Regarding Atheism

An editorial the other day, 10 myths -- and 10 truths -- about atheism, lays out ten common "misconceptions" about atheists and the reality behind these falsehoods. The article does a pretty good job of laying out the arguments and countering them. It is written in a rational, thought-out manner and exposes these arguments against atheism as complete contradictions.

The real problem here, though, is that these are not genuine arguments. These ten points are not issues that are brought up against atheists. These are the talking points of the evangelical preachers and politicians and are all about distraction and avoidance of real issues. By addressing the arguments as if they are real, the author is legitimizing their war against anyone who is not of their sect. Instead, these people need to be exposed for who they are, lest we waste our effort trying to give bulk to their straw men.

Still Sick

Nothing to add to my last post except this article, which just came out from the Nobel winner Joseph Stiglitz: Scrooge and intellectual property rights.

Making Us Sick

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has released a study, New Drug Development: Science, Business, Regulatory, and Intellectual Property Issues Cited as Hampering Drug Development Efforts, an analysis of the problems with the drug industry in the past decade. For example, only 12% of new drug patents are for truly innovative drugs that might help people; the rest are primarily for "me-too" drugs or insignificant modifications to existing drugs with the primary purpose of extending the patent and profits. Although half of their conclusions shouldn't be taken even with a grain of salt, the data is interesting. The best part, of course, is that this is the government, so the data has the veneer of neutrality.

Despite the numerous claims by the drug industry to what is hindering their progress, the statistics show that drug approval times are actually diminishing and the chances of getting approved have not varied. The report effectively lays out the flaws in a for-profit drug research model, where the vast majority of truly significant advances are still coming from government and charity-funded research. The path of least resistance for capitalism is the me-too drugs and sexy drugs, not necessarily something that will help people who are suffering from serious problems. Industry complains about FDA guidelines getting in the way, but the report does not offer any clear demonstration that this is something that has change significantly in the past ten years.

The reality is that we need more restrictive drug approval, instead of the system that has gotten things like Vioxx into the marketplace. Drug news over the past several years has shown how linked the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry are.

The proposals out of this report will do little to aid the rest of us. Shorter patents for non-innovative drugs isn't an answer: no patents is. And putting longer patents on innovative drugs isn't the problem, since the drug that might help (or even cure, a notion contrary to profit motives?) isn't likely to be profitable. Furthermore, such drugs should be quickly and cheaply available on a widespread basis, not restricted to only the wealthiest patients for years to come.

Disparate Reporting

No big deal. With potentially 800,000 people subject to identity theft because UCLA hadn't spotted a leak for a year, it was front page news for a couple days. When Boeing announced that the personal information of nearly 400,000 workers was on a stolen laptop, it was buried in a small article in the Business section (Information on Boeing workers, retirees stolen). Given that Boeing is one of largest employers in the L.A. area, you'd have thought it was bigger news.

I haven't gotten my letter yet from UCLA, but I've been told that they offer to lock the files of those of us at risk ... for a fee. Boeing at least has the decency to offer credit monitoring for three years for those affected. Maybe they are charging a fee, too, but the article doesn't indicate that. Given that it is their responsibility, it is the least they should do.

Cancer from IBM

As a result of a lawsuit, IBM released a large data set of its former employees and the causes of their deaths. This, in turn, resulted in a study, Mortality among US employees of a large computer manufacturing company: 1969–2001.

Summing it up quickly, there is an increased amount of cancer among workers who had been employed at their factories. IBM, of course, denied the findings of the study, which was the largest (10,219 people after removing incomplete records) study of its kind for a computer hardware manufacturer. IBM was also not cooperative with helping flesh out the data, though that should be expected since it could lead to more liability on their part.

Don't Choke Your Chicken

Consumer Reports has just published Dirty birds, an article where they researched bacteria levels in store-bought chicken. This recent study found that 83% harbored campylobacter or salmonella, up from only 49% when they did the same tests in 2003.

The high level of infection is a concern, of course, as is the fact that most of these bacteria proved resistant to at least one antibiotic. Properly cooked chicken should eliminate the risk here, but these kinds of levels should still be considered unacceptable.

What is most interesting, though, is what kind of enforcement powers the USDA has. If a plant fails a certain "acceptable" level of infection, the USDA is not able to levy fines. It cannot close the plant simply because these tests have failed, but instead must have another reason. The best they have is the threat of releasing the salmonella test information to the public, and even there private groups were able to beat them to the punch.

None of this comes as a surprise, as the USDA is essentially an arm of the agriculture industry and not a standards organization designed to keep consumers safe. Budget and staffing cuts, along with years of lobbying efforts and the underlying system, have seen to that.

401(k)s Are Just Like Pensions

Nice article in the paper on Sunday, So you think your 401(k) money is safe. With a solid decade of pension raiding and destruction under our belts here in the U.S., some more details are coming out about 401(k)s. If the company responsible for your 401(k) doesn't fall under regulations for larger companies, then your retirement can be taken away from you without you even knowing it. I guess the smaller companies were jealous with what all the big dogs were getting away with and wanted to get in on the act.

Like most corporate malfeasance, there is little monitoring of it by the federal government, and what monitoring there is doesn't have the staff or funding to really pursue the problems. The article lays out several cases where the government just doesn't follow up, leaving people out to dry. Even when they do press charges, the victim is often left with maybe 10% of what they should be getting. Yet another opportunity to work until you die.

Of course, the article presents traditional pensions in a rosier light that isn't quite right. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation has been screwing over people left and right in recent years, and there is talk that they are getting stretched so thin from all the bankruptcy scams that they might collapse completely.

Less Insurance is No Insurance

As is typical of articles that deal with reports or groups critical of business, the vast majority of the article Report criticizes high deductibles is providing a mouthpiece to the insurance industry. But it also does talk about the report, which addresses the increase of insurance plans with high deductibles.

The corporate-driven health plans cater in part to the young who do not get sick as often, but also to those who simply cannot afford any kind of health care at current prices. The end result is that people on these plans are more likely to postpone care or skip it out of concern of being able to pay. If you are afraid to use your insurance, then it isn't any insurance at all.

At its core, these plans further the destruction of health care. The point of insurance is to spread the burden around, so that those who need it are covered. Hence, the inherent contradiction, since the basic motivation of an insurance company is to make money off of only the people who won't ever use it. What it all boils down to is that health care in the hands of private companies never made human sense, only business sense.

How Capitalism Achieves Equality

American society is achieving a small amount of "progress" in diminishing the wage gap between men and women. As the article Gender pay gap narrows -- for unexpected reasons points out, men's wages have been shrinking faster than women's as of late, so there is now only a 23% gaps between what the average man gets versus the average woman.

There's no mention about whether the statistics include the "wages" of CEOs. Given that the vast majority are male, if you exclude them the gap would be even smaller, as their wages certainly distort the numbers.