Thursday, October 14, 2010

Even small victories are sweet

Political sign I headed out to the store today, and on my way, I saw three signs for an area political candidate along the highway. I'd never seen signs like that along the main highway--on public land--so they really jumped out at me. I was pretty certain that you couldn't put political signs on public land, so when I got home, I posted on Facebook wondering if anyone knew more about it, and who they thought I should call. City? County? One person thought the city, and another thought either the city or county highway department. The latter sounded most right to me, so I gave the county highway department a call.

When I described the situation and the location of the signs, the woman I spoke to said that because it was along a state highway, US 31, I'd need to call the state. Okay. I could do that. I looked up the information in the phone book, and called the regional office in Plymouth, just a few miles south of here. Here was the conversation.

Me: I have a question about some political signs I saw along the highway this morning. I called my county highway department, and they told me that because it was on a state highway, I should call the state. I thought you couldn't put political signs on public land. Private is fine, I know, but I thought putting them on public land was against the law.

Her: Was it on the right-of-way?

Me: Well, it was just off of the highway, by the shoulder. [I described the exact location of the signs. And here is where it gets interesting.]

Her: Hm, okay. Who were the signs for?

Me: Jackie Walorski. [That is the teabagger candidate running against the incumbent, Joe Donnelly.]

Her: [a pause] Okay, I'll have my guys check it out, but if it's not obstructing the view, it's okay.

Me: Really? I thought they couldn't be on public land.

Her: As long as they're not obstructing the view, it's okay.

Me: Hmm. I really thought that wasn't allowed. I think I need to do some more investigating. Thanks for your time!

So guess what I did? That's right...I did some more investigating. First I looked on the INDOT website to see if I could find their policies about what was allowed on public land and what wasn't. I really couldn't make much sense of it, so I looked at their FAQs, and still couldn't find what I needed. So I sent them an email explaining what I saw and where I saw it (although I didn't include whose signs they were) and saying that I thought political signs weren't allowed on public land. I then wrote to one of my local TV stations, because they have a feature called "Good Question of the Day," where people write in about various topics concerning the area. I thought it was a legitimate question.

Much to my surprise, I heard very quickly back from the LaPorte office of INDOT:

Thank you for contacting the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT). We appreciate you taking the time to contact us. Below is the press release that was sent on September 21, 2010 regarding Political Signs on INDOT right-of-way. Please feel free to contact the Plymouth Sub-District and they will investigate and remove the signs should they be on state right-of-way.

Again, thank you for contacting INDOT.

And here is the text of the press release that they included:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

September 21, 2010

Political Signs Removed From State And Federal Rights-Of-Way

Signs Will Be Taken To Nearest INDOT Subdistrict Office

LAPORTE, Ind. – The Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) reminds all Hoosiers that campaign signs are prohibited from federal and state highway rights-of-way by Indiana Code 9-21-4-6. INDOT personnel are required by state law to remove all unauthorized signs within the state right-of-way. The right-of-way areas which must remain “sign free” for the safety of the motoring public include:

· All interstates and their interchanges;

· All intersections where at least one local, state or federal road intersects with a state or federal highway; and

· All rights-of-way paralleling federal or state highways (the right-of-way extends to the back of the ditch, to the fence line or up to utility poles). INDOT crews will not pull signs placed behind the ditch, fence line or beyond the public utility poles.

Removed signs will be saved at the nearest INDOT Subdistrict office. Candidates may reclaim signs between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, except for holidays.

As you can imagine, when I saw that, I pretty much crowed. I knew that couldn't be right! The broad at the Plymouth office had the nerve to tell me that it was okay! I honestly wonder if she said that because of whose signs they were? Was she a Walorski supporter? I have no way of knowing, but she definitely gave me false information.

I wondered if I should contact the Plymouth office again, or just wait to see what WSBT did. I couldn't contain myself, and I called the office. Here is that conversation:

Me: Hi, I called this office earlier about some political signs I saw along US 31, and--

Him: Yes ma'am, we checked them out and they've already been removed.

Me: Really? You're telling me they've been removed already?

Him: Yes, ma'am.

Ohhh, how sweet it is!

Donnelly for Congress Someone asked if the signs were those of a candidate I don't like. I said that I don't just dislike Jackie Walorski, I loathe her. (I've written about her before.) If it had been signs from Donnelly, would I have called about them? No, I would not have. That's up to those who oppose him. I don't like Walorski, her supporters were wrong to put signs up on public land, and I got 'em removed. End o' story.

Check it out—I’m putting up a sign for Donnelly on my own blog. Because I can, and because I’m not putting it up on public land. That’s how it works.

Even beyond getting the signs removed, what I'm happiest about is that I didn't accept that stupid bitch's "Yes, it's okay" as the truth. I was almost certain that she was lying to me, or at least just trying to get rid of a call that she didn't want to take (and possibly trying to keep the signs up for someone she supports). Don't accept such an explanation if you are pretty sure that it's bullshit. Don't let some low-level bureaucrat brush you off with a glib remark, when you know it's not right. Don't let them get away with it.

Question authority.

