Eden

I've already acquired a shotgun.

But don't go anywhere else

Vaccines are a tremendously controversial subject right now, and since this is merely a blog by an admitted lay person in the area of medicine, I'm not really going to jump into it too much. I just have an interesting story to share that involves vaccines. I will however mention that I believe much of the heated debate on this topic has to do with the majority of the medical community simply refusing to engage in the conversation. The impression I get is that they feel they have spoken and they don't want to talk about it anymore. Never mind that an ever increasing number of people are refusing vaccines, that we're seeing huge spikes in childhood diseases coming under the umbrella of autism, auto-immune disorders, and allergies with no good explanation as to why, that the number of suggested vaccinations has gone from somewhere around four (polio and mmr) to somewhere around sixteen in the last 15 or so years, that there are some very questionable connections between those people who are recommending the vaccines and those people who are making the vaccines, and that above all parents are asking for some real answers. Still, what we get in response is a one size fits all immunization schedule, the strong suggestion that every single person get every single vaccination at the scheduled time, and no viable studies on long term effects of this practice.



As I said though, I'm not going to add my two cents to this debate because many who know far more than I are already speaking on both sides. I appreciate that, especially from those in the medical community (such as my doctor) who are willing to have the conversation and who are willing to allow parents to choose not to immunize or to follow a modified immunization schedule without writing them off as crazies who are unfit to parent. In fact, if a parent isn't questioning loading their child from birth with viruses and foreign substances (such as aluminum, formaldehyde, and various animal products) before doing so, that should cause some concern.



My sister and I were having this conversation the other day, as we both have children who would be getting vaccinations via the standard schedule, and so it's more than just an academic topic of discussion for us. She was telling me that she had gone into her doctor to have her youngest daughter receive a second round of vaccinations and she was asking the nurse some questions about a particular vaccine. The nurse was answering the question and then said, "If you have any more questions just go to cdc.gov...but don't go anywhere else." I was shocked, but not particularly surprised that she would say this. It really just belies the medical community's stance on the vaccination debate, in that in their minds there is no debate, but only wild, ignorant ravings from those who present information counter to theirs. However, regardless of the quality of the argument against, when someone who is supposed to be a trusted advisor is saying that an agency of the U.S. government is the sole bearer of truth on a subject, that should lead to some serious questioning of that person's role as an advisor, and if the medical community as a whole is suggesting such a thing with regard to vaccinations, we should all be very alarmed, and become very educated on the subject.

Currently, there are no laws

I don't watch the local news. Yes, I do care about what's happening in my community, and yes I do have a feed on my home page for local newspaper articles, but I don't watch the evening news. Sometimes though I accidentally catch some of it, and after my initial feelings of bewilderment pass, I'm reminded of exactly why I very intentionally avoid it.

Recently there was an accident here in the area involving a texting motorist and a police car on the shoulder of an interstate. Clearly a potentially very serious situation that thankfully didn't involve much more than what I imagine was a good scare for everyone. Last night, as my TV flips to the most recent channel I was watching after I'd deleted my recording of a syndicated Scrubs episode, I happen to catch the end of this story on the evening news. "Okay, that's probably a legit news story", I tell myself, "Nothing there to warrant me being annoyed enough to write a blog post regarding my annoyance, that no one will ever read." Then, to what I guess should have been my anticipated bewilderment, they follow the story up with a series of video pieces in which they asked random residents how they "felt" about texting while driving.

There are just so many things wrong with this. The idea is wrong, the use of resources is wrong, the content is wrong, the delivery is wrong. This isn't a debatable subject. No sane person thinks texting while in control of a two thousand pound missile made of glass and steel is a good idea. But, if it were a debatable subject, don't stick a camera in the face of random people on the street and ask them a question for which they have no time to prepare an answer. Even with time and no camera the average person probably isn't going to have anything meaningful to say on the majority of topics, so there's almost zero chance of getting something worthwhile in this manner. If however the local news is going to choose to ask a question that has only one sane answer, and then to do that via ambush on the good people of the community, it would be ever so nice if they would save this activity for their interns and use their resources to air some meaningful content.

In the article linked above it mentions that there is currently no law against texting while driving. I won't get started on the implications of needing to create such a law, but should we decide to do that, I think we should also include one to protect citizens from "Pulse of the People"-type segments by local news teams.

Well, it looks like I did have something to say

I find myself awake, with some free time, and a marginal amount of energy. I'm so shocked I'm barely able to type. We as a family are waiting for the arrival of our daughter any day now, and so among other preperation activities, my mother in law is staying with us for awhile. I'm of course very glad to have her as a guest, but she has also been so kind as to cook (not that I really do any of this anyway) and do the dishes (this I do try for most of the time) several nights in a row now. So, I find myself with some free time, some energy, and someone else to watch The Biggest Loser with my lovely wife. Naturally I don't really have much to say tonight, but in the true spirit of blogging, I'm going to say something anyway.



