0.9% occurred in high-income countries. Half of under-5 deaths occur within the first 28 days of life, adding stillbirths to neonatal deaths. Email me if you want the specifics from the book (or on anything I write, anywhere, if you like).

So various categories are used to parse medical problems into: a) for each country, b) by age, c) by each disease/cause of death. I think the stats should be all online in a really accessible format. I bet they are.

Anyway,
There's a table in the book that lists the causes of death (age 5 and older, in low and middle-income countries), giving deaths in millions, and percentage of total, broken into 3 categories: injuries, noncommunicable diseases, and (communicable, maternal, perinatal, and nutritional conditions).

Injuries are 4.4M (11.6%), ncd's are 25.2M (66.7%), and the last one is 8.2M (21.7%). There were 37.8M deaths in 2001. Injuries are broken into road traffic accidents, suicides, and other (1.0, 0.7, and 2.7M, respectively). NCD's are cancers (4.9M/13%), diabetes (0.7M/1.9%), Ischaemic and hypertensive heart disease (6.5M/17.2%), Stroke (4.6, 12.2), COPD (2.4, 6.3), Other (6.1, 16.1). And then Communicables, etc. are broken into TB (1.5, 4.0), AIDS (2.2, 5.8), Respiratory Infections (1.5, 4.0), Maternal conditions (0.5, 1.3), and Other (2.5, 6.6).

This is really about reducing grief and misery while creating the conditions for happiness (survival and health). Unhealth and SID vicious (Sickness, Illness, Disease) also sustain poverty, and brake economic growth, to use more dour terminology. Like Kaiser says, Thrive! Like your car says, do Preventive Maintenance. Like my old high school said, Be a man for others. Like Spiderman says, Action is his reward. Anyway..

The chloroquine and sulfadoxine-pyramethamine (SP)-resistant malaria parasite is rapidly spreading, and the loss of these inexpensive, highly-effective, widely available drugs is leading to a rise of malaria mortality and morbidity in Africa. A high priority, the book says, is creating the rapid transition to effective new treatments like ACTs (artemisinin combination therapies). Also, insecticide treated bed nets, expanded use of intermittent preventive treatment for pregnant women, and indoor residual DDT sprayings are called for.

Also, for kids,
-immunizations need to be expanded,
-diarrhea and pneumonia treatments (simple, low-cost, highly-effective) need to be expanded, along with treatment for all childhood illness,
-ensured distribution of key micronutrients,
-and expansion of the use of packages of measures to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV.

2. Epidemiological transition
Dr. Jamison relates that the trend, the transition, is from the traditional scourges of infectious diseases and undernutrition to the major noncommunicable diseases (ncd's) and injury, as a consequence of fertility decline and population aging (I'm not sure I see the relation, exactly). The major ncd's are circulatory system diseases/cvd, cancers, and major psychiatric disorders. Road-traffic injuries are increasing, and replacing "traditional forms of injury" (like a fiddler falling off a roof?). Noncommunicable diseases account for 2/3 of all deaths in low and middle income countries. 22% of deaths, though, are still from infection, undernutrition, and maternal conditions. This is called a "dual burden." The challenge is to respond to them with constrained resources (has the overall health burden become more expensive?).

A good chart with the numbers for all causes of disease, by country income, is in the chapter.

Here's a salient fact:
The public health research and policy community has been surprisingly silent about the epidemics of CVD (cardiovascular disease), cancers, psychiatric disorders, and automobile-related injuries, despite their killing over twice as many people in 2001 as AIDS, malaria, and TB combined (in low and middle-income countries).

Smoking is a risk factor for multiple NCDs. See my article on smoking.
-CVD results in over a quarter of low/middle-income country deaths (about 13M deaths/yr).

The risk factors for CVD collectively account for 78% of these countries' deaths. These risk factors are high blood pressure, high cholesterol, smoking, obesity, excessive alcohol use, physical inactivity, and low fruit and vegetable intake. Efforts to change most of these, at the population level, have had little success. (What works, though? Let's do that ).

