Granted that parasitic worm infections can be prevented by basic hygiene, clearly more education is needed so that people will employ the basic hygiene that is needed, and those who are already infected will need medical care to cure their infections, so there is a lot of work that can be done to solve this problem, which could be federally funded (or could also be state funded).  Furthermore, the lack of hygiene is related to other problems than a simple lack of education.  Unemployment leads to poverty which leads to people who either can't afford the conveniences of life which make hygiene easier.  For example, the homeless have limited access to plumbing, sinks, showers etc.  Even when the poor still have some access to the conveniences of life, they are often apathetic and cease to take good care of themselves.  Poverty is depressing.  Depression leads to poor hygiene.  This leads to disease, and disease is also depressing, so things just get worse.  Outside help is needed to correct this.

The very badly managed and fundamentally misguided war on drugs, as well as the badly managed war on terror, in addition to consuming resources which might otherwise be used to help people with all kinds of other problems such as poverty, ignorance, and disease, also create a great deal of hostility toward the government.  So when the government tells people that they need to have better hygiene in order to avoid parasitic infections, those who most need to listen to this advice are also the least inclined to do so.  So yes, parasitic disease is part of a much larger problem of social decay.  And yes, we do need to better deal with such things as the war on terror in order to be able to deal with domestic problems such as this.

...there is a lot of work that can be done to solve this problem, which could be federally funded (or could also be state funded)

Any particular reason that it should be federally funded? These are local problems we're talking about, not national ones.

the homeless have limited access to plumbing, sinks, showers etc.

Do you have any information that suggests they are talking about homeless people? Nothing in the article says that, and there is information there that suggests otherwise ("Roundworms may infect close to a quarter of inner city black children," and I rather doubt that homeless among children approaches that level).

Even when the poor still have some access to the conveniences of life, they are often apathetic and cease to take good care of themselves

Again, look at the article: "Urban playgrounds in the United States have recently been shown to be a particularly rich source of Toxocara eggs and inner-city children are at high risk of acquiring the infection." The solution to that problem seems to be fairly simple (don't let stray dogs and cats shit in the playground), and it doesn't require the resources of the federal government.

The very badly managed and fundamentally misguided war on drugs, as well as the badly managed war on terror, in addition to consuming resources which might otherwise be used to help people with all kinds of other problems such as poverty, ignorance, and disease...

Oh, jeeze...you, too? We're talking about electing a competent dog catcher in the ghettos. (I don't think Dennis Kucinich is going to get the nomination for president, so maybe he can run for a local office instead.)

...we do need to better deal with such things as the war on terror in order to be able to deal with domestic problems such as this

When the garbageman fails to pick up your trash from the curb on time do you blame that on the mismanagement of the war on terror? When the local schoolboard enacts an intelligent design biology curriculum do you blame that on the mismanagement of the war on terror? Do you blame potholes on the mismanagement of the war on terror? What about those damn kids who won't stay off your lawn? Are there any local government issues at all or is everything in society do deeply holistic that somehow is all comes down to the mismanagement of the war on terror?

Any particular reason that it should be federally funded? These are local problems we're talking about, not national ones.

It's a matter of resources.  If a particular area doesn't have the resources to deal with the problem, it won't be dealt with.  The federal government does have the resources.

"It's not my problem" isn't really a solution.

The federal government does have the resources

Actually, the federal government does not have the resources. Unless by "resources" you mean "the continued capacity to borrow money while pretending that doing so has no effect on the economy." It's exactly this sort of thought process (or, perhaps, lack thereof) that has caused the loathsome and detrimental expansion of federal power over the past few generations.

You're rich Uncle Sam is broke, Jimmy. He can still borrow money on his good name, and that's what he does because he's afraid you won't like him if he were to admit the truth.

Actually, the federal government does not have the resources. Unless by "resources" you mean "the continued capacity to borrow money while pretending that doing so has no effect on the economy."

No, I'm not a Republican.

No, I'm not a Republican

Are Republicans calling for a national program of roundworm eradication?

It's so tiresome to have to explain things to someone who knows perfectly well what I mean, but doesn't want to admit it.

Just replace "roundworm" with "civil liberties" and they'll be on board.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Well, you certainly have a lot of questions for me - serves me right for posting such a complicated comment.  Here we go.

Why federal funding?  Well, I suggested either state or federal funding.  It would depend upon who was willing to provide funds.  I am not wedded to the idea of federal funding.  If the federal government can find it within its budget to help, why not?  If they can't, then it is up to the states.  And who knows, maybe the municipalities.  Or the Red Cross.  Doctors Without Borders.  I'll take anybody at this point.

Why mention the homeless?  Admittedly most of the people whom we are concerned about are not homeless, but the homeless are a good example of how poverty can affect one's access to plumbing.  And homelessness is not trivial in America, there are many people in that category.  No reason not to consider them.  And in my observation, homeless people often fail to wash their hands.

While it is doubtlessly a good idea to keep dogs and cats out of the playgrounds, that does not negate the fact that poor hygiene is related to poverty and the resulting depression and apathy.  It is possible that better monitoring of playgrounds is crucial to this particular issue.  But people also need to CARE about their own hygiene and that of their children.  It is part of the problem.

And yes, it is certainly possible to consider the problem of parasitic worms in isolation, rather than as part of a larger problem of social decay, but it IS part of a larger problem.  I mean, why has this problem gotten so out of hand?  It's not just because nobody happened to notice.  It's because governments are not serving populations that no longer trust their government, and a huge social chasm has opened up, somewhat similar to what used to be called the "generation gap" but which is now more of an economic gap between rich America and poor America.  If we cannot bridge the gap it's going to be very hard to get cooperation at a local level to deal with ANY problems, including those of parasitic worms.  But I'm sorry if I seem to be riding a hobby horse here.  Maybe we should just concentrate on keeping dogs and cats out of playgrounds.  Certainly that would be easier to do, than it would be to deal with the fundamental systemic problems which are gradually destroying America.