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Writing about Writing

Writing I suppose that any of us who write a blog fancy ourselves as some sort of writer. I mean, the very act of writing makes us writers, no?

I hold no illusions, though. I occasionally get compliments, and I have been told that I'm a good writer. I appreciate it every time I hear it, it but I don't delude myself into thinking that I'm brilliant at it. (And please, please do not take this as my wanting or needing you to leave comments saying that I'm good. I always enjoy a nice compliment, but now is not one of those times. Compliments are much sweeter and more meaningful when unsolicited, spontaneous, and sincere.) I think that I'm a good "conversational" writer. I remember a friend telling me once, shortly after we got out of high school, that getting a letter from me was like talking to me. So I think that I do have a pretty decent ability when it comes to that. I also do pretty well with spelling and grammar, although I am by no means an expert.

All my tiny little feelings of accomplishment are blown out of the water when I read certain authors and essayists. You know the type...you read something so good that you're left with a mixture of awe, admiration, and envy. "Wow. That is really good. Man, I wish I could write like that, you bastard!" Of course, the epithet is meant with affection, because you truly do admire the way they can evoke emotional responses and paint such a vivid picture.

I think of Christopher Hitchens and his remarkable piece for Vanity Fair in which he learns that he has esophageal cancer. He writes with humor, pragmatism, and courage, including such lines as "In whatever kind of a 'race' life may be, I have very abruptly become a finalist," and "To the dumb question 'Why me?' the cosmos barely bothers to return the reply: Why not?"

Or consider San Francisco columnist Mark Morford, as he contemplates teabagger candidates and the difficulties they face on the campaign trail:

I sip my wine and sigh. What deeply unhappy lives these people must lead, no? So small and cloistered, panicky and scripted, entirely cut off from anything resembling the hot thrum of raw, sticky, swear-worded life as you and I know it, as they shuffle like chilled meatpacks from air conditioned SUV to stuffy Holiday Inn conference room, threadbare high school auditorium to sparsely attended right-wing nutball Midwestern church, retirement home, cotton-candy fairground.

There they are, lurching around the podium, stroking that baby, trying to rally the troops, working like 10 flavors of desperate hell to mean something to someone, somewhere, knowing full well what they're selling is a show, a sham, as they dance and swagger like a doll on a string.

Writing man Man, that's good. "Shuffle like chilled meatpacks." That makes me want to clap my hands with delight!

Third Eye Blind sang that "the four right chords can make me cry." So true. So, also, can an amazingly constructed sentence, a beautiful turn of phrase, and a perfect use of an obscure word. I love it when an author makes me look up a word; I might think I know the meaning of it, but I want to make sure. But just throwing a bizarre word in there for the hell of it is annoying and makes it seem like you're trying too hard. (I'm talking to you, Dean Koontz. Stop using the word 'ziggurat.' You don't have to put it in every freakin' book, okay?) There have been times when something is worded just so, and it honestly does bring tears to my eyes, or makes me smile with how well it was said. When that happens, I make a little note on the page, and put the page number on the inside of the back cover. I don't think Stephen King is a brilliant writer (a very enjoyable one, though), but he really does have a way with words sometimes, and here are a couple of my book notations I found.

I guess it gets cold everywhere. I bet it even snows in hell, although I doubt if it sticks. (from Duma Key)

...he walked to the wall where the safe was with big soft steps of cartoon caution. (from Under the Dome)

Isn't that wonderful? Can't you just picture it, and maybe even hear the cartoon boop boop boop sounds? Ha!

A lackadaisical little breeze cat's-pawed their cheeks. (also from Under the Dome)

I've found that reading some of the classic novels in my book club has shown me some unexpected and pleasantly surprising writing of outstanding caliber.

Sounds like the splash of a duck landing on the water...came across miles with a clarity that was at first incredible—and then mysterious because, like a cry in an empty house, it seemed to make the silence, the peace, more intense. Almost as if sounds were there to distinguish the silence, and not the reverse. (from The Magus, by John Fowles)

Writing rules That is very evocative for me, because that is my experience in living out in the country. The silence is often shattered by sounds of vehicles (including loud farm equipment) going by on the road, but there are times when I can hear the subtlest of sounds, including squirrels chattering from the trees, and a sudden sound of deer bounding through the woods.

Salt is added to dried rose petals with the perfume and spices, when we stored them away in covered jars, the summers of our past. (from Angle of Repose by Wallace Stegner)

A wandering dog of a night wind came in off the sagebrush mesa carrying a bar of band music, and laid it on her doorstep like a bone. (also from Angle of Repose)

...her white summer handbag like a white kitten in her lap... (Angle of Repose again)

Can you tell that I enjoyed Angle of Repose?

Okay, I think that is enough quotes. You get the idea. I read things like that and I'm hit upside the head just how remarkable some writers are. THAT is something to aspire to. I don't write fiction very often (although I might have to work on that), but I can only hope that once in a while I find that turn of phrase that is just right. I think I come close on rare occasions, and I feel okay about being a tiny bit proud of that and I hope that I can improve on it. I don't know how true the "tips for writers" graphic is, but everything I've read from actual writers has included the advice to keep reading. "Writers read." I think that IS important, because it shows you different ways of constructing your writing, different styles, teaches you about flow and grammar and usage. It also makes you understand your shortcomings and feel the humility that follows. Who knows? Maybe one day, I'll manage to leave someone in awe!