But the tobacco front has seen favorable development. Many promising approaches remain to be tried, the author says, which will require systematic efforts to evaluate. Developing other ones might be important, too. All the risk factors need aggressive experimentation, and dynamic policy measures/effort. Systematic efforts are required to acquire hard knowledge about which approaches work and which do not, so that unsuccessful efforts will be discontinued, and successful ones expanded.

The world spends x dollars/year on tobacco products. Think what that could do if spent on health, like food or cookbooks or cleats or jumpropes or dumbells or gym memberships or even bicycles.

Individuals at high risk of a heart attack or stroke, such as those who have already experienced a cardiovascular event, have the option of taking cost-effective pharmaceutical interventions for hypertension and high cholesterol which can reduce CVD risks by 50% or more (even in the absence of behavior changes).

Aside:
Healthcare personnel and systems, in addition, can use improvement, in low/middle-income countries. Well, in high-income countries, too, but the author adopts the approach for developing countries, the focus of the chapter, of the model of strengthening systems by creating specific capacity to deliver priority services in volume and with high quality, in which capacity strength spreads to other areas from high-performing initial nodes. Love of life, respect for life, the desire to be healthy, a culture that encourages healthy living, is the prerequisite. Then, good hospitals for when the preventive maintenance, etc. isn't enough.

3. HIV
Successes and control efforts have been real, but with few exceptions limited to upper middle-income and high-income countries. Poorer countries have been mostly screwed, and remain in dire straits (The sultan of swing wants his mtv). AIDS deaths are often associated with excruciating pain. And by the numbers, with the possible exceptions of the use of nuclear weapons in densely populated areas or a devastating global episode like the 1917-18 influenza pandemic, HIV-AIDS devastation is the greatest threat to development for dozens of countries around the world, including several of the most populous. Thailand and Uganda are examples of success in countries with fewer financial resources, against more established epidemics. Of upper middle-income countries, Brazil and Mexico successfully forestalled potentially serious epidemics. Mexico, in particular, is singled out for responding early and forcefully. Although unfortunately development assistance was slow in coming, the Global Fund (to fight AIDS, TB, and Malaria) had initial years of substantial success. R&D, both public and private, made rapid progress, however, although a vaccine or cure has not been found (this 2007 book says. Is there one yet? I guess I would know, probably).

-The prevention record has been dismal. Little has been spent, and little achieved. Fewer than 1 in 5 high-risk people by even 2003 had access to even the most basic preventive services. There is plenty of blame, including for the US administration that discouraged condom use and stigmatized and alienated commercial sex workers.

-As the absence of STI's (sexually transmitted infections) greatly reduces transmission of HIV, treatment of them is a high priority, in addition to deserving treatment in their own right.

-Medically inappropriate restrictions on the use of inexpensive but powerful opiates for pain control continue to deny dignity and comfort to millions of patients with AIDS and cancer in their final months.

-Antiretroviral treatments, over a dozen of them, though originally costly, are feasible, at least in principle, for effective use in low-income settings now, due to scientific advances. Challenges to this are formidable, however. Substantial resources could be diverted from prevention or other healthcare high-payoff activities, and a false sense of complacency has led to increased risky behavior and increased HIV transmission. Interruption of drug supplies and low adherence are also problems. Systematic effort to study which approaches work or do not requires variation in approach and careful evaluation, to prevent needless deaths from not halting ineffective programs or giving resources to effective ones. Evaluate. Also, the cheapest possible drugs are often used, risking problems with toxicity and resistance. In Jamison's view, widespread adoption needs to be carefully sequenced, and only with a benefit-cost ratio greater than 1, because other highly attractive health investments exist.

So, for HIV/AIDS, the answers are a)condoms/needle exchange/other preventive services, b)std treatment, c)opiates, and d)ART (anti retroviral treatments), in ways that work, and with profitable b:c ratios, properly sequenced.

