stupid

2 things that seem so obvious to me that I can't understand why smart people (like my parents) don't get them:

1. things like this are mostly empty rhetoric. I am a democrat. I like democrats. The only reason democrats are talking about helping the middle class is because this is perhaps the most uncontrovertial policy position it is possible to hold. You want to know why? Because *everyone* thinks they're middle class. Either you're poor, in which case you're aspirational and call yourself middle class, you actually are middle class, or you're rich, but not the richest person you know, so you feel middle class. Besides, it's kind of gauche to actually call yourself rich, so at most, you're "upper middle class."
   
   My parents think they're middle class, yet they were able to send me to a fancy prep school whose semiannual glossy alumnae magazine features little blurbs on what "Teensy" '54 and "Muffin" '61 are up to these days. (man I love those names. can you imagine being 70 years old and named Teensy?) I felt middle class at that school too, in part because *my* bedroom wasn't two stories tall, and *I* didn't own any horses or get a brand new BMW on my 16th birthday. But guess what? The horse-owning, two story bedroom-having, BMW drivers thought they were middle class too. *They* didn't have private jets or second homes in the south of France. *They* had to rent when they went to "the vineyard" for the summer. It's just like how Joe Lieberman painted himself as middle class compared to Ned Lamont. *He* didn't grow up in a family compound and have buildings in New England colleges named after his grandfather. Just kindly ignore the fact that he's in the top 1% of incomes in one of the wealthiest nations in the world.
   
   So chances are, when the dems talk about helping the middle class, they're not really talking about my parents or the rest of the coastal "latte liberal" elites who actually pay attention to more than which candidate has the nicer smile. So why do we all think they are?
   


2. How is there any debate at all about this? This columnist thinks it's racist and wrong to force DC schoolchildren to get the HPV vaccine. Because why aren't vaccinations voluntary anyway? Increased education and awareness will solve all! (Let's ignore the obvious fact that DC is actually terrible at anything education related.) I actually think there's a convenient game theory term to explain this, but I can't remember what it is. (something like the opposite of the tragedy of the commons?)
   
   The basic idea is that if people all act in their own rational self interest, a lot of people won't get vaccinated. Vaccines are expensive, and the chance of actually getting cervical cancer from HPV (for example) is actually pretty small. I have no numbers, but lets say it's like a 2% chance of getting cancer at some point later in life when who knows? cancer treatments might have improved appreciably. (even this number seems high) So many rational actors will decide to spend the $500 on something else.
   
   Here's the thing, rational actors consider only their own interests, but there are additional societal interests to consider. My getting vaccinated doesn't only reduce my risk of cancer, it reduces the risk of anyone I sleep with, as well as anyone they sleep with, as well as anyone the people they slept with sleep with. So if I get vaccinated, even if no one else does, the chances of anyone else getting cancer have just dropped from 2 to 1.9999999999%. Each additional vaccination drops their risk more. And while it's not a big deal to you personally if your risk of cancer is 2%, it's a HUGE deal to society of 2% of the entire population is going to get sick. (okay, okay, I know men can't get cervical cancer. but apparently HPV is also linked to anal cancer in gay men. so we're not just talking about women here.)
   
   So, in an instance where it's in society's best interests, but not individuals' best interests to get something done, of course society should intervene. Incidentally, my arguments also lead to the conclusion, compulsory voting: thumbs up. But of course the opp to that is a bunch of lofty rhetoric about the social contract and the value of voluntary everything to a free society. This rhetoric is a lot less convincing when people's lives are at stake. Especially when most of the rhetoric is tied up in these absolutely absurd accusations of racism. So, in conclusion, mandatory HPV vaccination: thumbs up.