To all my writer friends, those famous and those who are not—yet—I salute you. You have a remarkable ability, you have a rare talent, and you have the potential to hit those four right chords that can make me cry. Keep at it. I will, too.

Monday, October 11, 2010

No More Mr. Nice Guy

AliceL Maybe I'm just "in a mood" tonight, but I'm feeling rather fierce.

Not stabby or anything, not ready to rip someone's head off. I'm actually in a pretty good mood...it was a beautiful, sunny weekend, and my Irish and my Colts both won. A few hitches along the way, but all in all, it ended up being a good weekend. Got some stuff done, some things tidied up, and that always makes me feel good.

However, I read a few things tonight that have made me more than ready to rumble. New York Governor candidate Carl "Hair Trigger" Paladino made some remarks concerning homosexuals, saying that he didn't want children...

"...to be brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid or successful option," compared to heterosexuality. "It isn't."

"I just think my children and your children would be much better off and much more successful getting married and raising a family." Paladino also slammed his Democratic opponent, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, for marching in New York's gay pride parade in June. "That's not the example that we should be showing the children and certainly not in our schools," he said.

More in a moment, but one quick thing about that. I've never had children. Does that mean that I am somehow "lesser" of a person? Does that make me any less of a citizen?

Then I read something from a family member:

Gays expecting special treatment pisses me off. They say they want equality, but what they really want is preferential treatment. Kind of like feminists. They want the same pay, same benefits, and all else, but they want to be treated better. I say, to BOTH feminists and homosexuals, if you want the pay and benefits on an equal basis with heterosexual men, you had better be willing to be treated the same way we do.

Yeah. There's a very good reason I'm not friends with some people on Facebook.

Okay. Let's get this straight. So to speak. Ha! Gays and feminists don't want to be treated "better." We want to be treated EQUALLY. Do you comprehend that term? EQUAL to others. Same pay for the same job done; the right to love whoever we happen to love and the right to marry them; the same rights guaranteed to everyone under OUR Constitution.

That family member's comment is also interesting in that it implies that heterosexual men are somehow treated badly...that any gays or feminists expecting equal rights should be willing to be treated the same as straight men. Oh...you mean like...being treated well? Treated fairly? Treated as if gender or orientation doesn't matter?

I made a couple of disparaging remarks about Paladino on Facebook. I believe it involved something about how he can shove his homophobic views right up his ass. Someone called me out on it, said that was hateful, stooping to Paladino's level, and no better than the tactics that Paladino was using.

Rainbow cakeThat is where the "No More Mr. Nice Guy" thought came in. I'm a little tired of being nice. I'm tired of sitting back and letting these people say whatever they want, while the rest of us just sit back and say, "Ohhh, well...you know...they're entitled to their own opinion." Of course, they are. And I am also entitled to stand up and say that they are a sack of shit with no compassion and no understanding of other human beings, someone blinded by their own narrow dogma, and someone who is setting themselves up as judge and jury of humanity. People like Paladino don't want a dialogue. They are not going to listen to our impassioned pleas to understand where we're coming from, or try to see things from our point of view. They are firmly implanted in the concrete of their own self-righteousness, and they don't believe that homersexticals are "normal." And apparently some people would add feminists to that.

I don't want to play nice anymore. Paladino went on to say that he believes in "live and let live." I guess as long as those dirty homos don't have the same rights as the rest of us do! I read several comments tonight about how homosexuality is a choice. Right. Because everyone wants to be bullied and picked on and treated as less than equal to others in their own country, even those who served as soldiers in defense of it. I honestly see no reason why we shouldn't stand up and call these people the bigots and hatemongers they are, and I have no problem with using strong language to do so. They certainly don't respond to reasonable discourse, so a "shove it up your ass" here and there seems warranted.

By no means do I advocate violence. Quite the opposite. But I'm also not going to sit quietly while hearing people like Paladino make such remarks against a number of our citizens, people that I love dearly and value highly. If I am violent, it is with my words. Sometimes that is exactly what is needed. I make no apologies for that. If anyone...ANYONE...ever fucks with my loved ones and friends who happen to be gay, I'm here to tell you that I will fuck your shit up. Please make a note of it.

I got no friends 'cause they read the papers

They can't be seen with me

And I'm feelin' real shot down

And I'm gettin' mean

Thursday, October 7, 2010

Woo, Part Two

Suffragettes A short follow-up to my previous post. There was something else said to me that I wanted to address.

i would remind you that this way of dismissal has been going on for thousands of years, and thank goodness some were courageous to challenge those angry stances. and frankly beth, if it were not for open minded (alternative) expression and action, you (as a woman) would not be in a position to work in your chosen field or express your views...it took bold action to look at alternative methods of dealing w minorities, and stop witch burnings and such...and don't tell me its apples and oranges - its not. the same stubborn, attacking, finger pointing methods were used by those in charge then, and still used today, and done so to keep things the way they are...personally, i prefer to evolve, and that means looking beyond what is on front of us...