In Conclusion
The 7 big investments he recommends are
1.TB, appropriate case-finding and treatment..............B:C is 30:1
2.Heart attacks, acute mgmt. with low cost drugs........B:C is 25:1
3.Malaria, prevention and treatment............................20:1
4.Childhood diseases, expanded immunization coverage.......20:1
5.Cancer, heart disease, tobacco taxation......................20:1
6.HIV, prevention..............................................12:1
7.surgical capacity at district hospital (injury, difficult childbirth, other)...10:1

Monday, October 13, 2008

SWBP: Drugs

SWBP: Solutions for the World's Biggest Problems
Chapter 16, Drugs, by Jeffrey A. Miron
Summary and Commentary

Illicit drugs, that is.
Presumably prescription pharmaceuticals are A-okay.
Actually, he doesn't think illicit drugs are much of a problem. It's the criminalization, illegality, and prohibition that is.

Miron proposes this solution: To LEGALIZE the production, distribution, sale, possession, and use of all illicit drugs, worldwide. "What?" you say?
Not just Peter Tosh says "Legalize It"

Well, to be fair, any set of auxiliary policies would be acceptable so long as the market is not driven underground, such as the current alcohol and tobacco laws, dui laws, age restriction, sin taxes, subsidized treatment, advertising restrictions, etc.

Drugs, as we all know, can be bad. They can seriously reduce health, productivity, cause traffic accidents and industrial accidents, harm fetuses, and diminish the public purse under gvt. funded healthcare. For starters.

But drug prohibition laws have their own problems: black markets, violence, corruption, aiding terrorism, the increased spread of HIV, diminished respect for the law, enriching criminals, unnecessary restrictions on the use of drugs as medicine, and excessive restrictions on civil liberties. Also, the cost of enforcement.

The challenge is to balance the evils of both, and legalization is the solution. Here's why:
1. Prohibition does not eliminate the market for illicit drugs. It simply creates a black market. To what extent, though, does prohibition reduce drug use? (demand: a-d) a) To the extent society has respect for the law, drug use would be diminished. He argues, however, that violation of other weakly enforced laws is widespread, such as speeding, tax evasion, blue laws, and sodomy. b) the penalties are mild and rarely imposed. c) the price going up due to illegality, and therefore lowering demand, seems to be minimal. d) the "forbidden fruit" effect might make demand for drugs even higher. (supply: e) e) black market drug suppliers face increased costs of manufacturing, transporting, and distributing drugs under the threat of police detection/while operating in secret. However, this is partially offset by the low marginal costs of evading tax laws and regulatory policies.

So, while he admits prohibition probably reduces drug consumption, as theory would dictate, he suspects it's not by much. Alcohol prohibition, for example, didn't have a dramatic effect on consumption. Cross-country comparisons between nations with strongly and weakly imposed prohibition show little evidence of higher drug consumption under weak enforcement. And variation in strength of enforcement in the United States over time has not corresponded with substantial fluctuations in drug consumption levels. He admits drug use might increase by 25%, however (but not by orders of magnitude, as some have charged).

In his view, this possible effect is not as bad as the sum effect of drug prohibition, which is characterized by these 10 elements: increased crime, harm to drug users, reduced product quality, enriched criminals, increased spread of HIV, medicinal use restrictions, compromised civil liberties, aiding terrorism, diminished respect for the law, and the direct costs of enforcement.

To explain:
1. Increased crime
Participants in illegal markets cannot resort to courts and lawyers to resolve disputes, and therefore turn to guns, increasing violent crime. The ups and downs of the homicide rate in the US over the past century coincide with the ups and downs of drug prohibition enforcement. Other commodities like prostitution and gambling are associated with violence only when they are prohibited. During US alcohol Prohibition, violent crime went up markedly, and upon repeal, went down just as dramatically. The case is clear.

In addition to homicide, corruption and theft and prostitution are encouraged by illicit drug prohibition laws and enforcement. Corruption, because participants evade law enforcement authorities, or pay them to look the other way, and theft/prostitution, because prohibition increases the price of drugs. Also, because criminal justice resources are diverted to enforcement of drug laws, deterrence of other kinds of crime suffers.

