Archive for February 9, 2009

While Rome Burns…

Thanks to Didionsmommy for taking over the site for the weekend while I was on vacation – it almost feels wrong to take a vacation while the rest of the country is in such dire peril, but hey, maybe that sector of the economy is in even more dire need of stimulation…? That’s what I’ll tell myself. In any event, please enjoy this little slice of Vermont:

But seriously folks. Now more than ever, it’s time to take stock of how fortunate we really are. Just by living in this great country, we can count ourselves among the freest of the human race – yes, Bill Kristol, we lib’ruls are proud of our country too -  and the richest, regardless of our employment or “class” status (top 5% at least). For those of us still employed, or awaiting employment, life is even better. Especially when life is hard for so many of our countrymen, we should remember and give thanks for those fortunes we still enjoy.

Possible New Evidence for Abstinence: The Shot HURTS!

(Note: Ames comes back tomorrow. In the meantime, I am making my first foray into the magical world of Conservapedia.)

Conservapedia’s main page presented a news headline on Sunday evening:

“New Worries About Gardasil Safety”

Gardasil is the vaccine administered to women and girls to protect against several strains of HPV that are a direct cause of cervical cancer. I clicked the link and read:

As of June 30, 2008, there have been 9,749 adverse reactions occurring after administration of the HPV vaccine, including twenty-one deaths, reported to the CDC since the FDA approval on June 8 2006.^[6] Of the the first fifteen deaths, ten were confirmed; the CDC claims that none of these were caused by the vaccine. ^[7]

In addition to the above referenced injuries and deaths, many girls who receive the HPV vaccine say that it is the most painful of all injections they get, and that the vaccine itself burns, unlike the “other shots [that] tend to hurt only at the moment of the needle stick, and not after the vaccine plunges in.” Many girls have passed out from the pain.^[8]

The FDA approved this HPV vaccine without reviewing any epidemiological studies, and after monitoring for only a brief period elevated antibody levels in recipients of the vaccine.^[9] No tests were done, for example, to see if the vaccine causes cancer or birth defects in rats, though such tests would be easy for the FDA to require, if it weren’t for the possibility that it might cause disapproval of the vaccine.^[10]

The long-term consequences of the HPV vaccine are not known. Children in the 9-year-old age group have been monitored for only 18 months, and there have been no studies of possible longer-term risks of the vaccine, such as infertility, cancer, or autism.

I thought, “JACKPOT!” … Merciless pain!!! Unethical and sloppy researchers!!!!!! An open-ended question of whether the vaccine causes all sorts of other ills!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is the sort of conspiratorial denial Ames loves to expose. There is also subtext: About one-third of HPV strains are sexually transmitted (including those related to cervical cancer), and about 75% of sexually active people in the U.S. will contract at least one form. The only 100%-effective way to avoid many HPV strains is to avoid all genital contact. It’s easy to see the threat of HPV on the one hand and a scary shot that hurts on the other as yet another instrument in the abstinence-only education toolbox.

So what about Gardasil? After recovering from Conservapedia’s ridiculously alarmist take, I checked Wiki. In part:

As of 30 June 2008, out of over 16 million doses^[29] of Gardasil distributed in the United States, there have been 9,749 reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) following Gardasil vaccination.^[30] Gardasil has less than half the average percentage of serious reports.^[30] “It is important to note that a report to VAERS does not mean there is a connection between the vaccine and the event. It means the event took place following vaccination.”^[30] The FDA and CDC said that with millions of vaccinations “by chance alone some serious adverse effects and deaths” will occur in the time period following vaccination, but have nothing to do with the vaccine.^[31] Although at least 20 women who received the Gardasil vaccine have died, there is no evidence that deaths or serious outcomes were connected to the shot.^[31] Where information was available, the cause of death was explained by other factors.^[29] Likewise, although a small number of cases of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) have been reported following vaccination with Gardasil.^[30][32], there is no evidence linking GBS to the vaccine.^[30]

Basically, we have the same old story in the vaccine debate. This time, though, there is a bonus: S-E-X!

So Men Are Relying Too Much on Their Heads?

Is she the cure for Wall Street's ills?

It’s simple: (A) Testosterone changes men’s behavior, with elevated levels of the hormone encouraging aggressive behavior and heightened risk taking. (B) Men dominate the banking industry. (C) Therefore, testosterone has an effect on the directions of financial markets.

At least that’s the conclusion of research cited by Nicholas Kristof in his Sunday NYT column. Makes sense to me. What is not entirely clear to me is whether this is a bad thing.

Kristof’s point is that heterogeneity (in this case gender) produces sounder, more rational decision making by groups, but floating through the column is the unspoken implication that if more women were involved, the financial markets would not be swirling in the toilet. I suspect many of Kristof’s readers will stop at this level of analysis, and I can already think of several women-centered blogs pouncing all over the column with a vindicating “Told ya’ so!”

But that level of analysis doesn’t do justice to the column or to the research. Moreover, testosterone is not to be feared. Risk taking is necessary, even when it results in failure. Economic growth requires risk. I do not purport to understand all of the intricacies of the spectacular collapse of the financial system, but I do not believe testosterone-driven risk taking is largely to blame. Besides the desire for wanting more, more, more, jealousy prompted the mess in which we currently find ourselves: the jealous protections, developed by those who could, to prevent regulation and accountability.

Using the research’s conclusions, testosterone arguably influences innovation and spurred the development of complex derivatives in an effort to earn ever higher yields. A big “but,” though: Testosterone certainly was not the imperative driving the failure of institutions to check themselves. Testosterone is critical to defining “male” as sex, but it is not critical to defining male as “human.” As appealing as the image might be, Wall Street is not dominated by slobbering, knuckle-dragging apes, following only instinctual urges to dominate. There is, even amongst investment bankers, the capacity for moral character, for knowing the difference between right and wrong, for seeing the long-term picture. It is this capacity, rather than the strategic injection of estrogen (in the form of actual women) in the board room and on the trading floor, that ought to be nurtured.

But wait, isn’t nurturing the job of women? (Little joke.)

No doubt women have different leadership styles than men and bring different perspectives to the table, but there is no guarantee a cabal of women wouldn’t develop equally detrimental systems to the exclusion of reasoned, responsible, and ethical behavior (PUMAs anyone?). Of course, women should be able to embark on careers in the financial industry. Everyone who invests the time and effort should have the opportunity to show their stuff and go after the big bucks in whatever career he or she chooses.

But if testosterone influences career choices to begin with, it is difficult for me to imagine an equal distribution of men and women on Wall Street. Of course, I am well aware of the institutional hierarchies and glass ceilings that prevent movement of ambitious and skilled women and likely keep the existing gender distribution artificially low. Nonetheless, while an ideal situation is one in which heterogeneous groups make sound, healthful decisions for themselves and for society, we have to deal with the reality that the financial industry is going to be long (likely forever) dominated by men and that the real problem is the inevitability of groups becoming exclusionary and protectionist. Encouraging men to become strategically circumspect seems to me to be more effective than encouraging women to become men, while retaining just enough of their womanly essence to keep an eye on things.