Yesterday in the Grocery store, the boring music playing over the loudspeaker suddenly changed to DANCING QUEEN by Abba. My 6 yr old little girl immediately started to dance around and sing along. Ofcourse she doesn't really know most of the words, but why should that stop her?
If only I could embrace my life with such fervor and abandon every day. What stops me from such great fun and enjoyment of every minute??
What would Maggie Tulliver do in such a situaiton?
I just finished The Mill on the Floss by George Eliot a.k.a. Maryann Evans
There is a lot about life in this book. At first glance I assumed that the sudden young death of Maggie and her brother was just an easy way for the author to resolve a very difficult impasse- Maggie is in the middle of a love and duty and commitment triangle. As I think about it more- and there is a lot to think about because it is a great book- I believe the entire plot to be a carefully crafted allegory of love, justice, and the grace of God.
Maggie represents love, or mercy. Her great shortcoming is that she is impulsive. She spends a great deal of the book improving herself by avoiding pleasures because she "loves them too much" all of this self denial is an effort to be a better person. Her friends, especially Phillip, encourage her to stop denying herself of all pleasure, telling her that it is not good. She promises to love Phillip, though he is really just a friend because she does not want to ever disapoint him. Later Steven decides he loves her more than Lucy to whomm he is practicly engaged. MAggies refuses him to avaoid hurting Lucy. Maggies does not seek her own interest, always determining to endure and put away her own happiness. When life in her home town becomes unbearable because of the gossip about her, she is encouraged to leave and work somewhere else. Maggie stays in town because she doesn't want to avoid hardship, or run away. She purposely chooses the more difficult life. In the end She is drowned along with her brother. All of their efforts to be good and restore family honor are for naught.
This sentiment is further illustrated in Tom's life. He is sent to school, and a great deal of money is spent on his education to make him a 'Man of consequence' The education turns out to be a sham, he is taught latin and painting. After his father fails in business Tom works hard at attends more school so he can learn business, eventually buying back the family mill and home. This accomplishment is much heralded by his aunts and uncles. Tom has a strong sense of justice. He takes it upon himself to punish his sister and corrent her for what he sees as her short comings, expecially her failed elopement with Steven. At last, during the great flood the mill and house are all destroyed, and Maggie shows great bravery in coming to rescue Tom. here Tom senses his own wrong and learns that Maggie is a good person. The destruction of the Mill is symbolic of the ruin of Tom's ideas about justice.
The great flood can be seen as the grace of God. The struggles of Maggie and Tom were inconsequential compared with the great saving power of God. He would destroy or save despite all or none of their own efforts. In another sense, Justice (Tom) and Love(Maggie) are not to be lived in an extreme way. Our lives on earth are complicated, and we can not live always choosing the right way to be without failure, nor should we try. No person can be right and good always like Tom, nor can we constantly sacrifice our own good for the benefit of others (Maggie). To be good people and live a good life we must sometimes hurt those around us, maybe even cheat our fellowman as Bob Jackum does. No one can save themselves on their own merit.
That is an interesting message. No one gets out unscathed.
This book had great writing.
I especially love the Mothers' aunts who are so gossipy and judgemental, especially when the family lost all of their household items, sold at auction and the aunts and uncles discuss what to buy, and then they keep the stuff and give it back to Tom years later as presents when he gets the Mill back! What awful people! but there are real people like that, always blaming the poor for being poor. Their religion is described as 'inherited' and "if their bibles, if they opend to one place more than another was as likely to be from the pressing of tulip petals as from use".
I love that the father chose his wife because she was simple and stupid. I love the Aunt Moss and how the Father treats her well because he believed this would lead to Tom treating Maggie well. I like that her 'great shame' was having an 8 children and being poor. She really was the nicest person in the book.
My favorite scene was where Phillip confronts his father about his friendship with Maggie and asks him to put aside his family quarrel. Phillip, in that scene was definately the more manly of the two lovers. Phillip loved Maggie as a friend as well as a lover. He considered her feelings and her wellbeing before his own.
Steven's love was true. But he did not consider so well the consequences of his actions. His love of her was his primary motivation. When she left him he thought of the grief that he would endure, not really about Maggie. He was not a bad person, but innocently self centered. Not a sufficent match for the self effacing Maggie.