If the federal government can find it within its budget to help, why not?

First of all, because this is not a national problem, it's a local problem. Second, because the federal government is running a deficit, so there is no room in the budget for anything new, let alone running local school districts or chasing after stray cats.

...people also need to CARE about their own hygiene and that of their children

I'm all for taking children away from truly neglectful mothers, but again, I wouldn't argue that it's a problem for the federal government to solve when there are state agencies that currently handle the job.

I mean, why has this problem gotten so out of hand?  It's not just because nobody happened to notice.  It's because governments are not serving populations that no longer trust their government, and a huge social chasm has opened up, somewhat similar to what used to be called the "generation gap" but which is now more of an economic gap between rich America and poor America

Let me be clear at least on this point: you are absolutely and demonstrably wrong about that, and I couldn't disagree more.

Your statements indicate that you think poverty is worse today than in the past and that parasitic infections among the poor are more prevalent today than in the past. There is an overwhelming amount of empirical data that shows you are wrong on both of those points. The idea that "this problem gotten so out of hand" presupposes that the problem was once under control, and there is absolutely no reason to think that is the case. All indications are that we are talking about this now because no one has noticed before.

The poor, in short, have always had worse health than the rich, and the poor have always had more parasites than the rich. We can therefore dismiss your notion that increasing income inequality has anything to do with parasitic infections.

The belief that the poor used to trust their government and therefore made their children wash their hands, and that increasing distrust has caused apathy is pure fantasy. There are any number of examples of public policies that were formulated on fantasy, and we call such policies "liberalism." If you wish to find the "fundamental systemic problems which are gradually destroying America" you need look no further.

"Because the federal government is running a deficit, so there is no room in the budget for anything new, let alone running local school districts or chasing after stray cats." Or saving children from serious diseases and slow death, which doesn't qualify as one whit more important than chasing stray cats, because if people don't have money, it must be their fault, and they should suffer. We need all that money for Iraq, which accounts for entire deficit. But maybe that was original point for conservatives like you: waste money on pointless wars to make sure no money remains available to save people from disease and death. Parasitic diseases don't affect similarly poor people in Europe or east Asia? Damned socialists want to waste our money on disease control instead of important things like killing Arabs!

"The poor, in short have always had worse health than the rich, and the poor have always had more parasites than the rich." Your poor will always be with you, and you like it that way because it makes you feel better about yourself? How dare evil "liberals" try to address social problems, when I've got mine! Your foreign policy formulated on fantasy has done 100 times more damage than curing disease ever could, but those damnable poor people deserve to be punished. You sound like someone out of "Erewhon", dystopia where people were prosecuted for getting sick.

...saving children from serious diseases and slow death, which doesn't qualify as one whit more important than chasing stray cats...

Look, I know you're slow, so I'll patiently try to explain this again: poor, urban children seem to be contracting a lot of toxocariasis which is caused by, among other things, exposure to parasite eggs in playgrounds - eggs that are deposited in playgrounds in felid feces. Among the easiest solutions to this problem is, quite literally, chasing stray cats.

What toxocariasis is not caused by is the war in Iraq. Sure, I know you're fascinated by war and all, but biology can be equally fascinating, I think, and biology is the topic today.

What toxocariasis is not caused by is the war in Iraq.

OK, I'm going to bite.  As you are perfectly aware (since you are not as stupid as you are pretending to be, because you can type), no one is suggesting that toxocariasis is caused by the war in Iraq.  What is caused by the war in Iraq is the current state of the US's finances, which you say are so dire that we cannot afford to deal with toxocariasis on a federal level.  Duh.

You claim that it's a local problem.  Which locale is it isolated to, in that case?

When I was a child, I had roundworms more than once, but I also had reliable access to medical care, so the problem was quickly spotted and dealt with, no matter how many times it cropped up.  We have a large underclass without reliable access to health care...do you think that perhaps, just perhaps, that might be the cause of the widespread occurrence of parasites in the urban poor?

No, I didn't think so, you're too busy playing your little game to think.

What is caused by the war in Iraq is the current state of the US's finances, which you say are so dire that we cannot afford to deal with toxocariasis on a federal level

No, even without the war in Iraq there would be a federal budget deficit.

You claim that it's a local problem.  Which locale is it isolated to, in that case?

Poor locales, according to the article. Hotez, the doctor who wrote the article, admits that we don't really know in which specific locales or among which specific populations the problem is isolated, and that it needs more study.

We have a large underclass without reliable access to health care...do you think that perhaps, just perhaps, that might be the cause of the widespread occurrence of parasites in the urban poor?

No, I do not think that, and apparently neither does Hotez. He says that "urban playgrounds" that are infested with the parasites are the cause. He also says that "simple and cost-effective public health solutions" are the answer, not necessarily reliable access to health care. (If you don't understand the distinction between "health care" and "public health," you're not alone - novy didn't understand either. I have explained the difference to him, so you may read about it in my other comments.)

even without the war in Iraq there would be a federal budget deficit.

Correct!  It was the tax cuts  combined with giveaways piled on to boondoggles provided to cronies and big donors that brought the deficit back.  The war in Iraq just compounded the problem one hundredfold. I'm kicking myself for not being more active in Republican party activities, because then I could get a lucrative government contract, keep all the money, and not have to produce anything.  