The usual claim that drug use causes crime doesn't hold (much) water, in his view. "The evidence provides little indication that drug use promotes violence or other criminal behavior."

2. Harm to drug users
Higher prices, legal penalties, more time spent buying drugs, and having to deal with criminals in order to do so. Becoming a criminal, in fact. (Side note: All this while possibly self-medicating, as some manage to do. Not that heroin, for example, could ever really be medication, though, right? Or could it...)

3. Reduced product quality
In the face of an illegal/black market, product quality is lower and more uncertain. Accidental overdoses and poisonings are much more likely, with variable quality and purity. In a legal market, consumers can punish suppliers with liability claims, bad publicity, avoiding repeat purchase, or complaining to private or government watchdog groups. These mechanisms are unavailable or less effective under drug prohibition.

4. Enriched criminals
Legal markets are subject to taxation, with tax revenues accruing to the gvt. (of course). In a black market, these revenues become profits, enriching that segment of society most willing to evade the law. How much money are we talking? Hundreds of billions of dollars annually worldwide. Gvts. could collect tens of billions in additional revenue by legalizing and taxing currently illegal drugs.

5. HIV spread
Increased drug prices under prohibition result in restricted sale of syringes, and increased incentive to inject, for a bigger bang for the buck. Sharing dirty needles spreads HIV, hepatitis, and other blood-borne diseases.

6. Medicinal restrictions
Marijuana, for example, alleviates nausea, pain, migraine headaches, muscle spasms, symptoms of glaucoma, epilepsy, ms, AIDS, and others. Doctors fear legal sanctions for over-prescribing opiates and so under-treat pain in cancer patients and others with chronic conditions.

7. Compromised civil-liberties
Drug crimes involve voluntary exchange, as he puts it. Enforcement relies on asset seizures, aggressive search tactics, and racial profiling, which strain accepted notions of civil liberties and generate racial tension.

8. Aiding terrorism
Prohibition provides major cash for countries like Columbia and Afghanistan. Terrorist groups sell protection to drug traffickers. Legalization wouldn't eliminate these groups, but would eliminate most of the profits that help fund terrorism. Public resentment of governments who do things like crop eradication, and sympathy for insurgent groups, would no longer be a problem.

9. Respect for the law
"All experience to date indicates that, even with draconian enforcement, prohibition fails to deter a great many persons from supplying and consuming drugs. This fact signals that laws are for suckers, so prohibition undermines the spirit of voluntary compliance that is essential to law enforcement in a free society."

10. Enforcement's direct costs
Police, prosecutors, judges, and prisons are expensive. Many drug users, even heavy users of hard drugs, use drugs responsibly. Calm, pain relief, high, and stimulation are all considered benefits by the users. In his view, externalities that harm innocent third parties, like driving under the influence, foetal harm, or additional expenditure on healthcare can and should be addressed by policies dealing with those externalities rather than targeting all drug use.

The CBA shows that legalization would produce net benefits to the world of $130 billion dollars a year, with a ratio of 3.71 (a net benefit of 2.2T under a 6% discount rate, and a net benefit of 4.1T under a 3% discount rate). He admits, however, that the benefit is uncertain. On the other hand, legalization might generate all the benefits with few of the costs.

He concludes with this clincher argument: Legalization would provide consistency across policies regarding alcohol, tobacco, and drugs. Most illicit drugs are no more harmful, if not substantially less harmful, than these legal substances, so consistency demands that these drugs be legal as well. (sidenote: I heard aspirin wouldn't be approved by the fda for otc use now, if it was a new drug, instead of a historically widespread-use pharmaceutical. Also, food, technically is a drug. McDonald's can be addictive, right?).

Here's an article that might put all this in perspective; link.
Here's an article on the effective USE of heroin; link.

