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.
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
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.
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
An issue of Culpability, not Cannabis
I have seen a bevy of articles concerning the legalization of marijuana in Colorado recently and thought I could add my perspective on the legalization of drugs in general. The issue I have most with many opposers to the new law is the train of thought that many anti-drug figures have on the issue. Proponents of the ban on illicit drugs assume that if drugs were legalized everyone would run out to start using drugs. I believe that is far from a given, I for one, have never been near the stuff and would not have any desire to become an addict if the opportunity were presented to me in the form of Colorado's cannabis. If somebody woke up one morning and decided they wanted to start regularly taking illegal drugs, I'm not sure there would be much stopping them in this community specifically and elsewhere. That is testament to the war on drugs and my belief that it has caused more negatives than positives.
Before the US had any federal regulation of drugs, most people remained productive members of society and handled what we call illegal drugs, just like nicotine and alcohol. That is, until the prohibition of alcohol which further proves my point. Gangsters like Al Capone became very rich as a result of trafficking the newly outlawed substance and looking at the power of the cartels today, it appears the same relationship has formed with illicit drugs and kingpins. Billions poured into drugs by American consumers and all of it going to violent criminals. Imagine none of it going to outlaws and a percent going to the government in the form of taxes. Add on the money saved on nonviolent drug offenders being absent from jails and the national deficit looks much less intimidating. The most important aspect of nonviolent offenders being released is that as a result the prison system has become unsustainable is simply wrong in its current state as we learned in class. Three minor drug crimes equating to a life sentence is simply ridiculous, many rapists and murders do not serve that kind of time. Moreover, many nonviolent convicts become violent in jail as a result of the abuse they endure while locked up; not quite the rehabilitation that the pamphlet advertises.
Knowing that this a very sensitive topic and that many people have a strong opinion on I feel the need to counter many common criticisms of the legalization of drugs. The main concerning of the Colorado law is that cannabis is a gateway drug that leads to more harmful drug use eventually. I would retort that alcohol and nicotine are just as much of gateway drugs as any other illegal substance. Also the argument that driving high will be a huge problem has been posited and to that I would say the same procedure that is used with alcohol will ultimately be applied to drugs.
The turning point for me in this debate was when Ron Paul was asked about his extreme belief that all drugs should drugs during a presidential debate and he boiled the argument down to the simple question of do I need the government to tell what I have to put in my body or can I be accountable for what I choose to do or not do to myself. That really struck me because for all the health classes and school sponsored seminaries about drug use, it still seems like the legislation is crafted with the assumption that all of us are incapable of taking care of ourselves. What is to stop the government from telling me that I can't have a Twix bar, you know it causes diabetes so why let that product continue to flood the streets with sugary consequences. If people truly believe they can't let themselves be culpable for their own actions, then I think the debate has to larger than drugs could ever be.
Before the US had any federal regulation of drugs, most people remained productive members of society and handled what we call illegal drugs, just like nicotine and alcohol. That is, until the prohibition of alcohol which further proves my point. Gangsters like Al Capone became very rich as a result of trafficking the newly outlawed substance and looking at the power of the cartels today, it appears the same relationship has formed with illicit drugs and kingpins. Billions poured into drugs by American consumers and all of it going to violent criminals. Imagine none of it going to outlaws and a percent going to the government in the form of taxes. Add on the money saved on nonviolent drug offenders being absent from jails and the national deficit looks much less intimidating. The most important aspect of nonviolent offenders being released is that as a result the prison system has become unsustainable is simply wrong in its current state as we learned in class. Three minor drug crimes equating to a life sentence is simply ridiculous, many rapists and murders do not serve that kind of time. Moreover, many nonviolent convicts become violent in jail as a result of the abuse they endure while locked up; not quite the rehabilitation that the pamphlet advertises.
Knowing that this a very sensitive topic and that many people have a strong opinion on I feel the need to counter many common criticisms of the legalization of drugs. The main concerning of the Colorado law is that cannabis is a gateway drug that leads to more harmful drug use eventually. I would retort that alcohol and nicotine are just as much of gateway drugs as any other illegal substance. Also the argument that driving high will be a huge problem has been posited and to that I would say the same procedure that is used with alcohol will ultimately be applied to drugs.