I recently read a book called "For the Children's Sake" by Susan Schaeffer Macaulay (daughter of Francis Schaeffer). I realize that having books recommended is almost meaningless most of the time, and I think that stems from the real lack of book reading we do as a culture, so when one does finish a book one feels compelled to recommend it because there is little or nothing to compare it to in order to determine real value. I also realize that in my current season of life I am not reading with nearly the volume I would like and so I quite understand ones reluctance to take a book recommendation of mine as well. Having said all that, this book is well worth the read. I'd even go so far as to suggest that every parent (at least in our predominantly western culture) should read this book when considering how to educate their children.



Jumping subjects almost entirely, I heard someone on the radio the other day talking about how the lack of trust by the consumer in the government and financial sector to do right by the investor is one of the major causes of the severe economic downturn we've seen in the U.S. I don't think this is any kind of news flash, and was almost completely passed over during the radio show, I suppose for the reason that it wasn't seen as a particularly insightful comment. I suppose we Americans as a culture take trust for granted at almost an instinctual level, and as Stephen MR Covey would point out, greater trust means faster results means more money. As we are forced to more heavily regulate, audit, monitor, record, and report what's happening in the market place, the market place slows done, increases overhead, and generates less wealth. Mix this up with some good old fashion greed and fiscal irresponsiblity by a lot of parties, and you get a nice red color with which to paint a sign that reads "Welcome to the Great Recession".



But trust is such a part of our culture that we hardly even notice it, except when it wanes in the face of gross misconduct by those in whom trust has been placed. This is something my mother is quick to point out. The fabric of the American society is woven with values like honesty, trust, responsibility, kindness, respect, equality, and the like, and that these values are from the Judeo-Christian tradition. In the modernist or post-modernist world, this fabric is not possible. How can you trust someone to do the right thing if there is no such thing as "right" or if "right" is simply determined by the majority? The answer of course is that you cannot, and so in the market for example we are no longer permitted a framework based on universal truths from which we can make decisions, we must instead have rules to govern every facet of our behavior. The real trouble of course with this approach is that it is impossible to predict all of the damaging schemes people are capable of creating (because we're such an infinitely creative lot, for better or worse), and so it's only possible to regulate after the fact. Thus we have the mortgage crisis, the banking crisis, and steriods in baseball. So, what is the ultimate answer? We need only look to a few countries that have not founded their market (and indeed their society) on Judeo-Christian principles to see the answer. The removal of freedoms, or of all freedom is the final solution. If a people cannot govern themselves, they will be governed.



President Obama is very often referencing the fact that America has always risen to big challenges, and this is for the most part true, but we have always done so by building on the foundation that was laid at our country's inception. In recent decades we have been making a concerted effort as a society to remove that foundation and replace it with something much less capable of holding a thing as weighty as a rise to a mighty challenge. I hate to sound all "right-wing" here, but this is just logic. If America decides at this time (the next three to five years) that we will refuse the principles upon which this country was founded (the most fundamental of which was that there are universal truths and that they are revealed in the Judeo-Christian tradition), then we will no longer have our country's history as a precedent for our country's future. We will be laying a new foundation for our society and attempting to build on that. This may succeed and it may fail, but whatever it ends up being, it will not be the America of the past two hundred years. It simply cannot be.

I am gray today (with an "a")

Churchill said, "It is however easier to infuriate Americans than it is to cow them." This is a good observation, and one that probably wouldn't have been made by an American. That's why it's refreshing (sometimes the refreshment comes after the initial shock) to get an honest opinion about oneself from a reliable outside observer.


A particularly unproductive (and sometimes annoying) trait of we Americans, which was pointed out to me a few years ago is our feeling that we must add our own opinion to whatever conversation is being had around us, regardless of pretty much anything; including our knowledge of the subject matter, the need for further commentary, our ability to add an original thought, or even just the necessity of continuing the conversation at hand. Of course the advent of the Internet has only further enabled this (and yes, I am aware of the irony of writing this observation on my blog). But for some time now I've considered the question of why this is so. Tonight I believe I received another clue. It is true Americans have the right to express their opinion. But, we then appear to move from a position of right, to a position of obligation or requirement, as if to suggest that to refrain from offering our opinion would be a disservice to ourselves and whatever community we happen to be in at the time. Perhaps we are that insecure...or perhaps we're just that bored and self-involved.


I was afforded this insight by the YouTube community. The new Dell commercials have this catchy little tune playing with them..."I am green today, I chirp with joy like a cricket's song..." etc. It's just a finger picked guitar with harmonizing female voices, but it emotes a feeling of relaxation, and the lyrics are fun for their imagery. "I am gray today, gloomy and damp like a morning fog." YouTube has the video here, but I wouldn't suggest actually watching the video. The song is from an album titled "Dance for the Sun", and is apparently meant for children's yoga. The video was obviously meant for the same thing as was the album, namely consumption by children alone. I'd actually love to hear the story of how this song ended up on a Dell commercial.