SWBP: Terrorism

SWBP: Solutions for the World's Biggest Problems
Chapter 14, Terrorism, by Daniel Linotte
Summary and Commentary
Do you fear more than just "fear itself"? (phobophobia)
Or do you wear No Fear t-shirts? (Do you fear people who are unafraid?) Ha.

Terrorism means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

Terrorism is a daily menace in spots throughout the world, is a global problem, and is one of the main obstacles to security and peace. Meeting the challenge is a complex task, that requires understanding of social conditions, minority and majority status, social stratification and mobility, "territoriality", history, politics, human rights and freedoms, governance and corruption, demographic trends, cultural identity, and modernization. Phew.

Costs of terrorism
-Thousands of individuals are under tight surveillance. In 2006 alone, there were 6,425 terrorist incidents, with 11,886 fatalities. It creates an unnecessary us-them mentality between religions and ethnic groups, and therefore tension, hostility, xenophobia, and anti-immigration and anti-integration of foreign communities. In the long-term, it could hinder political, social, and economic progress within developing countries and between rich and poor countries.

-One study puts the economic cost in 2002 as, "If there were no terrorism incidents in 2002, world GDP would have been 3.6 trillion USD higher than it was that year." 3.6T is more than the combined GDP of the UK and Italy, about 1/3 of the US economy, or about 7-9% of world GDP.

case in point, 9-11
9-11 resulted in hundreds of lost lives. X, actually. And even more permanent disabilities. Y, actually. Suffering. An untold amount. The destruction of planes and buildings were just the beginning of the economic toll:
-Physical assets destroyed amounted to 14B USD for the private sector
-and 2.2B for the public sector.
-Rescue, cleanup, etc. cost at least 11B.
-The stock market fell. Z points in A days.
-wider bonds spreads in the short-term on financial markets
-The insurance industry disbursed 58B dollars.
-200,000 jobs in NY were lost or reallocated
-more controls on the shipping and transportation industry
-public defense spending increased
-the private sector is spending more on security
-higher stress when travelling
-border patrol costs, and affect on exports
-tourism, immigration, and remittances

All that from only x people.

Costs could increase, with wmd's (weapons of mass destruction: nuclear/atomic, biological, chemical, or dirty bombs; abcd, i call it). One of the worst scenarios involves rogue or failed states supplying wmd's to terrorist organizations. Critical transportation or telecommunication infrastructure could be targeted.

SOLUTIONS
-1. Models. Statistical analysis may aid with making forecasting models, to better plan and mobilize resources and forces.
-2. Psychology. To understand suicide terrorism, we need to forget about pegging them as madmen (although I still think they are), and understand it as "trading life for identity." In other words, it can be considered as rational -a welfare gain. As suicide terrorism increases, the identity factor would diminish, thus reducing the incentive to suicide, perhaps. Also, the response must target sponsors, trainers, host countries, and hateful ideologists. (aside: Jesus was a suicide pacifist?)
-3. Development. Poverty can play a role, but needs to be assessed on a case by case basis. For example, 9-11 terrorists were middle-class. But youth violence in the West Bank and Gaza, in addition to vengeance and retaliation factors, is also caused by unemployment and poverty. (Personally, I think all factors matter, some more than others, but maybe what matters most is the proverbial "straw that breaks the camel's back" in individual terrorist's psychology. We should address the motives of terrorists productively. Economic development I would think would ameliorate the conditions which engender terrorism).
-4. Implement the FATF (financial action task force) recommendations on money-laundering. Informal banking and international seed money for terrorism can be monitored, he seems to be saying. He seems to have confused money-dirtying with money laundering, though.
-5. Adopt maritime security measures. Normal trade could carry a wmd, so the estimated 1.3B pricetag of this may prove well spent (excluding operation, maintenance, and upgrading costs). Developing countries lack resources and expertise, so assistance will have to be provided by rich countries.
-6. Move from integration to assimilation of immigrant communities. Integration is simply inclusion in a society composed of differing ethnic, cultural, and religious segments. Assimilation, however, is absorbing one group into another, and adopting their values. Islamophobia needs to be addressed. Emigration can be contained by democratization, development aid, human rights, and the reduction of gender gaps.

