But how will we make change?

I think most people have seen that a woman named Sue Lowden, who is running to challenge Harry Reid's Senate seat from Nevada, has suggested that it would be perfectly reasonable to pay for medical care using the barter system and that people used to give doctors chickens for services rendered.

That’s right.

Chickens.

According to this clip I’m posting (see below) from "The Ed Show," someone else is jumping on the barter bandwagon, a Tennessee state representative, who thinks it would be great if people would pay with vegetables. (Yes, I said PAY, not 'play.') The guy seems to think that we'd all be better off if we lived like Mennonites, who he says are very healthy people. I live in an area where there are a lot of Mennonites, and I respectfully decline to live like a Mennonite. I don't look good in a bonnet. Or those below-the-knee dresses. And Peter Pan collars are just gross. I also disagree about their overall health to some extent, and more about that in a moment.

This is laughable in so many ways. First of all, Lowden talks about the "olden days" when people took a chicken to the doctor. Yeah, she's right on that. I know that my grandparents did what they had to do in order to provide for their family, and sometimes that included doing jobs for services. My Dad's parents had a farm, and my Grandpa also worked as a blacksmith, barn builder, and any other job he needed to do in order to get by. But the "olden days" that Lowden talks so lovingly about? That would be the fucking DEPRESSION, people, and my Dad's family probably had it better than most folks because they DID live on a farm. I know it wasn't easy for them, but they could grow a lot of their own things, they raised hogs so they always had meat, and even if their meals sometimes consisted of nothing more than beans, they got by and Dad said they never went hungry. Well, not too hungry.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

However, there also wasn't a whole lot of health care going on at that time. Kids died all the time from infectious diseases that we've learned to inoculate against, and part of being a farmer involves the possibility of serious accidents. One of my great-uncles died of diphtheria; another one got his arm lopped off in a farming accident. Your yearning and nostalgia for the "olden days" is just so much bullshit, Ms. Lowden.

As for the Mennonites, they and the Amish do pretty much make their own way in life, and don't rely much upon government programs. However, they often don't vaccinate their kids against preventable infections, and I've seen several outbreaks among such populations. Just speaking from my own perspective, I can tell you that such outbreaks result in strains on laboratories like the one where I worked and on county and state health departments. Such outbreaks need to be investigated and tracked, and although I understand that there needs to be a respect for religious beliefs, I also know that those kids probably don't have a choice in whether or not they get a vaccine, and that, to me, is religious indoctrination.

But I digress.

My point here is that people like Lowden and that Tennessee legislator seem to think that it's a really nifty idea to go back to how we lived a century ago. Not only have we managed to progress just a skosh since then, they seem to conveniently forget that not everyone lives in a place where they can raise chickens, for Chrissakes! I don't know the demographics for sure, but I'm guessing that a lot of the uninsured are those living in urban areas, and you don't just erect a chicken coop on the roof of the building where you live in the inner city. Same goes for raising a vegetable garden. People are getting creative about community and rooftop gardens, and I think that's wonderful, but not everyone lives where they can do that, and not everyone has the skill to do carpentry or handyman work.

I'm also guessing that not every doctor would be thrilled about getting a bushel of zucchini in payment for that Pap smear he or she gave you last week. Have you ever grown zucchini? Do you know how prolific they are? Everyone I know who grows it ends up giving some of it away to friends or family, because no matter how many recipes you have for zucchini bread, zucchini crisp, zucchini chocolate cake, stuffed zucchini, and on and on and on...you sometimes cannot use up all that damned zucchini. If I were a doctor and some patient gave me a bushel of zucchini in payment for service, I'd be like, "What in the holy hell do you expect me to do with all this goddamn zucchini?! Seriously!"

Not to mention, when I can get zucchini on sale for three for a dollar, how many damn zucchini am I going to have to haul to the doctor to pay for the mammogram I've got coming up in May? Thanks to the Lowden Plan Chicken Calculator, I did find that my mammogram will cost me 18 chickens. I've got some work to do between now and May 6.

If the barter system is the best that they can come up with for how to pay for health care, these people are fucking idiots. It's time to tell it like it is.

I also think there is a deeper, more insidious, and more troubling aspect to this. There is an incredible disconnect between these people and those who are uninsured. They can't seem to wrap their minds around the fact that not only is health care much more expensive than it used to be in the "olden days," it is much more sophisticated. It is no longer a matter of a doctor checking out your throat, thinking it looks red and inflamed and seeing plaques on your tonsils and being reasonably certain that you have Strep throat, so gargle with salt water and get some rest (oh, and hope you don't get rheumatic fever because I can't treat you with antibiotics since they aren't available yet). Beyond that, there seems to be a certain condescension there, a matter of "Oh, you'll be okay if you just use common sense, live a healthy lifestyle, and pay that doc with a chicken." Well, no. There are tests for such things now, and those result in costs for the doctor's office, the lab, and the pharmacy. Those costs are a hell of a lot more than a chicken, I assure you.