Notice though the comments that go along with this video, all 560 (at the time of this post) that have been added since the video went up in July of this year. How could there possibly be 560 separate, meaningful, productive comments about this music video? This isn't "One of Us", or a Beetles song from their later years. This is a song on a children's album about colors. I'd say there could be a max of three comment threads, none of which could ever total 560 comments. These threads would be "this is why the song is good", "this is why it's bad", and the over under on the cost of the video, which would probably end up somewhere around $7. Yet the comments for this video include lengthy discussions on what is a color and what is not, rude responses to those discussions, the apparently unavoidable opinion that "macs rule", and of course 200 comments each for "I like (or love) it and the singer" and "I don't like (or hate) it and the singer". In one of the spars, a poster asks another why that poster had chosen to write a comment that some had found very annoying. I think the annoying comment was that gray is not a color, which did indeed lead to a very lively and directionless exchange, including a discussion about how the word "gray" is spelled (apparently it's spelled with an "a" in the artistic community, though naturally not everyone could agree on that). The poster of the "gray" comment replies, "the first amendment".


Constitutional law has decided that speech can only be legally banned when it is likely to incite imminent lawless action. Obviously that interpretation doesn't cover the hundreds of unnecessary comments on the "Colors" video (although it could be argued the video itself may incite illegal drug use in an attempt to understand it), and it doesn't cover millions of comments we Americans feel compelled to make each day on any given topic, in any situation, via any medium. However, it is also obvious that a legal action is not by necessity a wise or beneficial one. For instance, it's perfectly legal to tell one's wife she is getting fat, but not at all wise. It's perfectly legal to make a Lorena Bobbit joke, but not at all beneficial. Our lives would be richer and our talk more meaningful and productive if, before offering up whatever happens to be on our mind in that moment, we instead take the responsibility to not only consider whether we are able to speak, but also whether we are wise to do so.

Drinkability

I have so many objections to Anheuser-Busch's new ad campaign that I can hardly even make this post. However, let me begin by saying that this will not be a beer snob post. While it has been suggested that this label would perhaps be an accurate one for me (I'm not so sure), I'm not here going to even attempt to make a critique of any of A-B's beers. I'm sure that's been done over and over, and I don't need to repeat that work. Long ago I came to realize that the American macro-brews serve a purpose, and while that purpose is not to brew delicious beers of various varieties, it is at least in part to offer refreshment to those who would not perhaps enjoy a more aggresive or full brew. I don't need to enjoy these macro-brews myself to see that others might.

I do however have a problem with the "drinkability" campaign. To begin, drinkability is a noun, albeit one that is not frequently used. It's a liquid that's suitable or safe for drinking. A-B claims the difference between Bud Light and other light beers is drinkability; that "just right taste". Of course a taste can't be described with a noun because taste is a noun in this context, so that would just be silly. For instance, I probably wouldn't describe the taste of a taco as a cow, as in "this taco tastes cow". That obviously doesn't make any sense, and for good reason. In English, you can't use a noun to descibe a noun. As someone who watches a bit of sport, and so not a few of these commercials, I would prefer a claim like "the supremely drinkable beer", just for my own ability to passively consume the message, ignore it, and move on.

But petty English grievances aside, I'll admit that we don't use "drinkability" as a noun much, and Urban Dictionary does in fact use it as an adjective "evaluating how smooth and easy-to-drink a beverage is." This is also an accepted term in the beer community to basically describe how fast one drinks a beer when one is not attempting to drink either quickly or slowly. So, in this context, the use of the term by A-B makes sense.

However, this means that A-B is spending roughly $50 million US dollars to inform people they can drink a bunch of Bud Light, quickly. Awesome. But wait, is this good? Isn't water the most drinkable liquid in the world? Doesn't that mean that if Bud Light is the most drinkable beer, it has the most water? Is this really how a brewing company would like to differentiate it's light beer, on how close it is to pure water? I'm thinking probably not, but it is in fact what this new ad campaign is suggesting.

Finally, since I do watch some sports, I also get to enjoy the Budweiser commercials that are currently being aired. The pitch here (with a little shout out to Idaho) is that Budweiser is the only beer that offers the perfect balance of taste and refreshment. Sound familiar? Yes, A-B is currently suggesting that its "premium" lager offers the same advantage its light beer does, namely that it tastes alright, but is also good for pounding and use in beer bongs. I suppose though that I should be respectful of the thread of honesty that's running through these campaigns. I wonder if all of this is InBev's idea...

Caleb's early life training