This is what socialism brings.

Poverty has forced at least 225,000 children in Haiti’s cities into slavery as unpaid household servants, far more than previously thought, a report said Tuesday.

The Pan American Development Foundation’s report also said some of those children — mostly young girls — suffer sexual, psychological and physical abuse while toiling in extreme hardship.

The report recommends Haiti’s government and international donors focus efforts on educating the poor and expanding social services such as shelters for girls, who make up an estimated two-thirds of the child servant population.

Young servants are known as “restavek” — Haitian Creole for “stays with” — and their plight is both widely known and a source of great shame in the Caribbean nation that was founded by a slave revolt more than 200 years ago.

via Report says 225,000 Haiti children work as slaves | Top AP Latin America Stories | Chron.com – Houston Chronicle.

Just a couple thoughts on this. This is what happens when you have a socialist/welfare mentality as a society. Haiti has long been looked at as a nation that needs handouts. All handouts do is destroy the incentive to work. We should allow nations like Haiti to fail, and when they do, real leaders will step up to eventually move the country forward. The problem is countries, like the United States, always rush in to save them from failure, and what you get is a worsening condition that would have long ago ended if rock bottom was allowed to be hit.

Also, child slavery is somewhat of a red herring. Is a child having to work to help support their family slavery? Were children slaves when we were more agricultural, and they worked on the farm? It’s silly to automatically say they are slaves. If there is sexual abuse that is much different. That is something that should be severly punished, because it is an act of violence on an individual (even worse that it’s a child). Work is not violence, and it is not slavery. If the child is prevented from working by do gooder liberals, there is a much larger chance that the child will die of starvation, be pushed into criminal enterprises, or become an orphan.

I love how our media and liberal elites love to sit back and judge other countries. “They can’t have child labor. Look at us. We are outlawed that long ago.” Do they really think that Haitian parents care or love their children any less than they do? Talk about arrogance. We once had child labor too. Not because we loved our children less back then, but because it was a necessity of life.

The solution again is to let the country stand on its own. If Haiti’s citizens embrace a more capitalistic economy and are allowed to prosper, child slavery(labor) will eventually disappear. It disappears as productivity and prosperity increase, and child labor is no longer needed to sustain the livelihood of Haitian families. Why is it no longer needed? Because prosperity is increased by productivity increases. The more productive a society is, the more prosperous it is. Productivity and prosperity feed on each other moving society continually upward. Productivity increases prosperity by giving more goods and services with less inputs, and prosperity when reinvested (not confiscated by gov’t) increases productivity by being able to afford technologies that can produce without more labor (example: machinery). The more productive the society, the less people that need to work for a given standard of living. Needing less people to work means eventually children will not need to work. Haitian parents, if given the opportunity, will choose to not have their children work, just like American parents. That opportunity won’t present itself though until liberals let them fail, and they embrace capitalism.

While Obama has declared H1N1 a national emergency, the government as usual has caused the delay in vaccines being delivered to the public. Whether you agree or disagree with vaccinations is not the point. The point is when government is involved there is always a negative effect. We are told this could possibility be a pandemic, but because of government regulation, everyone who wants a vaccination has to sit on their thumbs and hope they don’t get sick for months as vaccines are finally released to the public.

By SCOTT GOTTLIEB

Though the swine flu is widespread in 46 states many Americans are still waiting to get their vaccines. The Obama administration blames the shortage on manufacturing delays at the five firms making these products. But production issues only explain part of the shortfall. Also to blame are a series of policy decisions that reflect our extreme caution when it comes to these products.

From a regulatory standpoint, vaccines are unique in many ways. Since we distribute them widely to otherwise healthy people, they deserve careful oversight. But right now we are shunning new, superior vaccine science by being overly cautious.

On Saturday, when President Obama declared the outbreak a national emergency, he enabled the suspension of federal rules in order to speed the distribution of treatments. Yet less than half the projected vaccine has been actually shipped. Supply is far below the government’s estimate of 40 million ready vaccines by November.