He makes the CBA assessment by pairing the 2002 world defense budget of 0.8T USD with the net benefit of eliminating terrorism that year, 3.6T USD. The B:C ratio is 5.5 (4.4/0.8), which he believes is low, because an effective fight against terrorism might actually cost less.

Other solutions
-7. Countries, if unified, could present a common front against a common enemy.
-8. If anti-Western feelings in Iraq and Afghanistan could be diminished, that would help.
-9. Punitive anti-terrorist actions, especially when unrestrained, lead to retaliation and vicious circles of violence. They are often counterproductive.
-10. A "Marshall Plan" for the Mideast, involving all parties, and recognizing Israel, and consolidating the Palestinian entity, and involving Iran and Syria in a peaceful region, post Iraq-war.
-11. Unspecified societal changes and political reforms to create more "open and democratic societies" that respect multilateralism, universal values, and global governance.

Sunday, October 12, 2008

Buddhist God

In Buddhism, there is no Supreme Being named that is the creator of all. However Gautama Buddha does state that our thoughts make the world.

We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our thoughts.
With our thoughts we make the world.


From me, Jesse, God:

So, think good thoughts, and think lots of them!

Also, clear your head of bad thoughts, and replace them. It's your world, apparenty, God.

SWBP: Lack of Education

SWBP: Solutions for the World's Biggest Problems,
Ch. 14, Lack of Education, by Peter F. Orazem
Summary and Commentary

Um, how do you spell edge-ooh-kay-shun?

This chapter deals with education in developing countries

Literacy and and earnings and health are all related to years of schooling. From an economists perspective, "Average returns are almost universally positive and at or above market returns on other investments." Benefits are social, in addition to individual. Improved governance, economic climate for growth, and reduced "fertility behavior" are listed. Women and urban residents see higher returns. Markets experiencing "shocks" requiring adaptation see better returns on education.

"Human capital will be most valuable when social or governmental institutions place few restrictions on mobility or trade, when wages and prices are flexible, and when property rights are enforced."

It is the measure of improvement in cognitive skills, not time in school, that indicates if a student is more likely to have greater earnings. "Average cognitive attainment drives economic growth." Relatively few literate individuals never attended school. So the MDG of attaining universal primary education by 2015 is underlied by the presumption that schooling is needed for literacy. (Reading is to the mind what exercise is to the body). This goal is estimated to cost $11-28B.

Cost:benefit analysis (CBA) tells us how to make efficient progress to reach what groups most cost-effectively. Education policies can be supply side or demand side. Supply side policies aim to improve quantity or quality of schooling. Orazem feels there are several reasons supply side policies may fail the cost-effectiveness criteria: 1) if you build it, they may not come (facts: halving the average distance to school only raised years of schooling by about 1.5%. some enrollment will come from already-enrolled children switching schools. New schools will be disproportionately located in relatively remote places with few children and relatively high costs.), 2) good teachers and bad teachers look very much alike statistically (education levels,demographics, in-service training), and there is lack of agreement on how to foster teacher-quality. 3) decentralization of school management, while a central theme of the World Bank and other international agencies, is not a proven strategy. 4) time-lag of responding to better management, or for parents to respond to school quality improvements, or before children attain literacy, place supply-side policies at a cost-benefit disadvantage compared to....

ta-da! Demand-side interventions!
Demand-side can target populations not in school, and only give payment if the program is working (i.e. contingent upon attendance), and immediately influence behavior.

He proposes 3 solutions:
1. Interventions in child health and nutrition, to attempt to imprope the child's physical/mental ability to learn.
2. efforts to lower the cost of public/private schooling, (enhance the ability to pay)
3. income transfers to households, conditional on enrollment, that lower the opportunity cost of a child's time in school, (and which enhance affordability).