The turning point for me in this debate was when Ron Paul was asked about his extreme belief that all drugs should drugs during a presidential debate and he boiled the argument down to the simple question of do I need the government to tell what I have to put in my body or can I be accountable for what I choose to do or not do to myself. That really struck me because for all the health classes and school sponsored seminaries about drug use, it still seems like the legislation is crafted with the assumption that all of us are incapable of taking care of ourselves. What is to stop the government from telling me that I can't have a Twix bar, you know it causes diabetes so why let that product continue to flood the streets with sugary consequences. If people truly believe they can't let themselves be culpable for their own actions, then I think the debate has to larger than drugs could ever be.
Wednesday, January 8, 2014
Compulsory Conscription: An Avenue for Peace
The discussions about the military industrial complex in class have brought up some disturbing realizations about the relationship between the United States and war. Still obviously every sane individual on this Earth wants permanent world peace and though it may sound like pie in the sky to many, I firmly believe there is a step that can taken to promote less military action by the United States. When you look at the constant state of war that the US has been in for the past 50 years it is almost impossible to imagine the US government halting its extensive military operations. All kinds of movements have sprung up trying to reach policy makings in an attempt to temper the war mongering that takes place on Capitol Hill. Yet I think the real issue is the lack of empathy between politicians and the families of service members who lose there lives. Everybody knows the saying its a 'rich man's war and a poor man's fight' and that rings just as true today. My method of slowing down the war machine would be to re-institute the draft from the past century.
Bring the impact of war to those dispensing the blessing of conflict by the possibility that even their family members will be made to wear the uniform.
No parent wants their children to be harms way, especially if they are the President. I don't think it's a stretch believing that President Bush would not have given the go ahead to invade Iraq if his daughters were enlisted in the Armed Forces. The innate reluctance to let danger near a son or daughter can be used to create a sort of deterrent. The chickenhawks in Congress who did not serve and can't serve now, will have to put the possibility of their family member being drafted on their conscience.
An article in the Guardian looks at Greece's system of a mandatory stint in the army for every adult male in the country. Greece stayed out of the Iraq for the most part and many attribute it to the fact that every voter and politician would have to feel the consequences of deploying troops. It forces every citizen to be intimately involved with the blow-back that follows conflict. In contrast, most Americans are far removed from the suffering caused by the nations wars. I would even be in favor of something as small as a rationing of food similar to during World War II, simply to make sure everyone is aware that troops are fighting aboard.
It has become clear to me that their is a lack of remorse while the US is waging war. War is not about ideologies and as much as it is about dollars and votes to these powerful figures. The clearest way to put accountable on politicians is to challenge them at home. It is a cynical route but what other recourse is there? To hold these decision makers back from conflict, we have to involve a precious third party.
Guardian Article Link:http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/30/bring-back-military-draft
Bring the impact of war to those dispensing the blessing of conflict by the possibility that even their family members will be made to wear the uniform.
No parent wants their children to be harms way, especially if they are the President. I don't think it's a stretch believing that President Bush would not have given the go ahead to invade Iraq if his daughters were enlisted in the Armed Forces. The innate reluctance to let danger near a son or daughter can be used to create a sort of deterrent. The chickenhawks in Congress who did not serve and can't serve now, will have to put the possibility of their family member being drafted on their conscience.
An article in the Guardian looks at Greece's system of a mandatory stint in the army for every adult male in the country. Greece stayed out of the Iraq for the most part and many attribute it to the fact that every voter and politician would have to feel the consequences of deploying troops. It forces every citizen to be intimately involved with the blow-back that follows conflict. In contrast, most Americans are far removed from the suffering caused by the nations wars. I would even be in favor of something as small as a rationing of food similar to during World War II, simply to make sure everyone is aware that troops are fighting aboard.
It has become clear to me that their is a lack of remorse while the US is waging war. War is not about ideologies and as much as it is about dollars and votes to these powerful figures. The clearest way to put accountable on politicians is to challenge them at home. It is a cynical route but what other recourse is there? To hold these decision makers back from conflict, we have to involve a precious third party.
Guardian Article Link:http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/30/bring-back-military-draft
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)