This was a great book. I like the idea that we should all be happy as we are and not worry too much about getting through this life perfectly. Our failings are mortal and we can only do our best.
The love scenes rival Jane Austen.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Why did I think that was a good idea?
So I dressed up as Victoria the EVIL Vampire and went to see the 'New Moon' Movie. It was super funt o get dressed up. I haven't really worn makeup in a long time, certainly not "full makeup" I did eyeliner. I poked my eyes with a soft pencil, to outline my eyes. I never understood why eyeliner is used, who started it out, and why so many of my sisters think it is so important. YUCK! eyeliner is the devil. I also found all of my eyeshadow and caked it on my eyelids. Vicoria the evil Vampire is sort of cheap looking. That, and about 5 years behind on her sense of style. She likes to dress a bit young for herself.
She has long red hair which is curly and not really brushed.
In short, she looks like me. I love her look.
I did not dress up this halloween becasue I was super busy. I had a costume planned (statue of liberty OR madison 'liberal'-complete with a "libertarians for singlepayer" button) but it never came together. I deeply regretted this oppertunity to plat dress up. So at the opening night of NEW MOON I saw another chance. I could dressup again, and I could do it well. I already own too-tight jeans and a Tshirt with the neck band cut out. I did my skanky makeup and even put some red gel hair dye in my hair. Finally I did not have to worry about making my hair look normal. I let it curly in all its crazy frizzy curly hairness. I like my hair.
Most people think that my hair looks the way it does from a lack of time. or perhaps it is a result of my frequent showering (which is the usual result of my frequent workouts) However I love my hair. I think that lots of long curly hair gives me personality. I want it to grow out and be a lto longer. I hope that I never cut my hair.
Anyways, a furry wrap completed the outfit. I actually looked a bit like the vampire. It was great. Then I got to the Movie theatre. I am just not confident yet. I got embarrassed. Fortunaely I haven't worn makeup or jeans or hair dye for a long time. I was pretty much not recognizeable.
Never the less I slinked away after the movie and was very relieved to get in my car and drive home. Dress up is super fun, however perhaps It can wait until halloween next year.
Given all that, thursday I saw this lady at the library, she had on a furry vest (like grizzly fur-did she hunt/harvest herself?) also, a colorful scarf on her head, and a red tie. I hope she was dressed up for childrens' story time, however I suspect this was her real outfit that day.
I really am not mocking her. I am jealous that she has such self possession. Perhaps I can someday be so self assured that I can wear any crazy outfit in public without fear.
When that day comes you will know it because I will be at the library wearing a furry grizzly fur vest, a bright red tie, and and an awesome scarf. Stare, point, etc. I won't care.
Given this, can you all now understand why I encourage Maddie in her dressing up? It is a sign that she loves herself and is happy with her body.
Perhaps I will make her that polar bear suit she wanted for christmas.
She has long red hair which is curly and not really brushed.
In short, she looks like me. I love her look.
I did not dress up this halloween becasue I was super busy. I had a costume planned (statue of liberty OR madison 'liberal'-complete with a "libertarians for singlepayer" button) but it never came together. I deeply regretted this oppertunity to plat dress up. So at the opening night of NEW MOON I saw another chance. I could dressup again, and I could do it well. I already own too-tight jeans and a Tshirt with the neck band cut out. I did my skanky makeup and even put some red gel hair dye in my hair. Finally I did not have to worry about making my hair look normal. I let it curly in all its crazy frizzy curly hairness. I like my hair.
Most people think that my hair looks the way it does from a lack of time. or perhaps it is a result of my frequent showering (which is the usual result of my frequent workouts) However I love my hair. I think that lots of long curly hair gives me personality. I want it to grow out and be a lto longer. I hope that I never cut my hair.
Anyways, a furry wrap completed the outfit. I actually looked a bit like the vampire. It was great. Then I got to the Movie theatre. I am just not confident yet. I got embarrassed. Fortunaely I haven't worn makeup or jeans or hair dye for a long time. I was pretty much not recognizeable.
Never the less I slinked away after the movie and was very relieved to get in my car and drive home. Dress up is super fun, however perhaps It can wait until halloween next year.