Health and Nutrition
"Mechanisms" include supplements, school lunch plans, immunization programs, health instruction. Cases in point: Nutrition, Iron supplements, and Deworming medicine. Malnutrition early in life affects both cognitive and physical development, which is only partially reversible by good nutrition later on. Physical stature can be affected, which has been shown to affect lifetime earnings. In secondary school (age 13-15), iron supplements can raise cognitive abilities by 5-25%, or the equivalent of 0.05 years of schooling. A cost of 11 dollars (per added-year of schooling) yields 32X the benefits. (added to what?). De-worming in Kenya, according to one study, increased attendance by 0.15 years per pupil (an implied cost of $3.50 per child-year of schooling).

You know, I'm starting to think these economists are kinda nuts. De-worming for education?Well, yeah, but for everything else, too. DUH. Health is a human right. They make the simple so complicated. People should just do what needs to be done, for everyone, and once everyone's happy, we can all worry about extras for ourselves, then. That's my PRIORITIZATION SCHEME. I mean, we should all be happy and healthy. Intellectuals love to make everything seem like they're all about Efficiency and Intelligence. This book seems to have lost touch with human warmth and happiness. What are we, robots on a mission to meet a command from the UN high-command, dictating universal literacy? NO, we're HUMANS who have read GOOD BOOKS, with the desire to share our JOYs. Geez.

Lowering Schooling Costs
Costs include uniforms, supplies, tuition, fees, tutorials; they can represent a significant share of a poor houshold's income. Programs to reduce schooling costs can have dramatic and speedy impacts on children's achievement, and years of schooling completed.
The angel is in the details: Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda cut or eliminated the school fees.
-Enrollments rose by 1.2M children in Tanzania.
-A program that cut houshold costs of uniforms and school materials in Kenya increased years of schooling completed by 15%.
-In Uganda, the elimination of primary schooling fees lowered costs by 60%, and increased enrollments by 60%, with the largest gains in rural areas. Pupil:teacher ratios rose from 38 to 65.
-In many developing countries, poor students who cannot afford tutoring may fall behind their peers. A program in India hired local women with high school degrees to tutor 3rd and 4th graders who had fallen behind. The numbers for the cost is an example of success. The two year program raised the likelihood of a child performing at first-grade math level by 11.9 percentage points, and at second grade language level by 9.9 percentage points. At the end of the two years, these children were performing 0.28 standard deviations higher on the test scores, equivalent to having attained an additional year of schooling, at a cost of 5 dollars/child, because teacher-certifications were not mandated and they paid the market rate for less-qualified tutors instead of the gvt. rate for teachers.
-In Balochistan province, Pakistan, in an effort to increase girl enrollment, "randomly selected neighborhoods were given 100 girls' scholarships of 100 rupees per month (= USD 3$) to try to induce a school operator to try and open a school in the area. In urban areas, even this modest sum was sufficient to get schools to open, and enrollments for both girls and boys rose relative to control neighborhoods. (control is a scientific term, here...) The schools were opened at 1/4 of the cost of a public school. (lesson: in rural communities, schools opened but they were not self-sustaining. Areas that would have been able to raise public schools in the absence of a subsidy will support private school options to support enrollments-in other words, areas with the greatest elasticity of supply for private schools).
-private schools are a more important element of school supply in developing countries than in developed ones. Private schools will often have excess capacity, where vouchers can expan access more cheaply than building new schools. Voucher students in one study were 10% more likely to complete the 8th grade, and scored 0.2 standard deviations higher in standardized tests, equivalent to adding an additional year of school. They were also less likely to marry young, cohabit, and engage in child labor. The gains were permanent and not transitory. The voucher cost was 228 dollars per recipient, compared to the much higher value of the induced additional years of schooling and cognitive attainment.

Conditional Cash Transfers
-Latin American countries have done this, giving money to families in exchange for parents sending their children to school, and sometimes other components, like nutritional supplements and mandated health clinic visits, as well as health training for mothers. Countries like Argentina, Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, Costa RIca, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Turkey, Chile, Ecuador, and Peru. These programs are most effective where large numbers of children are not in school, and so have been aimed at the lowest income strata of society, and rural areas.