A budget surplus pissed away in a few short years, now that's 'conservatism' at its irrational finest.  Of course, now it's explained away by saying that the budget surplus never existed, which doesn't explain why the Republicans ran on tax refunds due to the surplus.

So, tell me, if cutting taxes actually raises revenue, as 'conservatives' say, then why the deficit?  Don't say 'We didn't cut spending at the same time', because that obviates the increased revenue argument.

I mean, since the Republicans have done just absolutely everything right, and their principles are so solid, then why do the rationales for policies swing so wildly?  If what they have been claiming was true, then why, empirically, have they been so ineffective at actually accomplishing the stated goal of the policy?

The policy is a foregone conclusion, and the rest is just marketing, and you, my friend, are a sucker.

sierra tango foxtrot uniform

So, tell me, if cutting taxes actually raises revenue, as 'conservatives' say, then why the deficit?
Take your pick...
-Obstructive Democrats
-The economy took a bad hop
-The sun got in their eyes
-Paris Hilton didn't sell enough hamburgers
-It's the business cycle (actually, this one surprises me...when the economy is good, it's due to tax cuts...when it's bad, it's Clinton's fault)

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

It was the tax cuts combined with giveaways piled on to boondoggles provided to cronies and big donors that brought the deficit back

No, it was due almost entirely to 1) increased spending, and, 2) decreased tax receipts due to a recession.

A budget surplus pissed away in a few short years, now that's 'conservatism' at its irrational finest

Actually, that's the business cycle.

So, tell me, if cutting taxes actually raises revenue, as 'conservatives' say, then why the deficit?

Because federal spending went up even as tax receipts dropped because of the economy. Still, it's a fact that federal tax receipts went up after Bush's 2003 tax cuts, but I am skeptical that much of that increase can be attributed to the tax cuts rather than to the regular business cycle.

The policy is a foregone conclusion, and the rest is just marketing, and you, my friend, are a sucker

How do you figure I am a sucker? What marketing do you think I have fallen for?

As I said before, I thought decreased taxes led to increased revenue.  At least, that's what Bill Kristol says.  

Oh, the business cycle...  Well, then I guess nothing can be done.

sierra tango foxtrot uniform

I thought decreased taxes led to increased revenue

That depends on a number of factors, but, yes, it's true over the long-term.

Oh, the business cycle...  Well, then I guess nothing can be done

Perhaps you hadn't noticed that recent recessions (1991, 2001) have been very mild. That strongly suggests that something can be done, i.e., monetary policy matters a great deal.

even without the war in Iraq there would be a federal budget deficit.

I know this won't persuade you, but less dogmatic readers may find it interesting.

See policy principle #2 in that article. The US government has not made an attempt to follow that principle for a long time. Neither current war spending nor any of the rest of the federal budget is structured in a way that satisfies any of the three principles. (One could argue that Alan Greenspan was arguing for policies that were congruent with principles #1 and #3, but for somewhat different reasons than are advocated by keynesians.)

In any case, as I mentioned above, even without the war in Iraq there would be a federal budget deficit.

I'm not defending borrow-and-spend with that link, just pointing out that a deficit is not necessarily a bad thing.

...just pointing out that a deficit is not necessarily a bad thing

All that matters in the context of our discussion is that at the moment the national debt is so high that it is a drag on the economy. (As things stand now, the interest on the debt is the third largest budget item, after welfare and defense.)

I never said that there is more poverty or more parasitic infection today than in the past.  You merely infer that this is what I was thinking (it wasn't) and then conclude that I am absolutely and demonstrably wrong.  Actually, I am well aware that problems of poverty and of parasitic (and other kinds of) infection were worse in the past than they are in the present, but I am still not satisfied.  Levels of poverty and of parasitic infection are still too high for my liking.  It is still a problem, and one that we should be concerned about.

I think that the federal government can reasonably take an interest in the well-being and health of the citizens of the nation.  There is nothing in the US constitution (which I have read) which places parasitic infection within the sole jurisdiction of state governments rather than the federal government.

It is perfectly true that the federal government is in very dire financial straits and will actually be bankrupt if it continues to spend money in as irresponsible manner as it has been doing.  That doesn't in itself mean that the government therefore cannot spend money to combat parasitic disease if that were to be considered a higher priority than the various other expenditures (especially the war on terror) which are presently consuming all available funds and creating massive deficits.  Maybe the priorities of the federal government are wrong.

I personally do believe that it is necessary to combat terrorism.  I have never belonged to the extreme pacifist camp which would rather just ignore terrorism and hope it goes away by itself.  But I do believe that the existing strategy has proved to be grossly inefficient.  We need to do better.  And with more intelligent and effective approaches to terrorism, drug abuse, etc., there could then be money left over for the purpose of making the country better and dealing with social problems.  I realize that this would not be easy and is almost certainly not going to happen.  But I can still advocate it.

I never said that there is more poverty or more parasitic infection today than in the past

What, then, did you mean when you wrote, "why has this problem gotten so out of hand," and, "populations that no longer trust their government, and a huge social chasm has opened up"?

Was the problem ever in hand? Before the social chasm opened up did the poor trust their government?

There is nothing in the US constitution (which I have read) which places parasitic infection within the sole jurisdiction of state governments rather than the federal government

Actually there is the 10th Amendment. I realize that's almost unknown these days, or at least it is actively ignored by people who desire a more powerful central government. (People who are mostly, though certainly not exclusively, on the left.)

The principle behind the 10th Amendment suggests that unless there is a specific reason to suppose something is a national problem (that a similar event is occurring in two different states does not make it a national issue) then political action needed to address the problem should be left to the states. Perhaps you disagree with that principle and think the 10th Amendment should be appealed. If not, then I think it's reasonable to ask you on what basis should the eradication of parasites be elevated to a federal level?