Given all that, thursday I saw this lady at the library, she had on a furry vest (like grizzly fur-did she hunt/harvest herself?) also, a colorful scarf on her head, and a red tie. I hope she was dressed up for childrens' story time, however I suspect this was her real outfit that day.
I really am not mocking her. I am jealous that she has such self possession. Perhaps I can someday be so self assured that I can wear any crazy outfit in public without fear.
When that day comes you will know it because I will be at the library wearing a furry grizzly fur vest, a bright red tie, and and an awesome scarf. Stare, point, etc. I won't care.
Given this, can you all now understand why I encourage Maddie in her dressing up? It is a sign that she loves herself and is happy with her body.
Perhaps I will make her that polar bear suit she wanted for christmas.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
"The Wednesday Letters" is THE DEVIL
The Wednesday Letters by John l. Frank
Brief synopsis;
Two old people die at the same time, at the end of a long marriage. Their three children with varying degrees of complicated lives return for the funeral and discover boxes and boxes of letters that the husband faithfully wrote to his wif every week (every wednesday) of their married life.
One family secret discovered is that the youngest son, Malcolm was fathered by his Mother's rapist. Later we find out that the rapist went to prison and then 'found God' and became a pastor in his parents' community. The Mother forgave the Pastor and harbors no ill will and the reader is led to believe that this is an example of the Mother's great goodness.
I disagree. I believe that this message is misleading and perhaps dangerous. Forgiveness is an interesting subject. On a large scale we are encouraged to forgive all men. The scriptures say "I the Lord forgive whom I will forgive but of you it is required to forgive all men". And the nature of forgiveness is clearly stated..."When a man repenteth I the Lord remember their sin no more". From this elementary glance at the scripture we might conclude that we ought to go through life harboring no grudges, remembering no guilt, and giving others lots of extra chances to change and be better and try again. Even if they offend us again and again and again.
This is a description of How we need to repent. God forgives us over and over, will never gove up and will always help us to progress. God also has the power to see into our hearts, knows our intentions, and can absovle sin.
As mortals we can not look into the future, we do not know the thoughts and intents of eachother. We also, though we aspire to be like Christ, are not divine. We do not have the power and ability to absolve sin, nor should we aspire to that.
Foregiveness in the case of serious sin; murder or sexual abuse is a difficult subject. An article in the addressed that issue a few years ago, it advised that those who had been offended to forgive by letting go of hate, but at the same time keeping themselves and their families safe by avoiding the perpetrator. We are counselled not the judge others unrighteously. In this command we are also obligated to judge others righteously, that is discerning between good an evil, righ and wrong. We are not to be "unequally yoked with unbelievers". I interpret this to mean that we need to make sure to help others, forgive, etc. But also avoid people that are very bad for us, potentually dangerous or harmful.
"ye are not meet to be commanded in all things but do many good things of our own good will and choice and bring to pass much righteousness"
Perhaps the best example of how to deal with repentant sinners comes from the representation of God on the earth; His church the church of Jesus Christ of Latter day saints;
The LDS church will put a note on the member ship record of any member who has ever been involved/accused of sexually abusing a child. Though I do not know of any specific situations, I imagine a person could fully repent of such a crime. The person could in theory be brought back into full fellowship in the church. The note of the record will always remain and precludes that person ever working with children in the church. The sin is not forgotten by the church.
We should follow the example of the church, forgive, but be cautious.
"The Wednesday Letters" with its simplistic misinterpretation of the principle of forgiveness promotes a dangerous idea. I fear that a naive or young victim of abuse might read it and think that reporting their abuse, or avoiding their abuser would fall into the category of "not forgiving". Reporting abuse is usually a difficult and embarrassing process. Young people should not also have to fight against false ideas about God and the nature of forgiveness. Abusers often use the threat of punishment by parents and even God as a way to control their victims and keep them quiet. The Author cannot be responsible for all the crazy ways his book with out a good plot or plausiblt story will be misinterpretted, however when someone introduces religous principles I believe he has an obligation to represent them fully and accurately. This book does not do this. It represents a half truth.
This book promotes a LIE.
Brief synopsis;
Two old people die at the same time, at the end of a long marriage. Their three children with varying degrees of complicated lives return for the funeral and discover boxes and boxes of letters that the husband faithfully wrote to his wif every week (every wednesday) of their married life.
