It’s Past Time to Cut Back Military Bases

Testifying before Congress yesterday, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld told Congress that it was time to eliminate military bases around the country that are no longer needed. Unfortunately eliminating such bases is always a political hot potato.

Representative Rob Simmons (R-Connecticut) summed up the attitude that most members of Congress have toward military bases,

You refer to closing unneeded bases. I only have one base, and I do need it. I just want to make that clear.

Note that Simmons didn’t say that the military needs the base nor that the country or even his state needs the base. Rather, Simmons needs the base. If Congress eliminates it, voters in Simmons’ district might be more likely to vote him out of office.

In fact many communities will go to extreme lengths to keep their military bases. I’ve seen this first hand when the military proposed eliminating a small and unneeded base in the town where I grew up, Battle Creek, Michigan. Local campaigners managed to remove the base from the list of those to be eliminated temporarily, but there is really no earth shattering strategic reason to maintain a base in a small Midwestern backwater.

According to the New York Times the Pentagon itself estimates that as many as 25 percent of its bases are unneeded and could be closed without affect its military readiness. Lets get on with doing that already.

Source:

As Defense Secretary Calls for Base Closings, Congress Circles the Wagons. James Dao, The New York Times, June 29, 2001

Lies, Damned Lies, and PCRM Claims

Steve Milloy wrote an excellent opinion piece for Fox News today (Animal Rights, Research Wrongs) attacking People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and other animal rights groups. One of the groups Milloy defends is the March of Dimes. Since animal rights groups claim animal research into birth defects has done nothing but waste money, lets take a look at the lies of an animal rights group, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, and compare it to the reality of what the research community has accomplished.

Milloy notes that the March of Dimes 2001 National Ambassador is a six year old boy who is alive today because of lung surfactant therapy. Lung surfactant therapy was developed thanks to animal research that the March of Dimes helped sponsor. Briefly, when you breathe your lungs contract. Lung surfactant is the substance that makes them expand again. Many infants born prematurely do not produce enough lung surfactant, and as a result their lungs tend to collapse which leads to increased mortality.

PCRM has a different take on the role of animal research and the March of Dimes in finding an effective treatment for lung surfactant deficiency. On the CharitiesInfo.Org web site, PCRM claims,

8. Did surfactant therapy for premature infants depend on animal experiments as the March of Dimes claims?

No. Surfactant is a natural compound that allows the lungs to operate normally. It was discovered in experiments using animal and human lung specimens in the late 1950s. Although some animal lung specimens were used, human lung specimens could have been used alone. Three years after its discovery, researchers demonstrated that premature infants have no surfactant in their lungs, but that the substance is present in the lungs of more mature infants, children, and adults. Within a few years, trials had begun administering this substance to infants with lung problems. Human studies continue today to improve surfactant therapy for infants.

As with most animal rights lies there is a grain of truth to this account, but if human studies were all that was needed to create lung surfactant therapy, it is a bit odd that the most effective such therapy is made from the lungs of calves. Here’s the reality.

In the mid-1950s a Boston-area physiologist, John Clements, discovered lung surfactant. He soon figured out that the substance’s function was to prevent lung collapse. A few years later in 1959, Mary Ellen Avery, a Boston-area pediatrician, discovered that premature infants born with a disorder called Hyaline Membrane Disease lacked lung surfactant which was the reason their lungs were collapsing.

Now if you take the PCRM account at face value, that settles it. Lung surfactant was discovered, and researchers knew that surfactant deficiency was the major cause of lung collapse in premature infants. So it was just a simple matter of developing a treatment and applying it to babies, right? Not by a long shot.

PCRM notes that “within a few years, trials had begun administering this substance to infants with lung problems” (emphasis added). What they forget to tell the reader is that a surfactant treatment wasn’t actually approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration until 1989(!) Finding a way to treat surfactant deficiency wasn’t quite as easy as PCRM pretends it was.

The first major treatment available was due to extensive research in sheep, not human beings. Researchers in New Zealand and the United States demonstrated that giving pregnant sheep steroids increased the rate at which fetal lungs developed, which in turn led to the development of surfactant in the lungs more quickly. Clinical trials in humans bore out the usefulness of delaying premature labor 24-48 hours and administering steroids to promote lung growth.

The introduction of ventilators in the early 1970s specifically designed to prevent lung collapse was also an important boon for the survival rates of premature infants.

Research into finding a safe, reliable surfactant replacement therapy continued through the 1970s and 1980s, much of it highly dependent on animal research. In fact when the U.S. FDA finally approved two surfactant replacement therapies, animal byproducts were the major component of one of the therapies. The natural surfactant replacement therapy is most commonly made from the extracts of calf lungs, though pig lungs and human lungs are occasionally used as a source as well. There is a synthetic surfactant available, but studies in both human beings and animals have tended to indicate that it is not as effective as that derived from bovine sources. On reason offered by the differing efficacy is the presence of proteins in the natural surfactant replacement which are absent in the synthetic replacement.

Far from animal studies being irrelevant, they played a fundamental role in developing a viable surfactant replacement therapy. So PCRM, take a deep breath and relax. Thanks to animal research, premature infants can have the same luxury.

Sources:

Why animal experiments fail in birth defects research. Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, undated.

Surfactant Replacement Therapy. Victor Chernick, Canadians for Health Research.

Hyaline membrane disease. Discovery.Com.

New Studies Of A Liquid Of Life — Lung Surfactant. Science Daily, August 23, 1999.