It is perfectly true that the federal government is in very dire financial straits...That doesn't in itself mean that the government therefore cannot spend money to combat parasitic disease...

No, but it means "the federal government can afford it" is not true and is therefore not a valid reason to make something a federal responsibility. It is that same mindset that gets us bridges to nowhere and all the other pork-barrel nonsense.

...with more intelligent and effective approaches to terrorism, drug abuse, etc., there could then be money left over for the purpose of making the country better and dealing with social problems

I'll ask again, why should "dealing with social problems" necessarily be the responsibility of the federal government? States and cities deal with social problems - do you think the federal government should subsume all of the responsibilities of states and cities? If not, where do you draw the line? From what we know about the causes of parasitic infections and the public health measures that are most useful in preventing them, there is little reason to see a federal role as being necessary. The urban playgrounds mentioned in the article are almost certainly not federal property or administered by the federal government; there is no reason to expect the care of those playgrounds to be a federal responsibility.

The reason why I have said that the problem of parasitic disease has gotten out of control is that we are only now becoming aware that it is a huge problem in America in the 21st century, a time and place which have generally been thought to have gotten beyond having to worry about such things.  We think of parasitic worms as a 3rd world problem, not a problem which should be so widespread in an advanced country.  So yes, parasitic disease has never really been under control, but it has not received the attention that it warrants, so in the sense of public understanding and response, it is out of control.  I'm sorry if my phrasing was misleading.

It's perfectly true that just because a problem exists in more than one state does not necessarily make it a federal problem.  However, that doesn't necessarily make it a state problem either.  And certainly, the kinds of problems in which the federal government finds it necessary to intervene are generally problems that exist in more than one state (or more typically, in every state).  But even if there was just one state in which there was a huge epidemic of parasitic worm infections, the federal government might still consider it to be a national disaster and to be deserving of federal help.  

Why did the federal government do anything (slow though they were to respond) about the flooding of the city of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina?   This took place in the state of Louisiana and would not seem to be a national problem, it was a state problem (there was flooding in Texas too, of a less catastrophic nature, again, the kind of problem that Texas has to deal with all the time).  When there is a huge catastrophe, the federal government can reasonably seek to help.  Government is supposed to serve our needs.  If large numbers of Americans need help, the government should help.  A more libertarian interpretation of the role of government might be that the federal government should only act in case the country is attacked by a foreign power, but I think that the American public wants and needs a bit more than that from their federal government.

Nonetheless, as I have already said twice, I have no object to state funding rather than federal funding.  I would just like SOME level of government to assume responsibility for this terrible problem and take care of it.  It does not seem that individual citizens are going to solve it on their own.

State governments could also have solved the problem of racial segregation in the 1960's as well, had they wished to do so.  Sometimes the federal government steps in precisely because state governments have failed.  And I guess when the federal government also fails, the UN could step in - if it were a sufficiently effective organization to be able to do so, of course.

Then again, maybe Americans should just resign themselves to living with parasitic worms, since it is so difficult to get funding to do anything about it.

But even if there was just one state in which there was a huge epidemic of parasitic worm infections, the federal government might still consider it to be a national disaster and to be deserving of federal help

That's a pretty wild hypothetical, don't you think? I mean, to put the topic back in perspective, we're talking about a problem that afflicts, maybe, 3% of the population.

Why did the federal government do anything (slow though they were to respond) about the flooding of the city of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina?   This took place in the state of Louisiana and would not seem to be a national problem...When there is a huge catastrophe, the federal government can reasonably seek to help

The fact that one of the nation's major ports was destroyed was enough to make the Katrina recovery a federal issue. There was also massive displacement of people to other states, and, more to the point, the governors of the affected states asked the federal government for assistance. Disaster recovery on the scale of Katrina is something that the federal government is uniquely capable of doing. That is not the case for minor public health initiatives. (And, make no mistake, this roundworm problem is truly minor.)

Your comparison is quite inappropriate: on the one hand there is a natural disaster of epic (almost biblical) proportions, requiring a massive and immediate response by tens of thousands of public servants - on the other hand is a problem of unsanitary playgrounds. I mean, really, do you have any sense of proportion?

State governments could also have solved the problem of racial segregation in the 1960's as well, had they wished to do so

That's another specious comparison unless you wish to claim that allowing children to play in filth is a violation of their constitutional rights. And if it is then I guess you're arguing for taking those children away from their mothers.

Then again, maybe Americans should just resign themselves to living with parasitic worms, since it is so difficult to get funding to do anything about it

That's the most disingenuous thing you've written yet. What I have been saying all along (and you haven't explicitly disagreed) is that the amount of funding needed to address this problem is probably trivial.

It's a bit funny that after telling me it is IMPOSSIBLE for the federal government to come up with the money to help with parasitic infections, you wind up saying that "the amount of money needed to address this problem is probably trivial".  Then I guess the federal government could easily afford it.

You don't agree that a disease affecting 3% of the population is a massive epidemic. There are lots of diseases which affect less than a thousandth of a percent of the population.  There are also disease which affect more than 3%, which are even more serious, but 3% is significant.  We are talking about millions of people.  It's a lot.

You can certainly argue that there are national consequences when a major port such as New Orleans is destroyed, but then, there are national consequences when millions of Americans are sick.  These sick people are less economically productive, and that affects the national economy as well.  

I mean, would it actually be a bad thing if the federal government were to eradicate parasitic worm infections in America?  I fail to see why this is so offensive to you.  I have always thought that curing disease was a GOOD thing.