One family secret discovered is that the youngest son, Malcolm was fathered by his Mother's rapist. Later we find out that the rapist went to prison and then 'found God' and became a pastor in his parents' community. The Mother forgave the Pastor and harbors no ill will and the reader is led to believe that this is an example of the Mother's great goodness.
I disagree. I believe that this message is misleading and perhaps dangerous. Forgiveness is an interesting subject. On a large scale we are encouraged to forgive all men. The scriptures say "I the Lord forgive whom I will forgive but of you it is required to forgive all men". And the nature of forgiveness is clearly stated..."When a man repenteth I the Lord remember their sin no more". From this elementary glance at the scripture we might conclude that we ought to go through life harboring no grudges, remembering no guilt, and giving others lots of extra chances to change and be better and try again. Even if they offend us again and again and again.
This is a description of How we need to repent. God forgives us over and over, will never gove up and will always help us to progress. God also has the power to see into our hearts, knows our intentions, and can absovle sin.
As mortals we can not look into the future, we do not know the thoughts and intents of eachother. We also, though we aspire to be like Christ, are not divine. We do not have the power and ability to absolve sin, nor should we aspire to that.
Foregiveness in the case of serious sin; murder or sexual abuse is a difficult subject. An article in the addressed that issue a few years ago, it advised that those who had been offended to forgive by letting go of hate, but at the same time keeping themselves and their families safe by avoiding the perpetrator. We are counselled not the judge others unrighteously. In this command we are also obligated to judge others righteously, that is discerning between good an evil, righ and wrong. We are not to be "unequally yoked with unbelievers". I interpret this to mean that we need to make sure to help others, forgive, etc. But also avoid people that are very bad for us, potentually dangerous or harmful.
"ye are not meet to be commanded in all things but do many good things of our own good will and choice and bring to pass much righteousness"
Perhaps the best example of how to deal with repentant sinners comes from the representation of God on the earth; His church the church of Jesus Christ of Latter day saints;
The LDS church will put a note on the member ship record of any member who has ever been involved/accused of sexually abusing a child. Though I do not know of any specific situations, I imagine a person could fully repent of such a crime. The person could in theory be brought back into full fellowship in the church. The note of the record will always remain and precludes that person ever working with children in the church. The sin is not forgotten by the church.
We should follow the example of the church, forgive, but be cautious.
"The Wednesday Letters" with its simplistic misinterpretation of the principle of forgiveness promotes a dangerous idea. I fear that a naive or young victim of abuse might read it and think that reporting their abuse, or avoiding their abuser would fall into the category of "not forgiving". Reporting abuse is usually a difficult and embarrassing process. Young people should not also have to fight against false ideas about God and the nature of forgiveness. Abusers often use the threat of punishment by parents and even God as a way to control their victims and keep them quiet. The Author cannot be responsible for all the crazy ways his book with out a good plot or plausiblt story will be misinterpretted, however when someone introduces religous principles I believe he has an obligation to represent them fully and accurately. This book does not do this. It represents a half truth.
This book promotes a LIE.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
going rogue
Sara Palin's new book, Going Rogue is coming out soon. There are already two parody books coming out the same day...They are pretty funny Going Rouge is a Sarah Palin coloring book with such tasks as find color lipstick on the pigs, and pick which animal Sarah did not kill on2008 -choices are a moose, a caribou, sheep, and John McCain.
http://www.amazon.com/Going-Rouge-Sarah-Coloring-Activity/dp/0615332773/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257443015&sr=8-6
It looks like a lighthearted parody. But I think there is more.
Hillary Clinton RAn for the Democratic nomination and she got a lot of flack. I took a test on a political website and found that Hillary Clinton most closely matched my political views and ideals. I was hugely disappointed. I just didn't like her.
However I really liked a lot of the other candidates; Huckabee, McCain, even Howard Dean they all seemed very personable to me; I was prejudiced against Clinton. I believe that I held her to a different standard. Possibly I am not used to seeing a woman vie for president and feel that she is out of her place. In reality this is sexism. I didn't think a woman should be our president.
The media put Clinton through a lot more scrutiny that Obama. There is a Saturday night live skit where Obama is given softball questions, and Clinton gets difficult questions, then gets ignored. This is more true than false.