Natural surfactant extract versus synthetic surfactant for neonatal respiratory distress syndrome. Roger F. Soll, National Institutes of Health, February 1999.

Animal Rights, Research Wrongs. Steve Milloy, Fox News, June 29, 2001.

When Is A Hate Crime Not A Hate Crime (When the Victim is Hispanic)

A group of at least eleven juveniles in New Jersey recently culminated a day of violence by beating to death a homeless man. The juveniles were black and the victim was Hispanic, and almost immediately there were cries on conservative sites like Free Republic about why the boys weren’t being charged with a hate crime. Prosecutors replied that there simply wasn’t evidence that the crime as motivated by racism. Really? Not according to a story in today’s New York Times,

It was around 10:45 Wednesday morning, June 20th, and a crowd of nearly 50 students, most of them black, had gathered in front of a vending machine inside the high school. Some of them wanted to play a violent form of tag, going after Hispanic students to physically abuse them. A 17-year-old defendant offered the closest semblance of an explanation for the nature of the game: some black students did not like the way some Hispanic students were showing off during a fire drill. “So they were like, someone is going to get it,” he said.

Ilana Mercer vs. Veronica Dahl

There is an abundance of evidence that despite some feminists claims to the contrary, it is boys rather than girls who on average are systematically under performing in schools. The big question is why. Veronica Dahl, a professor of computing science at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, offered an explanation — boys know they are part of a “ruling class” and as such know they can “laze a bit” because it won’t affect their position in society.

This is, of course, an absurd claim. Boys are far more likely to drop out of high school than girls are, and people who fail to obtain high school diplomas have very limited economic prospects. Women who graduate high school and go on to college earn far more, on average, than do men who drop out — position within Canadian and American society is today based largely on merit.

Freelancer writer Ilana Mercer became entangled in a mini-controversy after criticizing Dahl for making this statement. As Mercer relates in an article about the controversy (Male bashing in academe), Dahl’s position seemed to be that a) Dahl didn’t actually mean what she was quoted as saying, but b) nonetheless what she didn’t mean to say was in fact an accurate explanation of boys’ poor academic experience.

Mercer wonders,

What do you think would have befallen Prof. Dahl had she ventured that the only reason women are underrepresented in the engineering sciences is because they are lazy and know a man will eventually take care of them? I wager the Prof.’s fitness to teach women would have been called into question.

Source:

Male bashing in academe. Ilana Mercer, LewRockwell.Com, June 15, 2001.

UPC Protest Against the Delmarva Chicken Festival

If any animal rights group has a shot at unseating People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals as far as sheer nuttiness goes, clearly it will be United Poultry Concerns. Like PETA, their press releases are often so far over the top that they sometimes read like parodies.

A couple weeks ago, for example, UPC put out a press release urging people to protest at the Delmarva Chicken Festival held in Machipongo, Virginia. This is a large festival sponsored by the poultry industry. Emulating PETA’s press release style, the headline that UPC chose trumpeted the fact that “United Poultry Concerns Will Protest at the Delmarva Chicken Festival of Sickness, Fear, and Death.” Sounds like the opening line from some third-rate splatterpunk novel.

UPC is also certain to cover all of its bases in its objections to the poultry industry so as to make sure not to leave out any group potentially offended by the poultry industry. The press release goes on to say,

What’s to celebrate? Poisoned Well Water? 4 billion pounds of raw waste a year? 14 million pounds of phosphorus? 49 million pounds of nitrogen? 600 million birds breathing toxic ammonia? A million tons of manure each year? Chickens fed cattle brains? Repulsive smelling fields? Decaying carcasses? Polluted water? Carpel [sic] tunnel syndrome? Salmonella? Campylobacter? Listeria? Arsenic? Pfiesteria piscicida? Cruelty to birds? Millions of gallons of slaughterhouse waste trucked to Maryland from Delaware? Endless killing? Being owned by gangsters?

Whew. Was that a press release or a stream of consciousness assignment for Introduction to English Composition? And don’t forget the alternative vision UPC offers,

By contrast, United Poultry Concerns will proclaim the benefits of a vegetarian diet: Respect for life. Less pollution. Less sickness. Less suffering. Less death. More beauty. More happiness. More health. More peace.

You too shall see the vegetarian promised land. They could start delivering on the “more peace” promise by leaving us omnivores alone.

Source:

United Poultry Concerns Will Protest at the Delmarva Chicken Festival of Sickness, Fear, and Death. United Poultry Concerns, Press Release, June 16, 2001.

Dave Winer Doesn’t Get It Either

Another person misreading the Appeals Court ruling is Dave Winer, but Winer has to go on and make one of his typically loopy suggestions,

Now it seems the next step is for a new trial, and although I’m not a lawyer it seems only reasonable, given the number of violations of antitrust law that Microsoft has been found guilty of, that some protections be put in place immediately to stop Microsoft from doing more harm while the new trial is proceeding.

Let me get this straight. The government needs to conduct a legal proceeding to come up with a more realistic penalty for Microsft, but it should go ahead and institute a penalty before it actually gets around to instituting a penalty.

Besides which, there isn’t going to be another trial. One thing I forgot to add before is that a settlement is also in the Justice Department’s interest. Given the unanimous verdict by the appellate court, any judge named to oversee a new penalty phase is going to be looking over his or her shoulder. There is always the possibility that Microsoft could wind up with a lighter penalty than it might be willing to agree to in a settlement.