But if you would rather see this done at a state level, then, as I have been saying now in every single comment in this discussion, I have no objection to that either.  Let the states take care of it.  I just want SOMEONE to do it.  It is disgusting that there is so much parasitic worm infection in America.  I don't like it.

It's a bit funny that after telling me it is IMPOSSIBLE for the federal government to come up with the money to help with parasitic infections, you wind up saying that "the amount of money needed to address this problem is probably trivial".  Then I guess the federal government could easily afford it

I never said it would be impossible for the federal government to come up with more money. All I have said is that 1) this problem is not a national one and can easily be addressed by states or localities, and, 2) it is therefore fiscally imprudent to ask the federal government to pay for it.

There are lots of diseases which affect less than a thousandth of a percent of the population

Such as? (Are there any that are comparable to this situation?)

...there are national consequences when millions of Americans are sick

That's another specious argument because that reasoning can be used to justify making anything a federal program. Education, for example, has an enormous economic impact. Does that mean you want the federal government to take over the duties of every school board in the nation?

...would it actually be a bad thing if the federal government were to eradicate parasitic worm infections in America?

It would be wonderful, but unnecessary since local and state governments can handle it.

I do not really keep track of all the minor diseases, but for example Creuzfeldt-Yaacov disease certainly affects much less than a thousandth of a percent of the population, and believe me, there are lots more.  I don't want to have to do extensive research on this subject, if you don't mind.

So you do not claim that it is impossible for the federal government to pay for the eradication of parasitic worm diseases in America, but you do claim that it is fiscally imprudent for the federal government to do so.  If the actual cost is very minor, as you also assert, then the fiscal consequences must also be very minor, and the imprudence that you are worried about must also be very minor.  Unless, of course, you are worried that this would set a bad precedent.  If the federal government were to solve the problem of parasitic worm infection, who knows where this would end!  They might also solve other, more expensive problems.  I can see why this would worry you.

Yes, education does have an enormous national impact, and while this does not require the federal government to take over the responsibilities of the local school boards, the federal government DOES spend money on education.  It is at least to some extent a federal concern.

And if state and local governments can handle the problem of parasitic worm infection, fine, let them do so.  Why haven't they?  What's keeping them?  Don't they care about it?  But maybe they just needed to have the problem pointed out to them.  Assuming that they are reading treesandthings, now they know.  I am expecting that they will therefore act very promptly, and it will all be handled.

...for example Creuzfeldt-Yaacov disease certainly affects much less than a thousandth of a percent of the population

What is the federal government doing about that? (I assume you meant Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease.) As far as I know there is a little bit of research, and regulations regarding the food supply and blood donations. They certainly aren't going out and searching for infected animals.

So you do not claim that it is impossible for the federal government to pay for the eradication of parasitic worm diseases in America...They might also solve other, more expensive problems

Perhaps we should (by your reasoning) have the federal government get into the trash collection business? And plow my streets when it snows? And take over the local police and fire departments? And administer the local volunteer school-crossing guards?

Is there any limit you would put on the authority of the federal government? Or do you draw the line at roundworm eggs as a federal problem while every other neighborhood concern can be handled locally?

Yes, education does have an enormous national impact, and while this does not require the federal government to take over the responsibilities of the local school boards, the federal government DOES spend money on education

Perhaps you don't see a problem with that, but I see it as wasted money. The country was better off, educationally, when there was no federal department of education. (Or do you wish to argue that our kids is learning more better now?) That's exactly the sort of thing I am arguing against.

...if state and local governments can handle the problem of parasitic worm infection, fine, let them do so.  Why haven't they?...maybe they just needed to have the problem pointed out to them...I am expecting that they will therefore act very promptly...

I'm not expecting that. Are you really arguing for precipitous action? I would prefer the opposite: measured, effective action.

What, you are worried about precipitous action against parasitic worms?  Personally, if I had a parasitic worm infection I could not possibly act too quickly to remedy it.

The reason why the federal government does not get involved in such things as garbage collection, snow plowing, school crossing guards etc., is that these things are all being handled successfully on the local level, they are not unsolved problems.  When there is an unsolved problem, and one which has a large national impact, the federal government can at least consider if it should get involved.  There are also exceptions to the instances which you cite.  The federal government does not do the local snow plowing, BUT there was a case a few years ago when the Canadian army was called out to help snow removal in the city of Toronto (admittedly that was a different country, but it is still interesting that snow removal can sometimes involve higher levels of government beyond the municipal).  And although the federal government doesn't take out your garbage for you, or collect it from the sidewalk in front of your house, the federal government is involved with some waste disposal issues on the industrial level, such as the still unsolved problem of nuclear waste.

Even if the federal department of education has been a complete waste of money (I can't really say for sure if it has) that does not mean that in principle, the federal government could not in some way promote or aid education in America.  Education DOES have national consequences and CAN be a national concern rather than merely a local concern.  You don't like the fact that the federal government has been very inefficient and wastes a lot of money, and I don't like it either, but that doesn't mean that the federal government therefore shouldn't do anything and should stop spending money.  Rather, it means that the federal government should act more effectively, and should spend money more wisely.

I have encountered various spellings of this arcane disease, but we'll use yours, that's OK.  Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease is an interesting disease because it is related to Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, also known as mad cow disease.  So while it is currently a very rare disease, it is feared that contaminated meat could eventually cause a major outbreak.  It has a very long incubation period, so that doesn't happen quickly.  When it is caused by mad cow, it becomes something called "variant Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease" because it apparently is not exactly the same as when it comes from a different source.  So it is being studied.  Anyway, my point wasn't that the government spends money on much less widespread diseases than parasitic worm infection (although they do) but that parasitic worm infection affects a large enough number of people to be considered a major disease.  Many other diseases affect far fewer people.  Not that there's a competition.  This is NOT a minor medical problem, it is harming the health of millions of Americans.  I don't see why the federal government would consider that to be unimportant.  Or the state governments, for that matter.  You would rather see it handled at the state level, and I personally don't care what at what level it is handled as long as it gets handled.  Is that such a terrible disagreement?