There is a table of Benefit Cost Ratios (BCR) at 3% and 5% discount rates, of various efforts to reduce illiteracy:
health and nutrition
Bolivian preschool nutrition, 3.66/2.48
Kenyan deworming, 642/472
Kenyan preschool nutrition, 77/58
Iron supplements to secondary students, 45.2/32.1

scholarship/voucher programs
Columbia secondary school urban voucher, 4.41/3.31
Pakistan urban girls scholarship, 17.4/12.9
Pakistan rural girls' scholarship, 10.1/7.1
India balsakhis tutorial program, 711/528
Uganda free primary school program, 26.3/19.3

conditional cash transfers
Mexico Progresa, 6.8/5.1
Nicaragua RED, 3.8/2.8

Keep in mind that a BCR of 3.8 means a 1 dollar investment yields an almost 4 dollar return.
A BCR of 642 is AMAZING...

Straight talk on McCain

Rolling Stone's article on McCain:

1. http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/23316912/makebelieve_maverick/print

2. I also like what Michael Moore's "Mike's Election Guide 2008" says.

pgs. 43-48, says, on McCain's Vietnam experience,
"He was sent to Vietnam, along with hundreds of thousands of others, in an attempt to prop up what was essentially an American colony, South Vietnam, which was being run by a dictator whom the U.S. had installed.

Lest we forget, the Vietnam War represented a mass slaughter by the United States government on a scale that sought to rival our genocide of the Native Americans. The U.S. Armed Forces killed more than two million civilians in Vietnam (and perhaps another million more in Laos and Cambodia). The Vietnamese had done nothing to us. They had not bombed or invaded or even sought to murder a single American. President Johnson and the Pentagon lied to Congress in order to get a vote passed to put the war into full gear. Only two senators had the guts to say "no." Almost 3 million troops ended up serving in Vietnam. The U.S. dropped more tons of bombs on the Vietnamese people thatn the Allied poweres dropped during all of World War II.

In response, during the nine years of the war, not a single Vietnamese bomb was dropped on U.S. soil, not a single Vietnamese terrorist attack took place in the USA. But we poured 18 million gallons of poisonous chemicals on their villages and rice fields. The number of injured, wounded, and severely deformed Vietnamese has never been counted because it is just too huge for anyone to calculate, let alone comprehend.

And yet, with all the death and destruction we visited upon the Vietnamese, we lost the war. They never gave up. Just as I'd like to think we would never give up should we ever be on the receiving end of such a horrific assault from an invading force.

During Christmas of 1972, although the U.S. was months away from callling it quits, President Nixon ordered the carpet bombing of the civilian population of Hanoi and Haiphong. Two-thousand combat sorties dropped 20,000 tons of bombs in a final burst of anger for having been beaten by a nation of peasants who didn't possess even a single attack helicopter or bomber plane during the entire war.

John McCain flew 23 bombing missions over North Vietnam in a campaign called Operation Rolling Thunder. During this bombing campaign, which lasted for almost 44 months, U.S. forces flew 307,000 attack sorties, dropping 643,000 tons of bombs on North Vietnam (roughly the same amount of tonnage dropped in the Pacific during all of World War II). Though the state targets were factories, bridges, and power plants, thousands of bombs also fell on homes, schools, and hospitals. In the midst of the campaign, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara estimated that we were killing 1,000 civilians a week. That's more than one 9/11 every single month- for 44 months.

In his book, Faith of Our Fathers, McCain wrote that he was upset that he had been limited to bombing military installations, roads, and power plants. He said such restrictions were "illogical" and "senseless."

"I do believe," McCain wrote, "that had we taken the war to the North and made full, consistestent use of air power in the North, we ultimately would have prevailed." In other words, McCain believes we could have won the Vietnam war had he been able to drop even more bombs.

I would like to see one brave reproter during the election season ask this simple question of John McCain: "Is it morally right to drop bombs and missiles in a 'heavily populated' area where hundreds, if not thousands, of civilians will perish?"