Hey, guess what? It's apples and oranges! Seriously, what a ridiculous comparison. One involves societal changes and human rights; the other involves medical research that is reproducible and verifiable. I found this interesting on a couple of levels. The fact that he brought up the women's rights movement and said that if it weren't for that, I wouldn't be working in my chosen field or able to express my views strikes me as a subtle misogynistic remark. In other words, hush up, you uppity woman. Know your place. (By the way, women are not a minority.) Perhaps he was a little miffed that I wrote that this conversation was the funniest thing I'd seen on his page in some time. >:] Why yes, I can be a little ornery at times.

I'm not in charge of anything. I am simply someone who prefers facts over faith and science over quack remedies. It's certainly okay to look beyond what is in front of us as we explore philosophical questions, but looking beyond a well-researched and scientifically sound paper to reach for magical solutions is just delusional.

As I pondered this a bit today--I like to evolve, too, and that means examining things below the surface for a broader interpretation--I came to the conclusion that this guy and his friends were angry at me (and Darren) for questioning their beliefs. We were both told that we were "angry" and accused of name-calling. I can assure you that there was no name-calling. I may get forceful in my opinions, but I don't resort to something so childish in a debate. When I used facts to advance my Lab argument concerning vaccinations, they responded with defensive remarks about alternative methods and how they've "seen it work," or talked about bizarre things like "quantum healing." When I said that I'll take antibiotics over a prayer any day, they made false accusations of name-calling. I was accused of saying that I hope they find out the hard way, when I said explicitly several times that I hope none of them, and especially their children, have to find out the hard way. I knew this before, but this whole incident sure confirmed it: people feel threatened when anyone dares to question their belief system, no matter what it concerns. That's exactly what I was accused of, except I had research and facts to back up my belief system...they had nothing but "it's worked in my life." If that's all you've got, don't get pissed at me for being skeptical, and you sure as hell better not accuse me of doing or saying things that I did not. I will bite back. Count on it.

Okay, time to move on. As I wrote there last night, I'll leave them to their happy little world of woo. They can light candles, hold hands, and sing "This Little Light of Mine" and just have a ball. And then when they get a nasty little pustule that won't go away and it turns out to be MRSA, they will probably go to the doctor and get an antibiotic; or when their kid is gasping for breath because they never got them immunized for pertussis, they'll probably take them to the hospital for respiratory support. That's what really irritates me about this kind of thing. It's convenient for them to rail against the evils of Western medicine, but the vast majority of them will use it when they actually get really sick. It's easy to talk about alternative methods when you don't have a massive infection...probably a little harder when your kidneys are shutting down because you caught E coli O157 from that medium rare hamburger you had last weekend.

The Wonderful World of Woo

Hot button Hot button issue...I haz one.

Some of you can probably guess. Class? Anyone?

No, not Sarah Palin and the fruit flies, but it's somewhat related. Nothing gets me het up like anti-vaxxers. I've written about it before (I'm too lazy right now to find the post, but if you're dying of curiosity, you can just search my blog for 'anti-vaccination' or 'Jenny McCarthy.' You should find the entry/ies that way.), and I've made it abundantly clear that I am firmly on the side of science on this issue. I should actually say 'non-issue,' since numerous studies have shown no link between vaccines and autism.

I generally try to stay away from lengthy Facebook arguments about anything these days. It just takes up too much time, it makes me too agitated, and it raises my blood pressure. But every so often, I'll be in just the right mood, and something will hit me the wrong way. Then it's Game On.

That happened last night. Someone posted an update about all the vaccines that kids get now, all the "new illnesses" that we're hearing about, all the drugs that are pushed upon the populace. While I don't disagree that we are a pill-popping society, antibiotics are important, as are vaccines. Both save lives. So I started on the vaccine thing. It turned out I'd entered a hornet's nest of new age, holistic, alternative medicine, holding hands, "quantum healing" (I'm not kidding), and basically thinking that Western medicine is bad and Eastern medicine is good. (Guess they missed that part about the numerous parasitic infections that occur in many Eastern countries.)

I tried to stay respectful and factual as long as possible, but I was unable to sustain it. When I dared to question the efficacy of prayer, said I'd take medical treatment over it any day, I was told that someone would "pray that I get my head out of my ass." [laughing] I'm always so impressed when I find those kind of caring, Christian people, aren't you?

There was the lady who asserted that vaccines were made by infecting cows and then harvesting the pus (or as she put it, "puss"--haha) from the "blisters" and making the vaccine out of that. When I said that no, we make vaccines under controlled, sterile conditions now, she said I was wrong...that she'd seen it on TV.

Then there was the lady who talked about colloidal silver as an alternative to current treatments like antibiotics. Before antibiotics, that was a possible treatment, because it does kill a lot of organisms. Including the good ones. It can also cause some pretty serious side effects, and colloidal silver can turn you blue. I'll have Bactrim instead, thank you very much! The same woman told me to investigate how an alkaline environment is toxic to bacteria. (It's also kind of toxic to people, but apparently that wasn't a concern.) I said, oh, not so, there are many bacteria that can survive in an alkaline environment. She said yes, but those are good bacteria. I said that is simply wrong. Bacteria like Staph aureus, E coli, Clostridium sporogenes (it causes gas gangrene), Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Strep pneumo can all survive in alkaline environments. At that point, I said she didn't know what she was talking about.