The first fateful policy decision, made last spring, was to forgo vaccine additives—called adjuvants—that activate the immune system and make shots more potent. Adjuvants allow a smaller supply of vaccine stock to be stretched across more doses. These adjuvants are included in H1N1 vaccines world-wide, but not in the U.S.

Why do adjuvants matter? An adjuvanted H1N1 vaccine being used in Europe contains 3.75 micrograms of vaccine stock. The same vaccine in the U.S., without the adjuvant, requires 15 micrograms of vaccine for equal potency. If we used adjuvants, we could have had four times the number of shots with the same raw material.

The second cautious decision was to require that the H1N1 vaccine be a single shot. The government demanded single-dose syringes because they contain smaller amounts of thimerosal than multi-dose vials. This mercury-containing vaccine preservative continues to stir concern it can trigger childhood autism, even though this has been firmly disproven.

The third policy decision was to stick for too long with a proven, but slow process for making flu shots that uses chicken eggs to grow the raw vaccine material. Shots can be made much faster using mammalian cells to grow vaccine, and this process is already being used in Europe. The cell-based vaccines are unlikely to be approved in the U.S. Our precaution when it comes to vaccines means we don’t easily embrace novel technologies, even if the Europeans would part with some of their limited supply.

How can we improve our regulatory process to prevent such shortages? First, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) needs to create a review pathway for adjuvants that can become components of multiple vaccines. One, called monophosphoryl lipid A, was recently the first modern adjuvant to be approved in the U.S.—in this case as part of a vaccine for cervical cancer. We’ve been slow to integrate vaccine additives, bowing to imprudent activism and litigation. The European strategy of having adjuvants preapproved, as part of mock up pandemic vaccines, was smart. We should adopt it.

Second, the FDA requires vaccines to sit for weeks after they come off the manufacturing line to make sure they haven’t grown bacterial impurities. This is why most of the H1N1 vaccine supply is released in waves and won’t be ready until later this winter. The FDA can work with manufacturers to develop better standardized tools, called assays, to quickly assess new vaccine.

Finally, we need to invest in more modern facilities for manufacturing flu vaccine, particularly cell-based facilities. These plants can be scaled more quickly, enabling rapid production. A certain amount of these facilities should be built here at home. In a full-blown pandemic, with a very deadly strain of flu, it’s hard to imagine that foreign nations would allow limited supplies of vaccine to be shipped outside their borders.

The Obama team deserves credit for ordering vaccines early last spring when H1N1 first emerged. They contracted properly for the shots and negotiated a fair price. But passing all the blame for our current vaccine shortage onto manufacturers is unfair. The administration needs to take responsibility for improving our current system.

Dr. Gottlieb, a practicing physician and resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was deputy commissioner of the FDA from 2005-2007. He is partner to a firm that invests in health-care companies.

via Scott Gottlieb: Why You Can’t Get the Swine Flu Vaccine – WSJ.com.

I think the writer misses the market a little here. While he rightful shows how bad policy has caused the shortage, he misses the point that the government always gets it wrong. If these vaccinations were delivered in a free market, they would be delivered efficiently and quickly to those seeking them. In the free market, different variations of the vaccine would be delivered based on varying concerns and needs. Those who believe mercury based preservative can lead to childhood autism would choose a vaccine without the preservative.  Adults could take the vaccine with the additive.

The author mentions different types of cells that might work better for the production of the vaccines. In a free market, resources would be brought together and utilized to their highest efficiency. If chicken eggs have their benefit, some vaccines would be developed that way and others using mammalian cells.

The problem you run into is government can never coordinate and organize resources more efficiently than the free market. They try cramming one size fits all policies on vaccine production. So if this truly becomes a pandemic, you can thank the government that your a sitting duck while waiting for your vaccination to be produced as inefficiently as possible.