Palin got a lot of flack as well. She was underqualified and out of her league. She was a bad campaign decision. McCain made a mistake. That being said, she was not the only underqualified running mate or candidate ever selected. There is no Howard Dean coloring book, very few skits on Saturday night live about Kucinich or Quayle. These characters were all given a bit of attention and public ridicule, but they then faded from the the public consciousness.
Some of the public dislike of Palin is warranted. A large portion of it is good old fashioned american prejudice.
http://www.amazon.com/Going-Rouge-Sarah-Coloring-Activity/dp/0615332773/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257443015&sr=8-6
It looks like a lighthearted parody. But I think there is more.
Hillary Clinton RAn for the Democratic nomination and she got a lot of flack. I took a test on a political website and found that Hillary Clinton most closely matched my political views and ideals. I was hugely disappointed. I just didn't like her.
However I really liked a lot of the other candidates; Huckabee, McCain, even Howard Dean they all seemed very personable to me; I was prejudiced against Clinton. I believe that I held her to a different standard. Possibly I am not used to seeing a woman vie for president and feel that she is out of her place. In reality this is sexism. I didn't think a woman should be our president.
The media put Clinton through a lot more scrutiny that Obama. There is a Saturday night live skit where Obama is given softball questions, and Clinton gets difficult questions, then gets ignored. This is more true than false.
Palin got a lot of flack as well. She was underqualified and out of her league. She was a bad campaign decision. McCain made a mistake. That being said, she was not the only underqualified running mate or candidate ever selected. There is no Howard Dean coloring book, very few skits on Saturday night live about Kucinich or Quayle. These characters were all given a bit of attention and public ridicule, but they then faded from the the public consciousness.
Some of the public dislike of Palin is warranted. A large portion of it is good old fashioned american prejudice.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
I have no response to that.....
So I go this crazy post on facebook about how H1N1 flu shot is a conspiracy theory.
http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/dr-russell-blaylock-vaccine-may-be-more-dangerous-than-swine-flu/
There are legitimate arguments against universal vaccination. Truthfully, there is not a huge risk to healthy people from the H1n1 virus. The best reason to vaccinate is to protect babies, young children, and those with weakened immunity.
His argument contains some truth; the swine flue vaccine in the 1970's was largely unwarranted and resulted in some unneccessary complications. However this guy quickly turns to completely illegitimate arguments. He uses lots and lots of arguments that have nothing to do with the actual facts of this flu shot. He invokes every medical argument ever used against any vaccine and somehow applies it to this one flu shot. He even intimates that HIV may be in the vaccine.
He is completely crazy. If you don't believe me, check out the other posts on his blog. A better name for his blog might be 'crazyparanoidracistblog'.
Why would this "doctor" publish such a blog entry if there were no basis for his arguments?
I believe the answer is found in this article;
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/quackpro.html
And also in the LDS scriptures, Doctrine and Covenants 121:39
"We have learned by sad experience that it is te nature and disposition of almost all men as soon as they get a little authority , as they suppose, they willl immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion"
I read the blog entry intending to poke a few holes in this guy's argument. However the things he said and presumably believed were so crazy, so conspiracy theorist. That I know there is no arguing with him. If he believes what he has written, and he has actually done enough research to know the truth, then he is crazy. If he does not believe his argument he is a liar or a sociopath and to appeal to mere fact will change that. There is probably no way to change this guy's own point of view, the best we can do is discredit his ideas.
One of his main methods is to use a lot of scientific terms and confuse the average reader. His arguments really have to basis. They are recycled from alarmist fearmongering that have been used all over the world for all sorts of vaccinations but ultimately have no basis. There are some risks with all vaccines. Things like a fever, mild soreness, and, in very rare cases, seizures and strokes. These more serious risks are so rare that it is not known whether the vaccines are responsible or not.
Fears about vaccines come and go in waves. They follow trends. There will be fearmongering, the usual waves of quacks and crazies publishing false data, anecdotal and false data that put certain vaccinations in a bad light.
Refusal to vaccinate is also a form of public protest. When people are upset with their government, vaccination rates fall.
The anti-science movement is one of the largest threats to modern medicine. Perhaps we will conquer aids and cancer, but will the cures truly succeed if large portions of the population are convinced that modern medicine is not in the public interest?