Snake oil There was more, and the discussion continued the following morning when the owner of the page read all of this and told me that I was being condescending and angry. My friend Darren (a mutual friend of this person) chimed in with his own thoughts on the subject, and was also told that he was being angry and "mean-spirited." Apparently disagreeing with someone who ignores the facts and ignores scientific research is seen as "being angry."

Did I get sarcastic? Definitely. How can I not when someone talks about their experience with miracles and treating their own cancer and how the power of positive thinking has healed them? Of course, I think that a positive outlook can affect our immune systems; but when it comes to a systemic MRSA infection, give me the big gun of Vancomycin--don't tell me to fucking meditate and think positive thoughts! That shit can kill within a matter of hours, and "laughter therapy" just doesn't make the grade.

I was told that it was typical that I would say that they'll all find out the hard way. I made it clear that I had said no such thing, in fact, I said the opposite--that I hope their actions don't lead to them finding out the hard way, and especially their kids. That goes against my entire career in which I and my colleagues helped doctors diagnose the infections their patients had and how to treat them.

Specific questions were asked including a request for links to studies that showed the healing powers of meditation and "divine consciousness." Those requests were ignored, because both Darren and I were told that we obviously had closed minds and didn't want to have a true discussion. We were accused of being the type of people who burned witches at the stake, despite the fact that the people who actually burned witches at the stake were those who believed in magic, Satan, and demonic possession, exactly the opposite of the rational thought that both of us were trying to get across. We were also both accused of name-calling, but I don't recall any instance of that. Again, apparently just disagreeing means that you are slinging epithets and calling them names.

There was more, but frankly, I'm bored of the whole thing. Such irrational thinking gets tiresome. Oh, and I forgot to tell you! The qualifications of the person whose page this was on? Stand-up comedian. Yeah.

Although he chose not to answer some of the questions that I posed and Darren posed, he asked several of his own, and I will reply to them here. I was done with that thread; perhaps he'll read them here, and then I suspect I'll be defriended, which I would have no problem with whatsoever. This was all in a huge paragraph, but I took the liberty of separating it for clarity.

people like me or people who look to alternative methods have little to gain, except sharing wellness alternatives with folks who might be hearing it for the first time.. our goal is to assist others, so why attack that agenda?....

I have no problem with those who seek out alternative therapy, and think that there are probably some things that work. However, I think there are many vultures out there who would try to capitalize on the gullibility of people like this. Snake oil salesmen have been around for centuries, and there will always be people who fall for "miracle cures." When it comes to vaccinating children, I attack that agenda and I attack it HARD. There were comments about why do we need all these vaccinations in our hygienic, clean country? It's one thing for places like India where drinking water is contaminated, we haven't had polio in this country for years, and blahbitty blah blay blue. For fuck's sake, people...that alone shows the success of vaccinations! These bacteria and viruses have not gone away. We have vaccinated enough people that we have herd immunity (a phrase that was also ridiculed). It has protected us for a long time, but the drop in vaccination rates has resulted in outbreaks of diseases that we haven't seen for a while, or only rarely. Things like polio still happen in Africa, and in case you hadn't noticed, people travel a lot these days. This is such a profound lack of comprehension of the full scope of the issue that it just makes my head explode.

if it were true that we accept your supposition that "they" are after our best interest, then why is there such an increase in aliments, illnesses we previously never heard of and diseases?

By "they," I think he means the pharmaceutical companies. Of course, they want to make a profit. Every business does. I am not always in agreement with Big Pharma, especially about things like Restless Leg Syndrome and other such "aliments." (I'm guessing he meant ailments.) I think we, as a country, pop way too many pills; when it comes to antibiotics and other treatments for infectious disease, that is important. What illnesses and diseases are increasing? There are things that we haven't heard of because we're still doing research on them. That's how science and research work. There are certainly some infectious diseases that are increasing...because there are douchebags that are choosing not to vaccinate their kids!

why are we not hearing about cures, instead of being made aware of more drugs?

Cures don't happen overnight. It can take years of research to even find out what causes an infectious disease, let alone find a cure for it. As far as things like cancer or AIDS or Parkinson's...all these things are being researched. These are complex problems, and usually cures happen incrementally. Every piece of research, done by people all over the globe, contribute to our understanding of such diseases. Researchers build upon the findings of others. Again, this shows a complete lack of understanding of how medical research takes place. I liken it to archaeology: not every discovery is Tutankhamen's tomb. There is much more time spent sifting endlessly, piece by piece, through small discoveries in the hope that it will lead to the big one.

why are we bombarded with messages of what drugs can fix things (with half of the ad being warnings of deadly side effects), but hear nothing about the condition or chosen lifestyle that caused it to begin with?

