Here is an interesting article about making participation in experimental vaccine trials mandatory (Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Lew Rockwell).

[Nota bene: this is about participating in trials for experimental vaccines, not about mandating approved vaccines].

The general argument is that we need to develop new vaccines, and someone has to test them. Relying on people volunteering out of altruism is not working too well; the number of volunteers has been decreasing in recent years. The major alternative, paying them more than a pittance for their time, has two problems: (1) it preferentially causes the risks to be borne by "society’s most poor and vulnerable,: and (2) it creates "an inducement that inevitably clouds an individual’s appreciation of risk, limiting the likelihood that consent is informed."

Both arguments are poppycock. The worry about the "poor and indigent" is based upon the assumption that (a) the poor and indigent would be better off without this opportunity to make money and (b) equalizing burdens justifies what is, in essence, slavery.

The second argument, that too much of a financial inducement makes consent "uninformed" or that it "clouds" a person's judgment, ignores the issue of why doing such things is wrong: namely, because it tricks someone into making a decision that, if they were better informed or better able to appreciate the risks, they would not make. However, the proposed alternative is forcing someone to take risks that they would not take; it is hard to see how this is better. This is like claiming that having sex with a person who is too drunk to consent is unacceptable, because they might not consent to it if they were sober; but telling a sober person that they have to have sex with you and you don't care if they consent or not is more acceptable.

The only possible benefit to mandatory participation over payment is that you reduce the risk of participation fraud; that is, someone who does not qualify for the trial lying to get in and invalidating the results. But the article does not address this as a concern, and there must be ways of screening that will reduce that to negligible levels.

That is all.

Peter Wehner has an excellent article in Commentary where he explains why the "Establishment" does not like Newt Gingrich.

The bottom line: it isn't because Gingrich is a true conservative and they want a moderate like Romney; Gingrich's problem is not that he is "too extreme," in the sense of being too conservative. His problem is that he is too undisciplined, too mercurial, and simply not likeable.

Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Lawrence Auster.

That is all.

I predict that Ron Paul and Mitt Romney will have first and second place in Iowa (who is first is up in the air), with Santorum third and Gingrich fourth.

Romney will win New Hampshire, with Paul in second.

Overall, Paul will get 15-25% of the vote. His percentages will not ultimately lose steam, but as the field narrows, his opponents will pull ahead somewhat.

Ultimately, the race will be between Romney and someone else (most likely Gingrich, but maybe not); Romney will dominate the non-southern states, and the opponent will do better in the south. I do not know who will win, but it will be close.

That is all.

"Pleasureman" (formerly "Udolpho") has some interesting thoughts on transgenderism and homosexuality as mental illnesses:

People who lack knowledge of how psychology and psychiatry work are usually unaware of how hit and miss the treatment of mental illness is, and so it is easy to sell them on the idea that treatment of homosexuals and transgenders--or attempting to "cure" them as the left derisively and misleadingly puts it--is farcical pseudo-science at best and demented religious superstition at worst. Needless to say, conservatives, being largely ignorant of how psychology and psychiatry work, are unprepared to tell them differently: that we simply haven't come that far in treatment of mental disorders, but that management of symptoms is within reach and that there is reason to hope that further work on these disorders will uncover new, more successful approaches. After all you didn't see liberals saying let's throw in the towel on an AIDS cure because someone's shark cartilage cure didn't work.

There is also the point made that organized psychiatry and psychology are rather politicized (i.e. that their attempts to redefine transgenderism and variant sexuality as "normal" rather than "disordered" are due more to politics than to actual objective science), which means that the use of the American Psychiatric Association's positions to refute traditional ideas about homosexual behavior suspect.

Of course, I will admit that a lot of the posters on the site seem to dabble in antisemitism and I would be wary of some of the things they say, but this seemed to me to be a good point that not enough people bring up.

That is all.

News from London:

Somali women not given jail time for racial beating of white woman.

Ranting, however, is punishable by jail time if you are white - you get remanded to custody.

Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Lawrence Auster.

That is all.

Despite all of the problems in the modern world, God will prevail in the end.

Let us remember to give thanks for everything and to trust in Him in all things.

That is all.

Reading this reminds me of the fact that our whole society is going down the tubes.

It used to be that we were urged to "tolerance," meaning essentially that we can have our beliefs but please don't force them on others.

Increasingly, though, we are being told that our beliefs are not worthy of tolerance. I remember a poster on Yglesias' blog (in what I think is a now defunct thread) saying that we are starting to understand that "homophobia is wrong" and that we will soon no longer tolerate it under the heading of religious beliefs, nor should we (in response to the foster couple who lost their right to foster because they refused to call homosexuality acceptable).

I have a feeling that a lot of people of the "Alas a Blog" ilk would not be willing to condemn the brick-throwing, or at least not without a lot of hemming and hawing. There is, I believe, a reluctance to consider that people who have traditional beliefs could ever be victims, as they are "official oppressors," and gays are "official victims." While I doubt that most people would directly say that throwing a brick through the window is a proper or legal way to behave, I think that most liberals of that ilk would find some way to assert that the people throwing the brick are less at fault then they would seem.

I've already seen them unwilling to admit that legal actions taken against people who publicly disapprove of homosexuality (in Canada, for example) are a violation of religious freedom. Not that they directly advocate the abridgment, mind you, but they rationalize each case ad hoc.

And let us not forget the "hate crimes" double standard.

We live in scary times.

That is all.

Not that I have put up a lot of posts the past few years...

But for those of you who did not see the comment I made at Steve Sailer's blog, my father passed away October 5. Which is poignant, as he did stained glass, and one of the things he made for me was a suncatcher with the multicolored "Apple" design.

Thank you to Steve, who sent condolences in the comments on the previous post.

That is all.

The Reluctant Apostate has improved on my design greatly.

I will probably be adding his version to my blog soon.

Rex May has posted on this as well and is selling merchandise.

That is all.