In the late 1990's The World Health organization was ready to eradicate Polio. The hope was that with universal vaccination it could be retired much like the small pox vaccination. Unfortunately a rumor started that the vaccines would render boys sterile. Enough people in Eastern africa believed this that the WHO was not able to deliver their universal vaccinations. As a result we will all continue to be vaccinated for polio, and be exposed to all the marginal though existant risks.
The Cervical cancer vaccine has been made available in recent years and there is a massive public outcry against it. Parents see it as sexualizing their young children, akin to early sex education. In truth practicly everyone will be sexually active and therefore potentually exposed in some degree to this virus. This vaccine is a bit overmarketed, I am not sure that it will offer enough protection long enough to be a part of the current vaccination regiment. The public backlash against it suggests that even if a refined vaccine that protected against all cervical cancer could exist, perhaps enough people wouldn't take it, and all that research and great medical advancement would be wasted.
Now onto HIV. There was actually an HIV vaccine trial in thailand recently. It only reduced the rate of infection by 20%, so it may not develop into a vaccination potent enough for public use. Apparently it needs to reduce the infection rate by 50% to be considered effective enough for use by the public. Were a vaccine to be developed against this scourge, would we Americans be willing to take it?
some of us refuse vaccines and encourage others to refuse them. We live in a land of low rates of these diseases, protected by the immunity of those around us. From where we sit vaccines are optional. This is not the case in all of the world.
HIV is a horrible disease. Many of the victims are women and children.
IF we had a HIV vaccine, if we could rid the world of this scourge, would the anti-vaccine camps slacken their fear mongering in the interest of world health?
I am sorry to say that some of us fat ugly americans would ignorantly exercise our "rights". Perhaps like polio it would not be eradicated and the disease would persist. Would we be able to see the faces of the dead and dying with a clear conscience?
I get very worked up about this subject (as you may be able to tell). there are a lot of real issues to worry about in the world. Lots of poverty and global warming. Wasting time, energy and resources on fear mongering conspiracy theories is not innocent, it is dangerous. It may even be sociopathic.
The real answer to the anti-science, anti-vaccination movement is education. I try to not let any mention of anti-vaccination propoganda go by without comment. I will not offer my silent assent to such irresponsible behavior.
I don't have to be mean about it, just calmly repeat some facts. Try to avoid the terms 'quack' and 'nutter' as they tend to make people angry.
http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/dr-russell-blaylock-vaccine-may-be-more-dangerous-than-swine-flu/
There are legitimate arguments against universal vaccination. Truthfully, there is not a huge risk to healthy people from the H1n1 virus. The best reason to vaccinate is to protect babies, young children, and those with weakened immunity.
His argument contains some truth; the swine flue vaccine in the 1970's was largely unwarranted and resulted in some unneccessary complications. However this guy quickly turns to completely illegitimate arguments. He uses lots and lots of arguments that have nothing to do with the actual facts of this flu shot. He invokes every medical argument ever used against any vaccine and somehow applies it to this one flu shot. He even intimates that HIV may be in the vaccine.
He is completely crazy. If you don't believe me, check out the other posts on his blog. A better name for his blog might be 'crazyparanoidracistblog'.
Why would this "doctor" publish such a blog entry if there were no basis for his arguments?
I believe the answer is found in this article;
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/quackpro.html
And also in the LDS scriptures, Doctrine and Covenants 121:39
"We have learned by sad experience that it is te nature and disposition of almost all men as soon as they get a little authority , as they suppose, they willl immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion"
I read the blog entry intending to poke a few holes in this guy's argument. However the things he said and presumably believed were so crazy, so conspiracy theorist. That I know there is no arguing with him. If he believes what he has written, and he has actually done enough research to know the truth, then he is crazy. If he does not believe his argument he is a liar or a sociopath and to appeal to mere fact will change that. There is probably no way to change this guy's own point of view, the best we can do is discredit his ideas.
One of his main methods is to use a lot of scientific terms and confuse the average reader. His arguments really have to basis. They are recycled from alarmist fearmongering that have been used all over the world for all sorts of vaccinations but ultimately have no basis. There are some risks with all vaccines. Things like a fever, mild soreness, and, in very rare cases, seizures and strokes. These more serious risks are so rare that it is not known whether the vaccines are responsible or not.