You get messages about side effects because it's an FDA regulation. That's why. And bullshit that we don't hear about the "chosen lifestyle" that caused it. If you have half a brain, you know that your knee problems are partly because you need to lose weight; or like Christopher Hitchens, your heavy drinking and smoking led to your esophageal cancer.

when is the last time we poured money into finding a cure and heard about a cure or breakthrough?

Again, cures do not come overnight. They happen with decades of study, with many people working on the problem. And again...complete lack of comprehension of medical research.

where is the modern day jonas slake?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that he means Jonas Salk. I'll tell you where the modern-day Jonas Salk is: he or she is in every research lab all over the world. Working hard to find cause, effects, pathology, cures, prevention...perhaps sometimes because they want their name known, but most likely because they care about humanity and want to help. Perhaps they've had a loved one affected by cancer, or a mentor devastated by Parkinson's. Or perhaps they just have the insatiable curiosity that most scientists have in trying to figure out how things work and what they can do to change the progress of a devastating disease, or how they can prevent it from even occurring. I still remember the thrill of something working the way it was supposed to, and doing trials to evaluate a new method and seeing the good results that meant that we'd found a better way to do a test. I wasn't a research microbiologist, I was a clinical one, but we still evaluated new methods to decide whether or not it was a better diagnostic tool. It was always a great thing to realize that a new method worked better than our current one, and to be a part of its implementation. I can only imagine how research scientists feel when they find something that will lead to a better outcome for patients.

why do so many reduce it down to "woo woo" with little to back it up by exploration of other holistic approaches that have had tremendous success rates in other cultures?

I question the "tremendous success rates" mentioned. References, please? Funny that he mentions “little to back it up,” when he backed up none of his claims. I’ll put facts up against “because I think so” every time.

and yes, how much do we hear about the all the laughter studies that point to evidence that changing your circumstances can change the outcome?....simply answer my queries, and try to do so w out more venom....

As I said earlier, if I've got a systemic infection, give me the antibiotics. I don't expect my doctor to come in and guide me in laughter therapy. I expect him or her to give me the antibiotic or drug that will hit my infection and get rid of it.

Vaccine chart I love that tactic of ignoring other questions, then posing your own and saying "simply answer my queries." My arguments throughout the evening were factual and based on my experience as a microbiologist, as well as extensive reading I've done on the subject. When you are presented with facts and ignore them, then fail to provide any of your own other than "I know what I see," your argument is invalid. Dude, you have no argument. I don't pretend to know everything about my profession; it was a constantly evolving thing, with new technologies and findings all the time. But I also don't pretend to be an expert on something I have no training in, and I don't ignore facts.

For me, it all boils down to a real lack of understanding of how medical research works and how conclusions are reached. It's not a matter of some Ph.D. working in his lab and shouting "Eureka! I've found the cure for cancer!" It's years of repetitive and difficult research across many areas of study, including biology, chemistry, genetics, and on and on, and many different researchers working on different pieces of the puzzle.

I honestly don't think I've ever had a discussion that was so frustrating and so absurd. On the upside, I think it may have cured me of anti-vaxxers pushing my hot button. I'm not going to waste my time on dealing with people like that anymore. It's an exercise in futility.

The other good thing is that it gave me a wonderful new phrase: "I'll pray for you to get your head out of your ass." That's gold, right there.

Monday, October 4, 2010

What if?

Kennedy brothers I generally try not to engage in hypotheticals. We can't change the past, and we shouldn't even think that would be a good thing. Just think of what happened when Captain Kirk saved Edith Keeler! Seriously. Everyone knows that you don't tug on Superman's cape, and you don't fuck with the space-time continuum.

However, I'm currently reading Ted Kennedy's autobiography, True Compass. The other night, I finished the chapter entitled "1963," and yesterday, I finished the one entitled "Bobby." Although Ted Kennedy didn't dwell on details (I wouldn't expect him to...plenty has been written about both brothers' assassinations, as well as Martin Luther King, Jr.'s.), it was enough to bring tears to my eyes. I was too young to remember any of these tragic deaths, and I only remember a vague hint of unrest happening in my young world. My Dad was in the National Guard, and I believe he got called out a couple of times to deal with civil unrest in our city.

I can only read about it, and I can't help but wonder how things might have been different if John Kennedy had lived. Ted writes that the President was becoming increasingly convinced that the war in Vietnam was not winnable, and had expressed his desire to begin to extricate ourselves from our involvement there. After he became President, LBJ increased troops, despite advisors telling him it was a futile effort. Bobby had also come to the conclusion that we needed to get out of Vietnam, and was gaining ground in his presidential campaign by running on an anti-war platform.

Both brothers were committed to civil rights efforts, and felt that our humanitarian efforts in our own country and around the world were the best way to serve mankind. They truly saw the promise of our country, and the good that it could do for all. It's ironic that those born into such privileged circumstances would be so committed to helping those who were less fortunate.

