Vaccine "truthers" represent belief ruling over truth

In a recent interview, reality TV star Kristin Cavallari remarked that see would not be vaccinating any of her children in the future because of the dangers she perceived vaccines to have, specifically that they caused autism in children. This public declaration is not only significant because she is the wife of Bears quarterback Jay Cutler but because anytime somebody with the means to put forth their opinion does so without restriction, there is the possibility that major harm can be done. Cavallari is convinced that mercury levels in vaccines are contributing to the rise in autism diagnoses and since she is convinced by whatever science she prescribes to, her words may alter minds for the worse. Dr. Kenneth Alexander, chief of the section of Pediatric Infectious Diseases at the University of Chicago believes “any association between vaccines and autism has long been disproven," but ultimately my concern is not specifically about this issue. It is that what some conclude to be the true is, in fact, simply a belief that is unsubstantiated.

Most Americans probably don't live their lives cross checking ever statement that they hear and I would not advocate that but what I would advocate is formulating conclusions based on some form of hard evidence. If all the government agencies in charge of regulating medicine cannot find a correlation between autism and vaccines, I going to take them at their word because they are professionals and I am not. It's as simple as that because they have the research, or perhaps it's not and the whole operation is an elaborate conspiracy. That may seem like an explanation to some but again there is no evidence to support that or ever the slightest motive so I, personally, will not jump to that conclusion. I'm not sure I can say the same for Cavallari.

Occam's Razor is the principle that the simplest explanation is usually the right one. The idea that the most logically and factually sound hypothesis usually is correct. Cavallari sighted the increase in autism and the increase in mercury within vaccines during her interview. These statements were meant to represent a causative relationship between the two. I'm not an expert but the two could be completely unrelated or at best, simply bare a correlation. Perhaps the diagnosing of autism has changed over the past decade or pollutants have played a role instead. The most likely conclusion is not that the two are directly related, the  conclusion made by my favorite quarterback's wife, is just a belief. 

Little children believe in the tooth fairly, they can't prove it but what does it matter. They don't actively seek the truth but what matters to them is they know it to be correct. In our society today, it seems as though it is encouraged to act on your understanding of concepts before what is conventional thought to be correct. Truthfully, I have no problem with that sentiment, I admire people of strong convictions. Yet when they choose to justify delicate actions with unfounded science on such a public medium, I cringe. People are going to believe what they want to believe and nothing can change that. I only hope that more factual inconsistencies are not broadcast to the world as fact, label them what they are, beliefs.           

A classic case of the Haves and Have-Nots

As the Telegraph article points out, the decision to hold the upcoming World Cup in Brazil, seems like a perfect fit. The Fifa secretary general even calls Brazil the "mecca of football." Yet the main news concerning the event has been centered around the massive protests against the highly anticipated tournament and for reasons that are far deeper than simply soccer. The citizens of Brazil took to the streets because the 11 billion set aside for the World Cup would never really benefit the masses of Brazil. The public transportation and services remain in poor condition and expensive while the massive stadiums for the one month long event receive funding and ad campaigns. Unfortunately, this storyline of decadence over funding returning to people is not unique. While there are no riots that accompany them, many sports stadiums in the US are paid for by tax dollars even though the fee to enter them prohibits them from truly being public facilities. These kinds of projects are approved by those who have everything, and ultimately bring prestige and wealth to anybody but the taxpayer. 

In a country like Brazil, where extreme poverty is visible from exotic beach resorts, it is easy to see why this situation caused such outrage. In the US, it seems as though destitution is compartmentalized and therefore the problems are out of sight and of mind. However, there are many explanations as to why Americans tolerate tax money contributing to what I would consider a luxury construction. Still, when Chicago made a bid for the Olympics, the plans called for massive facilities in the heart of the South Side, where the money could have went so much further in schools or hospitals. The phrase "Bread and Circuses" was originally used regarding Ancient Rome but it is not hard to see the significance that is placed on circuses and not just in the US but all over the world. 

Politicians know that people like sports and like many rich folk, they see an investment opportunity in nearly everything. Tax money is not meant to be spent on frivolous "public" stadiums though. It should be paying for important subsidiaries and necessities that benefit the kind of people that probably can't afford to go to sporting events often. Perhaps protests are needed in this country as well because few states have the surplus to be making large investments that are clearly not bear minimum expenditures.