Fears about vaccines come and go in waves. They follow trends. There will be fearmongering, the usual waves of quacks and crazies publishing false data, anecdotal and false data that put certain vaccinations in a bad light.
Refusal to vaccinate is also a form of public protest. When people are upset with their government, vaccination rates fall.
The anti-science movement is one of the largest threats to modern medicine. Perhaps we will conquer aids and cancer, but will the cures truly succeed if large portions of the population are convinced that modern medicine is not in the public interest?
In the late 1990's The World Health organization was ready to eradicate Polio. The hope was that with universal vaccination it could be retired much like the small pox vaccination. Unfortunately a rumor started that the vaccines would render boys sterile. Enough people in Eastern africa believed this that the WHO was not able to deliver their universal vaccinations. As a result we will all continue to be vaccinated for polio, and be exposed to all the marginal though existant risks.
The Cervical cancer vaccine has been made available in recent years and there is a massive public outcry against it. Parents see it as sexualizing their young children, akin to early sex education. In truth practicly everyone will be sexually active and therefore potentually exposed in some degree to this virus. This vaccine is a bit overmarketed, I am not sure that it will offer enough protection long enough to be a part of the current vaccination regiment. The public backlash against it suggests that even if a refined vaccine that protected against all cervical cancer could exist, perhaps enough people wouldn't take it, and all that research and great medical advancement would be wasted.
Now onto HIV. There was actually an HIV vaccine trial in thailand recently. It only reduced the rate of infection by 20%, so it may not develop into a vaccination potent enough for public use. Apparently it needs to reduce the infection rate by 50% to be considered effective enough for use by the public. Were a vaccine to be developed against this scourge, would we Americans be willing to take it?
some of us refuse vaccines and encourage others to refuse them. We live in a land of low rates of these diseases, protected by the immunity of those around us. From where we sit vaccines are optional. This is not the case in all of the world.
HIV is a horrible disease. Many of the victims are women and children.
IF we had a HIV vaccine, if we could rid the world of this scourge, would the anti-vaccine camps slacken their fear mongering in the interest of world health?
I am sorry to say that some of us fat ugly americans would ignorantly exercise our "rights". Perhaps like polio it would not be eradicated and the disease would persist. Would we be able to see the faces of the dead and dying with a clear conscience?
I get very worked up about this subject (as you may be able to tell). there are a lot of real issues to worry about in the world. Lots of poverty and global warming. Wasting time, energy and resources on fear mongering conspiracy theories is not innocent, it is dangerous. It may even be sociopathic.
The real answer to the anti-science, anti-vaccination movement is education. I try to not let any mention of anti-vaccination propoganda go by without comment. I will not offer my silent assent to such irresponsible behavior.
I don't have to be mean about it, just calmly repeat some facts. Try to avoid the terms 'quack' and 'nutter' as they tend to make people angry.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
self mastery
the marshmellow experiment
If you’re thinking about the marshmallow and how delicious it is, then you’re going to eat it,” Mischel says. “The key is to avoid thinking about it in the first place.”
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/18/090518fa_fact_lehrer
This is a link to a story in the New Yorker about kids who were given a marshmellow and told if they didn't eat it they could get a 2nd one after 15 minutes. The result was that most could not wait and those who could were good at everyting else in life. No surprise. However, The kids who could wait and not eat the marshmellow were able to do so because they had a method to distract them from eating the marshmellow.
No one can just sit and stare at a marshmellow and not eat it. That is impossible. The way to avoid eating it is to sing a song, or pretend it is a cloud.
With simple training, a few lessons on metacognition (the science of thinking about how to think) children were able to dramatically improve their waiting time.
I used to run 50mile ultramarathons, my last race was over 2 years ago. I am trying to get back into shape to do a 30 mile race this spring, and the distance running is daunting. I have been thinking about the psychology of running great distances lately. As I remember it, the way I got myself to do those was to break up the distance, focus on the podcasts I would have on the IPOD, and other wise distract myself from the physical discomfort of the exercise.
When I am trying to lose weight this week, I am going to avoid eating junk food by not having it in the house, earmarking it for the kids' lunches, and distracting myself by focusing on the TV I get to watch every evening after my healthy dinner. It is comforting to know that it is not really just a matter of "will power" but also a matter of strategy and controlling ones environment.