Ted lived to carry on the fight. I know that not everyone likes him, and I didn't always like him myself. However, I feel that in his latter years, he redeemed himself. He seemed to get a grip on his addictions and seemed to settle down with his wife Vicki, working towards passing legislation that would help the least among us. Ted got to spend his whole life in service to his country; so did John and Bobby, but their lives were cut cruelly short. How can you not wonder how things might be different, what might have changed in our atmosphere and direction, if these two bright, compassionate, and remarkable young men had been able to continue in their efforts to serve our country?

It seems like things are out of control in America right now. The rhetoric is bountiful, the passions are running high, and civility and honesty seem to be at an all-time low. However, I think it's important to keep in mind that things have been much worse in the past. Just forty or so years ago, there were riots in the streets, violent protests, kids being shot on college campuses, and three of our very best got bullets to the head, ending their promising lives just as they were getting started.

I feel as passionately as anyone about politics; you all know that. I am not afraid to offer my opinion, and I have been known to piss people off because of it. But I never, ever want us to return to the atmosphere of the '60s, when those who dared to protest or dared to put forth ideas that strayed from the status quo were killed for their beliefs. Not just silenced, not put in jail...killed. We can disagree in this country and that is part of what is good about it, and about us. Crossing the line from disagreement to violence is an unacceptable option.

I get in some lively discussions with some friends on Facebook. One advocates very aggressive tactics, basically doing whatever is needed to win; the other says that such tactics solve nothing, and that stooping to such levels does us no good. I'm somewhere in between. Violence is no answer, and I will never condone that. Lies and deception is also not acceptable. I want to see aggressiveness, though, in responding to the lies and deception that are perpetrated by the GOP. I'm tired of being conciliatory when I hear people like Christine O'Donnell talk about how evolution is a myth, or Jan Brewer talk about fallacious beheadings in the Arizona desert. We can't just say, "Oh, you're entitled to your opinion!" In cases like that, I think it's important to say, "No, that's wrong, and here is why."

I know that some will not be swayed by facts and logic. Those people are beyond reach, and I refuse to argue with them. But there are some who still cling to a little reason and a little respect for the facts, and I still think it's worthwhile to try to reach them.

I also think it's important to ask those who espouse anger and violence (including Sharron Angle, who has spoken of "Second Amendment solutions" to those who oppose her) if they really want our country to return to the dark days of the '60s, in which people were killed in cold blood because some nutcases took the rhetoric just a little too much to heart. Sarah Palin seems to get off on the culture and the language of the gun, exhorting her toadies to "Don't retreat...reload!"

I would urge anyone who thinks that is funny, or who carries a gun to a political rally, or who believes that violence is any sort of a solution to read up on the events of the '60s. It was not a pleasant time in our history, with much civil unrest and people being hurt and killed. It bothers me greatly that people are so ignorant of history that they would want to repeat it. Read about the grief that gripped our country during those dark days. Look at the picture of the tiny little John, Jr. saluting his father's coffin, or the picture of the Kent State student wailing over the dead body of her friend who was killed by National Guard troops. Investigate what happened when Bobby Kennedy gave a speech in Indianapolis when Martin Luther King, Jr. was shot and killed; numerous other cities around the country were gripped by riots, but Indianapolis stayed calm because of Bobby's compassionate and masterful words.

King-RFK-shot I know that there are quite a few who want our President dead. Death threats against Obama are up over 400% from what President Bush faced. The hate mongering of people like Beck, Limbaugh, et al fuels the fire and provides perceived legitimacy to those who wish to do the President and his family harm.

It is one thing to be passionate about politics. I certainly am, and people like John and Bobby Kennedy were (not that I'm comparing myself to them...not by a longshot!). That is a good thing. Passion to the point of violence is quite another thing, and after over four decades, you'd think we'd have progressed beyond that. We haven't, and that makes me very sad.

I asked "What if?" in the title of this entry, wondering what if the young Kennedys had survived and continued to make policy and serve our country. My "What if?" has a darker side: what if we've learned nothing from that horrible time? What if someone decides that our current President deserves the same fate? How would our country and how would the world react? People like Beck and Palin and others who foment violence care nothing about such questions, and they care nothing about this country. They only care about their ratings and their place in the public eye.

Look at the second image and ask yourself if that is really what we want again. I would hope that the answer is no, and if so, it is up to all of us to condemn the suggestion of such violence and remind people of what a horrible result such a thing would engender. It breaks my heart just to read about what happened forty years ago; I can only imagine what it must have been like to live through it, both for the families and for the country and for the world.

Is that really what we want again? If not, what are you going to do about it?

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Bewitched, bothered, and bewildered

O'Donnell Teawitched I suppose I need to write at least one post about the latest teabagger to grace the political stage: Christine O'Donnell.

I don't really want to, because she's so mind-bogglingly ridiculous, but because she could possibly become one of our United States Senators, I feel that I must.

Much has been made of her "I dabbled in witchcraft" statement of twenty-some years ago, but coming from a person raised in a fundamentalist church, I recognize that for the silliness that it is. Based on the fundamentalist viewpoint about witchcraft, the extent of her "dabbling" could have consisted of using a Ouija board. In that sect of faith, everything from gambling to rock music to R-rated movies can be considered flirting with satanic disaster. (Molly Hatchet just sprang to mind.)