Personally, if I had a parasitic worm infection I could not possibly act too quickly to remedy it

You are the third person in this discussion to confuse healthcare with public health. I am not saying that poor children who are infected with parasites shouldn't seek or receive immediate medical attention; I have been discussing the idea of dealing with the proximate cause of such infections: the presence of parasite eggs in playgrounds.

The reason why the federal government does not get involved in such things as garbage collection, snow plowing, school crossing guards etc., is that these things are all being handled successfully on the local level, they are not unsolved problems

Those things are not done uniformly well by local communities, and, by and large, the sort of public health activities that prevent parasites are being handled by local communities. Roundworm is a solved problem in almost all communities, and there is not reason to think that it cannot be solved locally everywhere except the idea that the poor are ignorant (that's largely but not universally true) are therefore need a federal nanny-state to care for them.

...[roundworm infection] is NOT a minor medical problem, it is harming the health of millions of Americans.  I don't see why the federal government would consider that to be unimportant.  Or the state governments, for that matter

What I have been saying is that each level of government should play an appropriate roll, while you are suggesting that it should be solely a federal concern. One analogous situation that I mentioned elsewhere in this discussion is the threat from influenza, which is far, far more widespread (and has a much larger economic impact) than parasite infections. The federal government handles the research needed to combat influenza and oversees the production of new vaccines each year, but it is local governments (state, county, or municipal) that handle the actual vaccinations. There are good reasons for public health programs to be structured that way - reasons that have to do with effectiveness rather than cost per se.

This is becoming an exhausting discussion.  I am amazed that after I have said over and over that I have no objection to state funding for this problem, you are telling me in your latest comment that "you are suggesting that it should be solely a federal concern".  I never suggested that at any time.  I have suggested that the federal government COULD help in this matter if they wanted to, and if they could find it within their budget.  Given that the cost, according to you, is not very great, perhaps they could indeed find it within their budget.

I am not confusing public health with personal health.  I raised the point about the sense of urgency that I would personally feel if I had a parasitic worm infection just to show how everybody who has such an infection would probably feel, and to show that this is the kind of problem which should indeed be solved rapidly if such a thing is possible.  You are expressing concern about precipitous action.  Well, I can at least imagine such a thing as an overly precipitous action against parasitic worms.  For example, if President Bush were to decide that the best way to get rid of parasitic worms quickly would be by nuclear bombing of affected areas, that would be precipitous (as well as insane).  But if this involves a more reasonable approach, it can and should be done quickly, because it is ridiculous that the US allows such a public health problem to persist.

But if this involves a more reasonable approach, it can and should be done quickly, because it is ridiculous that the US allows such a public health problem to persist

The doctor who wrote the article said the matter needs more study, and I think that's fine. The CDC could easily shift around some of its spending priorities (maybe take it out of the AIDS research budget) to fund a study or two to better define the parameters of the problem. At the same time urban communities should examine the measures they take to combat parasitic infections of animals and see if they could be more effective. Neither of these things would be precipitous action.

Everything that you suggest in your latest comment is perfectly reasonable, and I'm all for it.

Disaster recovery on the scale of Katrina is something that the federal government is uniquely capable of doing.

As evidenced by hiring a feller with an extensive background in horse shows (horse racing?) to oversee the recovery efforts.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

"Actually, I would prefer that my government quit spending money on things that aren't essential, at least until there is no budget deficit." But your trillion-dollar debacle in Iraq and your hundred-million dollar "War on Terror" don't really relate to that, do they? Maybe if your government didn't fund silly things like Social Security and Medicare, you could afford essential things like resource wars and expensive public paranoia.

Sure, states or local governments could "take some basic steps to reduce parasitic infections" and fund "public health initiatives", and theoretically that would make more sense, even though when 1/4 of children  in certain populations have roundworms it might be fair to suggest that your problem has more than "local" implications. But when states and communities have large numbers of poor people, who don't pay as much in taxes because they don't have wherewithal to do so, such states and communities usually figure that they can't afford to spend money on such initiatives; they might be lucky to have enough money to pay teachers, police, firefighters, and garbage collectors. And who cares if kids have roundworms? If no one in your suburb has them, just avoid visiting "bad neighbourhoods" where "those people" live and all will be well. Why spend your money on "them"?

Your federal government runs health agencies like "Centre for Disease Control". But why should you spend money trying to stop AIDS? Why not just abolish such agencies? Shouldn't states and local governments take responsibility? Why should federal government take responsibility for supporting "general welfare" of its citizenry just because it says so in your Constitution? Health should be considered "local matter" and if local people can't afford to stop disease, you can stop it from spreading by constructing fences around them to keep them in. (Another bout of "faux-bashing" of capitalism, or bashing of "faux-capitalism"? I can't decide.)

But your trillion-dollar debacle in Iraq and your hundred-million dollar "War on Terror" don't really relate to that, do they?

I'll tell you what: you submit a writeup on Iraq or the war on terror and I promise I'll stay on topic the way I am in this discussion.

...when 1/4 of children  in certain populations have roundworms it might be fair to suggest that your problem has more than "local" implications

I was discussing solutions to the problem, not implications.

If no one in your suburb has them, just avoid visiting "bad neighbourhoods" where "those people" live and all will be well. Why spend your money on "them"?