So, you may ask, why do I need to lose weight if I am training for huge running races? Well, It is evidence of the fact that exercise alone will not make you lose weight.
If you’re thinking about the marshmallow and how delicious it is, then you’re going to eat it,” Mischel says. “The key is to avoid thinking about it in the first place.”
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/18/090518fa_fact_lehrer
This is a link to a story in the New Yorker about kids who were given a marshmellow and told if they didn't eat it they could get a 2nd one after 15 minutes. The result was that most could not wait and those who could were good at everyting else in life. No surprise. However, The kids who could wait and not eat the marshmellow were able to do so because they had a method to distract them from eating the marshmellow.
No one can just sit and stare at a marshmellow and not eat it. That is impossible. The way to avoid eating it is to sing a song, or pretend it is a cloud.
With simple training, a few lessons on metacognition (the science of thinking about how to think) children were able to dramatically improve their waiting time.
I used to run 50mile ultramarathons, my last race was over 2 years ago. I am trying to get back into shape to do a 30 mile race this spring, and the distance running is daunting. I have been thinking about the psychology of running great distances lately. As I remember it, the way I got myself to do those was to break up the distance, focus on the podcasts I would have on the IPOD, and other wise distract myself from the physical discomfort of the exercise.
When I am trying to lose weight this week, I am going to avoid eating junk food by not having it in the house, earmarking it for the kids' lunches, and distracting myself by focusing on the TV I get to watch every evening after my healthy dinner. It is comforting to know that it is not really just a matter of "will power" but also a matter of strategy and controlling ones environment.
So, you may ask, why do I need to lose weight if I am training for huge running races? Well, It is evidence of the fact that exercise alone will not make you lose weight.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Whoever maketh and loveth a lie...
The conservative people at large, or republicans in general are nice reasonable people. This is what I would like to think. I assume they are intelligent and reasonable, and I am usually disappointed.
An example:
On the subject of slavery during a conversation on Lincoln....
"Most slaves weren't treated that bad"To be fair, the conservative in question really didn't know anything about the emancipation or history in general, mixed up Lincoln and Jefferson, and didn't believe me when I mentioned that Andrew Johnson was the 17th president. Thought I meant Andrew Jackson, then argued the point for a while. Needless to say the 'political discussion' didn't get too far. Unfortunately this person has been able to vote for the last 30 years. I am surprised that even this little mind would hold to such a blatant lie.
Slaves were not treated well in general. This is not a point upon which there is debate.
So where did this lie originate? Who would believe this lie and why?
I remember hearing this lie as a child. Did it come from television or elementary school? I did live in a small white town. I hope it was a lie told to kids so they would not be upset about slavery. I suspect it was the true belief of some of our less educated neighbors and family. What began as a way to sugar coat history turned into denial of the sins of the nation's past.
I guess that the original lie came about more or less as a response to the great shame that America feels about its past. We are this land of opportunity with a lovely infallible constitution. Our great forefathers were guided by God to fight the revolution and forge this new country with a bill of rights for all people.
The story sounds good until you find slaves building the White House and Thomas Jefferson raping Sally Hemmings.
The story of our forefathers is complicated. It is a story of flawed people sometimes doing great good, and other times inexcusable evil. It is a lot of stories together. It is natural to cherry pick the best stories and hide others under the rug.
There is a natural tendency to canonize ones relatives, especially the ones long dead. No one speaks of their flaws so we assume they had none. We are their progeny. The strong rising generation, perhaps we have greater opportunity presumably as a result of their hard work. What are we if our own lives are not a testament to the good character of our ancestors?
To be sure respect and honor for ones parents and relatives is very appropriate. However we must not be blind to their imperfections. Many great evils have been accomplished by 'basically good' people. Stanley Milgram conducted his electric shock experiment in an effort to discover why the German people had allowed the holocaust to occur. His original hypothesis was that the German culture was such that people were overly compelled to follow authority. What he discovered is that the German people were not unique. He was able to get lots of people from all walks of life to inflict pain via electric shock.
What exactly would our venerated ancestors want to tell us, if they could leave us with a message, I would hope it would be to learn from their mistakes. We can't do that as long as we are content with an easily digestible story of our nation's part.
I tell my kids the truth. It may be upsetting, but that is the lesser evil.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