So as far as her comments that she dabbled, I don't make too much of it, and I really don't care. Both Wiccans and Satanists have ridiculed her statement, saying that she was not one of them. Frankly, the whole thing has become laughable.

However, what bothers me about this woman (and about so many of the teabaggers...not all, but most) is this particular fundamental Christian outlook and approach to life. That is the religious outlook that I was raised in, and I ran...I ran so far away...and I did so for a reason.

O'Donnell speaks of dabbling in witchcraft; she speaks of masturbation being wrong; she speaks of condoms causing AIDS; she speaks of evolution being a myth and thinks it is a valid argument to wonder why we don't see monkeys today evolving into humans.

All of these claims bear a closer look, because this sort of thinking is indicative of a closed mind and a desire to evangelize. More about that in a moment.

I already mentioned the witchcraft thing. I grew up being taught that rock music and R-rated movies were of the devil. I recall several books and several sermons at church that dissected rock songs and gave details about why they were satanic. Everything from Alice Cooper (a band and persona named after a 17th century witch, and the disgustingly evil song "Only Women Bleed," which these books hysterically proclaimed was about *gasp* menstruation...actually, it's about domestic abuse, dumbasses) to Led Zeppelin singing "Gonna give you every inch of my love" was considered an ungodly and therefore satanic influence. The viewing of movies like "The Exorcist" was claimed to invite demonic possession. The same with seances or playing with a Ouija board. I grew up hearing that if something didn't glorify God, it was not to be listened to because it was a bad influence. Even Halloween was a night when demons ran rampant, just looking for a vulnerable soul to possess. I'm not kidding.

As far as masturbation, what planet is this broad living on? Humans are sexual beings, and it is natural and healthy to figure out how parts work! The suppression of these natural urges was another guilt trip laid on by religion; giving in to such urges also invited demonic possession.

Are you sensing a pattern here?

O'Donnell says that condoms cause AIDS. No, you dim bulb, a VIRUS causes AIDS. Condoms help prevent the transmission of the virus. Yes, of course, we can try to change behavior; but expecting people to not have sex is the height of idiocy. (See above: humans = sexual beings.)

Evolution is not a myth. It is accepted as fact by the vast majority of the scientific community based on fossil evidence, carbon dating, and most recently, DNA analysis. Monkeys did not and do not evolve into humans; we shared a common ancestor and our branches diverged thousands of years ago. This is a common misconception (and in many cases, a deliberate misrepresentation) when it comes to evolution. It is not a straight stick, taking us from apes to humans...it is a tree with many branches.

What bothers me about O'Donnell and her ilk is twofold. First, there is what I would call Fruit Fly Syndrome. Yes, I know I go on and on about this, but I think it's a perfect illustration of the lack of intellectual curiosity in some people currently in the political sphere. During the 2008 election, Sarah Palin gave a speech in which she spoke derisively about funding for "fruit fly research in Paris, France." Fruit flies are one of the basic research tools used in science, and they still provide valuable information. Shortly after her speech, a paper was published in which the researchers wrote of their isolation of a gene from fruit flies that looked to be connected to autism in humans. Kind of important, eh? And it's entirely possible that the facility in Paris, France (said so dismissively by Palin) was the Pasteur Institute, one of the most prestigious and important research facilities in the world.

O'Donnell I am truly dismayed by this sort of anti-intellectualism that is being embraced by the teabaggers. Theirs is a world in which everyone doing scientific research is an elitist. Anyone with an education from a premier university is an elitist. Anyone who makes them feel that they are inadequate is an elitist. And anyone who questions their facts and logic (or lack thereof) is most definitely an elitist. This is exactly what we don't want to be doing now. We need to encourage scholarship and advanced education rather than ridiculing it. I have been ridiculed for having a college education, portrayed as some sort of know-it-all with a "fancy" college degree. (Shane and I still laugh about the whole "fancy" designation, and love to insert that word into normal conversation as often as we can.) O'Donnell's question about why monkeys aren't evolving into humans shows a very profound lack of intelligence concerning evolution, and I suspect that her religion dictates that she not question the fundamentalist party line concerning the subject. After all, actually learning more about the subject might lead to further questions, which might lead to doubt, which might lead to a rejection of dogma and fairy tales.

The other thing that bothers me about O'Donnell is something I've written about previously. It's obvious that these types have an agenda and want to force their version of religion onto the rest of us. They love to talk about freedom of religion, but that seems to apply only to their own religion--not anyone else's, and certainly not anyone who doesn't believe or actually subscribes to that whole separation of church and state thing! Newt Gingrich called for the federal government to legislate that Sharia law will never happen here. Oklahoma wants a similar state law. This is ludicrous. Who the fuck is trying to institute Sharia law here?? No one! But people like Palin, O'Donnell, and their like-minded fans seem to have no problem with insertion of their own religion onto the national stage, and think we'd be better off if we did so.

Theocracies are not limited to the Muslim religion. There are people here who wish to institute a theocracy, one of their own choosing. We do not operate that way, and we cannot let them dictate policy based on their religious beliefs. That would be a true perversion of our Constitution...the one that they claim to love so much. We can't let them get away with it.