I don't necessarily object to my taxes going to funding public health in nearby communities. What I object to is people who try to make every societal concern a problem for the federal government to solve, even things that quite obviously have solutions that are easily carried out at the local level.

Your federal government runs health agencies like "Centre for Disease Control"...Why not just abolish such agencies?

I rather doubt that a lot of additional research is needed here. The causes and solutions to public health problems such as roundworms are pretty well known, and I doubt that the Centers for Disease Control need to weigh in on the best ways to prevent children from ingesting canine feces.

Why should federal government take responsibility for supporting "general welfare" of its citizenry just because it says so in your Constitution?

Obviously they should - in the manner stipulated in that document. But that's not what we're talking about here.

Health should be considered "local matter"...

Indeed it should, unless we're talking about a health problem that is more effectively tackled on a national basis. I wouldn't, for example, advocate that every state or village produce its own influenza vaccine every year when the federal government is obviously better situated to do so.

Another bout of "faux-bashing" of capitalism, or bashing of "faux-capitalism"?

Faux-bashing.

That I will submit writeups on Iraq and War on Terror seems almost certain, doesn't it? But thanks for encouragement.

If states in which these problems exist have money to spare, then state and local efforts will be more than adequate in all likelihood. If they don't, then state and local efforts probably will never come to be.

When states can't or won't solve problems, federal government still can, if you concede it has role to play.

Additional research doesn't seem necessary to me either. I gave example of federal government playing role in health care, besides obvious role of Medicare. You then gave example of federal government playing role in producing influenza vaccine. If 1/4 of all poor US children have condition, maybe "local" solutions won't do trick.

So, do you figure I truly love liberal capitalism but just try to trick you? I probably love Big Brother also. Secretly, I serve in US Marines in Anwar Province? Must I truly believe in economic Stalinism for you to be happy? If someone chooses moniker "Jenna Bush", must she love Daddy? If you choose zyx, must you be dyslexic? What do you want?

"If you choose zyx, must you be dyslexic?"

It's long been my contention that Ken's choice of an internet handle marks him as a backwards Alpha male.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

If someone chooses moniker "Jenna Bush", must she love Daddy?<BR<BR>Actually, the person who chose that moniker loved Apple products, hence making his daddy Steve Jobs.  Can't ya hear Can't ya hear the thunder?

If states in which these problems exist have money to spare, then state and local efforts will be more than adequate in all likelihood. If they don't, then state and local efforts probably will never come to be

Since the world is full of problems, then why should  care if the citizens of some other state don't consider parasitic infections to be an important problem? It would be nice to know the true extent of the problem since the information presented in the article apparently came from a few geographically-narrow studies. (Why, for example, are Hispanics particularly affected?) It would be fine with me if the NIH or CDC funded further studies to better determine the extent of the problem, but it still seems that the solution is likely to be a local one, not a new nationwide program.

I gave example of federal government playing role in health care, besides obvious role of Medicare. You then gave example of federal government playing role in producing influenza vaccine

You are conflating healthcare and public health. The two are related, but are still distinct functions carried out by different types of institutions and professionals. That there are many pregnant women who are not tested for parasitic infections is a healthcare problem. Removing the root cause(s) of parasitic infections is a public health problem.

If 1/4 of all poor US children have condition, maybe "local" solutions won't do trick

So what's your solution? A new federal agency dedicated to ensuring that poor kids stop playing in filth?

If the citizens of state next to you do nothing about worms, eventually maybe you'll have to worry about worms in your state. Thus, people in your state might care even if people next door don't.

Yes, it would be nice to know how extensive this problem gets, and NIH or CDC might be able to determine that.

I used wrong term apparently. Parasitic infections constitute public health problem, just like producing influenza vaccine. That explains why parasitic infections might be better handled by federal government. I stand corrected.

My solution? Same as your solution, get NIH or CDC to determine extent of problem then move from there.

If the citizens of state next to you do nothing about worms, eventually maybe you'll have to worry about worms in your state

My community has to worry about parasites now even though there is not a significant problem with human infections. It is a very basic sanitation issue; it's not like mothers around here consider the lack of parasitic infections and say, 'it's okay to let my children play in filth.' It's not a question of child-to-child transmission or of infected animals spreading to a larger geographic area. The types of parasites we're discussing here are commonly found in the environment and it's only through constant vigilance that we avoid them. The presence of absence of human infections in surrounding communities has no effect on their prevalence here.

Parasitic infections constitute public health problem, just like producing influenza vaccine. That explains why parasitic infections might be better handled by federal government

On the contrary, almost all public health measures are handled by local and state governments. (Notable exceptions are things such as production of vaccines and the safety of the national food supply.)

My solution? Same as your solution, get NIH or CDC to determine extent of problem then move from there

So you agree that the federal government shouldn't have to contribute more than a few tens of thousands of dollars toward fixing the problem and that it is, fundamentally, an issue for state and local governments. Excellent. I'll just ignore everything else you've written above.

"[F]ederal government shouldn't have to contribute more than a few tens of thousands of dollars toward fixing the problem" at first, until after it figures out what causes problems and what can be done about them.

You claim whole problem revolves around letting your children play in filth, as if those savages in black and Latin neighbourhoods want their children playing in filth. That there happens to be less filth in your well-to-do suburban neighbourhood than in their slum neighbourhoods or that you can afford to hire nannies to look after your children so that they don't play in what minimal filth exists in your upper-crust domain while poor people can't means nothing to you; don't let your kids interact with those people, keep them out of those areas, and everything will be fine for you. Let state and local governments that in many cases have already demonstrated that they couldn't care less "take care" of problem, just don't let federal government do anything because that might cost you money, in some indirect abstract sort of way.

Your form of libertarianism serves as advertisement against it. Your very first comment ("The lesson I got from this article is simple: stay away from poor people. Perhaps more importantly, keep your children away from poor children.") was almost comically heartless, as if you think your society gets more from sick and desperate underclass than it would get from productive healthy workers, as if you think you ultimately do better because society ignores sick and desperate underclass rather than take any steps to insure that its entire work force consists of productive healthy workers, however minimal. No wonder so many advanced countries reject your Anglo capitalist model with its short-term views, preferring European social democracy or even Asian crony capitalism instead.

Please feel free to ignore me, if you can. So far it seems you can't. Maybe you actually have some conscience hidden under your Social Darwinist exterior, or maybe you don't really mean any of what you say at all.

Your form of libertarianism serves as advertisement against it. Your very first comment ("The lesson I got from this article is simple: stay away from poor people. Perhaps more importantly, keep your children away from poor children.") was almost comically heartless,

I think zyx actually was trying to be "comically heartless"... I wonder how many more iterations of discussions you guys could get out of "people need to maintain better hygiene" and "the federal government should step in and you'd agree with me if you weren't racist"

Maybe so, thus my remark about sarcasm and nuance. Thousands of iterations? Maybe zyx and I have been plotting to make it look like TnT has as much discussion as Plastic, on theory that if people like you believe these discussion exist, you will join them? Alternatively, maybe these iterations really count as no lamer than what often passes for discussion on Plastic anyway.

You claim whole problem revolves around letting your children play in filth...

This is from the news article that you linked to:

"Urban playgrounds in the United States have recently been shown to be a particularly rich source of Toxocara eggs and inner-city children are at high risk of acquiring the infection,"

It is not merely my claim, it is the claim of medical professionals. Perhaps you had a different cause in mind?

...as if those savages in black and Latin neighbourhoods...

I will not engage you on this level of speech other than to note that, both here and on Plastic, it is, almost without exception, comments advocating liberal/leftist ideas that use such epithets.

That there happens to be less filth in your well-to-do suburban neighbourhood than in their slum neighbourhoods...means nothing to you...

On the contrary: it means a great deal to me. It is a strong indication that there is something being done well in my community that is being done poorly (or not at all) in slums. Medical science, as it applies both to healthcare and public health, leads me to think that very basic measures (among which, as I've mentioned in other comments here, would be teaching children proper hygiene and addressing the threat from domestic animals) would solve the problem.

Your very first comment...was almost comically heartless, as if you think your society gets more from sick and desperate underclass than it would get from productive healthy workers, as if you think you ultimately do better because society ignores sick and desperate underclass...

"Almost?!" "As if?!"

No wonder so many advanced countries reject your Anglo capitalist model with its short-term views, preferring European social democracy...

You silly goose! Does the EU (chock-full of "socially-democratic" countries) try to manage the animal control services in the individual nations? Of course not! Why not? Because advanced countries reject your leftist model of the central state government dictating every last detail of the administration of local communities.

"On the contrary: it means a great deal to me. It is a strong indication that there is something being done well in my community that is being done poorly (or not at all) in slums." Because your community can afford to do those things and their communities can't, so your children deserve clean playgrounds and theirs don't.

"If you think your society gets more from sick and desperate underclass than it would get from productive healthy workers, [and] if you think you ultimately do better because society ignores sick and desperate underclass," then you delude yourself in name of your heartless ideology. Rich people in India think like you do, but their country hasn't gained much from screwing its poor. If ordinary Indians had been lifted up instead of stepped on, India would certainly be better off than China today, having several advantages China didn't like widespread English literacy, and might already have become incipient superpower. Your ideology, if taken to its logical conclusion in your country, will reduce you to also-ran status by 2050, and it will be all you deserve.

Because your community can afford to do those things and their communities can't...

Oh, bullshit. These children already attend public schools - how difficult would it be to better incorporate hygiene lessons in a way that addresses this problem? How difficult would it be for the state government, rather than the local government, to implement a program to test playgrounds? How difficult would it be for a city to modify the priorities of their animal control officers? What I am arguing against is the idea that this is a national problem (unless you or someone else can present some evidence or argument that it is a national problem) or that it is the federal government that needs to act rather than state or local governments. I am also arguing that funding is not a barrier to action because the things that need to be done are not expensive.

If you think your society gets more from sick and desperate underclass than it would get from productive healthy workers...

You may go on beating up on that strawman as long as you would like. I don't really care. Nothing I have written supports that accusation and I can only conclude that you are grasping at straws because I really haven't given any indication that I adhere to an ideology that fits into a nice, neat pigeonhole.

Hygiene lessons don't make filth magically disappear from suburbs or make them appear in slums.

It might be easy to initiate state programs to test play areas. But somehow these state programs haven't come into existence.

Maybe what needs to be done would really be cheap. Hence I agreed with your concept of testing first to find out how extensive problem was. This provided you opportunity to take cheap shot.

Your first post, and your response to my last post ("as if"), made me think you were denying that you cared whether sick or underclass people got screwed out of opportunity to be more productive. More of my traditional problem with nuance and sarcasm?

...somehow these state programs haven't come into existence

I was making a hypothetical recommendation. No one has yet shown the need for such programs.

...your response to my last post ("as if"), made me think you were denying that you cared whether sick or underclass people got screwed out of opportunity to be more productive

I care, but not very much. If I knew such a thing was happening then I might support government action to ameliorate the problem. But if the sort of action being proposed was along the lines of 'these people can't be bothered to attend to their stray cat problem' then I wouldn't figure it had suddenly become the job of the federal government to do it for them.