I see it as yet another instance of "I've got mine, screw all of the rest of you." I don’t know at this point if it’s the legislators imparting this attitude onto the teabaggers or vice versa. Whatever way it’s happening, I see it as shortsighted and showing a serious lack of compassion for those who cannot obtain even the most basic health care.

When the cat’s away…

The eggplant comes out to play.

That's right, I'm on my own for a few days, so that is my cue to make something with eggplant in it. I love eggplant, and I don't know why it gets such a bad rap.

Most people that say they don't like it tell me that it is because of the texture. I don't really get that, because it often has a crispy coating on it. But then I also love squash of all kinds, so if there is a texture phobia, I don't have it.

Usually I make Eggplant Parmigiana, but I came across a new recipe on one of my recipes sites a while back, and thought I'd give it a try. First the recipe, then my comments and review.

~~~~~

Eggplant Lasagna

1 package lasagna noodles (cooked and drained, or use no-boil noodles--I used no-boil)

1/4 cup olive oil

1 large garlic clove, thinly sliced

1 medium eggplant (about 1 pound), peeled and chopped

1/2 cup chopped onion (I used more)

1/2 cup water

1/2 tsp salt (I omitted this)

1/8 tsp pepper (also omitted)

2-3 cups spaghetti sauce

1/2 pound Muenster or Port Salut cheese, shredded (I used Muenster; also see NOTE below)

1 cup ricotta cheese

3/4 cup bread crumbs (I used Italian)

2 eggs, slightly beaten

1/2 tsp Italian seasonings: Basil, Thyme, Oregano (I used more basil, then just some Italian seasoning blend)

Some extra Muenster/Port Salut cheese for the top, or some shredded mozzarella

Sauté garlic in oil until brown. Add eggplant and onion, cook about 5 minutes, stirring. Add water, cover, and cook 10 more minutes until tender. Remove from heat and allow to cool slightly.

In medium bowl, combine ricotta, Muenster, eggs, bread crumbs, and seasonings. Stir in eggplant and onion mixture straight from pan. Don't drain the oil. (The eggplant absorbs most of it, anyway.)

Spray a 9x13 casserole dish with non-stick spray. Pour enough sauce in the bottom of the pan to cover bottom. Place a layer of lasagna noodles on top of the sauce. Spread a layer of eggplant-cheese mixture on noodles. NOTE: I love fresh mozzarella, so in the eggplant cheese mixture, I used a little less Muenster. Here I included a layer of sliced, fresh mozzarella, 8 ounces of it. You can't go wrong with fresh mozzarella in my book! Cover with sauce, being careful not to drown it with too much. Another layer of noodles, then eggplant-cheese mixture, then sauce. End with a layer of noodles, sauce, and sprinkle the extra Muenster cheese on top. Cover with foil (be sure to spray the underside with non-stick spray) and bake in a preheated oven at 375° for 20 minutes. Uncover and bake 10 minutes more. NOTE: If using no-boil noodles, like I did, cook according to the recipe on the package. Mine called for 50-60 minutes, so that's how long I left it in the oven before uncovering it.

Alternative use: you can stuff manicotti shells with the eggplant-cheese mixture. Pour half of the sauce on the bottom of the dish, place shells and rest of sauce on top. Sprinkle with cheese. I think that would be really good, too!At the risk of tooting my own horn, I can tell you that this totally kicked ass. Oh man, it was so freaking good! The eggplant wasn't overpowering at all, and there was plenty of cheesy goodness with the fresh mozzarella I added. If you wanted to be more authentic than I am, you could make your own sauce (or gravy, as I'm told is the correct terminology), but I think Prego is mighty tasty. What can I say? I'm German, not Italian. One thing I wish I'd done differently is using a larger pan. I have one that is a couple of inches bigger, and that would have accommodated all of this much better than the 9x13 one. Some of the sauce gooshed out before I even put it in the oven, so I made sure I put it on a foil-covered cookie sheet when I baked it, just so I didn't have an oogy mess afterwards.

I can hardly wait to eat more of it tonight, which is a good thing, because I barely put a dent in it! I'm guessing I ate maybe a sixth of it.

I would definitely make this again; it is a fine addition to my eggplant repertoire. It's not vegan, because of the cheese and eggs (vegans don't eat cheese, right?), but I would think it could be easily adapted.

All you eggplant haters just keep on hatin'. I adore these beautiful purple ovals of vegetable goodness.

A dissonant note

On Facebook tonight, I noticed that a couple of friends had joined a group with this name:

DEAR LORD, THIS YEAR YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE ACTOR, PATRICK SWAYZIE. YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE ACTRESS, FARAH FAWCETT. YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE SINGER, MICHAEL JACKSON. I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW, MY FAVORITE PRESIDENT IS BARACK OBAMA. AMEN.

Aside from the annoyance of all capital letters, and misspelling Swayze and Farrah, the very idea of this really struck me wrong.

The friends who joined are kind people, and we have agreed to disagree on many things. But this one was just too wrong, and I left a note on one of their walls, wondering about the appropriateness of praying for our President's death, or anyone's death. Do they really think their God would approve of such a prayer, or answer it? If he did, wouldn't that make him vindictive and hateful and a big, smiting jerk?

Of course, there were similar prayers for the death of Senator Robert Byrd during the health care debate. And Michele Bachmann called for people to get on their knees and pray for the defeat of health care reform:

That’s really where this battle will be won—on our knees in prayer and fasting. Remember: faith without works is dead. So we’re asking you to do all of it: pray, fast, believe, trust the Lord, but also act.

Ooooops! The bill passed! It would seem that God wasn't paying attention to your prayers and fasting, Bachmann. And Robert Byrd is still alive. Maybe God was out playing golf and had one too many at the 19th Hole so he missed your call. Or maybe he got stuck in traffic on the Skyway and wasn't able to get home in time to fulfill his nightly smiting requests. Or maybe, just maybe, he finds such requests abhorrent.

Or perhaps there is no one there to hear such prayers.

I suppose to a lot of people, such a group was funny. It had kind of a funny premise, although I have to wonder about anyone whose favorite actress was Farrah Fawcett. She really wasn't that great. But for anyone who is a devout Christian to actually pray for someone's death is just not funny to me, especially in the current charged atmosphere. It again begs the question: why on earth would I want to be associated with any religion that prays for the death of others; or that believes that God visited an earthquake upon Haiti because the Haitian people made a "pact with the devil" a couple of hundred years ago; or thinks that another earthquake (in which people died and were injured) was sent to show us his love for us; or believes that he blew up a fucking volcano in Iceland because the United States passed health care reform? Do you have any idea how insane that sounds? Even forgetting the rational, scientific explanations for all of these things, why would I want to be associated with someone who thinks so little of human life that he picks people off like our lives are part of his goddamn video game?

I'd really like to know.

An intellectual duel with the unarmed

I sometimes comment on the Facebook page of one of my local stations. They do a "Question of the Day" for their newscast, and although many of the questions are about local issues, sometimes they'll choose a topic that is significant nationwide. The other day, the question was whether gay couples should have the same rights as straight couples.

I think most of you know how I feel about that. Of course, they should, and I said so. Despite being in a conservative Midwestern area, I was pleasantly surprised to see that the majority of people who commented agreed. There were a few notable exceptions, though, and all of those who felt that way and went into detail stated no, because God says it's wrong.

Well, that's just not a legitimate reason in my book. Not when it comes to legalities. I've written here in the past how marriage is a civic institution, not a religious one. A couple can get married in a church, by a minister, but that marriage is not valid unless they have a license from the state. I'm not sure where we got off track and began thinking that marriage is strictly a religious institution. Besides, I pointed out, we are not a theocracy that is governed by any religion or set of religious beliefs. We do not and must not base our policies upon religion.

I was reasonable. You all have seen how I lay out my arguments here concerning politics or policy. When I offer my personal opinions on people or politicians, I definitely get a little more critical in my words (okay, sometimes a lot), but if I'm arguing a position on policy, I try to do my research and do my best to leave emotion out of it. I made no personal attacks on the thread—that just isn't my style. Well, one particular commenter there seems to have taken quite a disliking to me, which became evident in a thread several weeks ago. He decided to go after me (also my friend Doug, and a few others) and proceeded to call me a hypocrite, a liar, a phony, and hysterically delusional.

He wrote that I misused the words "civic institution," and said that I obviously meant "civil institution," and for a "supposed writer," that wasn't very good. When I provided the definitions for both "civic" and "institution," he wrote, sure, when you combine them into one word, it "changes the meaning." What? hahaha He took the time to visit me here at my blog, said that I seemed rather "trashy," said he was sure that my "3 readers" really enjoy what I have to write, and quoted me from my previous entry about Heidi Montag and her plastic surgeries, saying that for all my writing of equality for all, apparently I have no problem with ridiculing someone if I disagree with their lifestyle. I will cop to ridiculing stupidity and foolish behavior, that's true. But this is my personal blog, and my opinions here are just that: my opinions. They had no bearing on the argument at hand, which was concerning equal rights for gays.

He stated that 83% of Americans consider themselves Christians, so like it or not it's already done HIS WAY! I said thanks for singing "My Way," Frank Sinatra, and pointed out that recent polls indicate a drop in those who consider themselves Christians, to 78.5%. He mentioned that we govern based on God and the Constitution, and I asked him where he found any mention of God and/or Jesus in the Constitution. He responded with a paragraph that was taken directly from a website I found when I did a quick search, and I responded with a link to it saying that if he's going to cut and paste, it's best to include the link rather than pass such writing off as your own.

He wrote that I didn't seem to understand basic government, and that maybe in the "50 years" since I've been out of college, I've forgotten.

He said that he would pray for me (and others), and he hoped that I would find my way, but if not, he hopes that I enjoy sweltering heat! This was all becoming tiresome by now, and I said that I don't want or need his prayers, and that when it comes to evangelizing, he's failed miserably. You don't bring people over to your side with condescension, insults, and threats of eternal damnation in the fiery Pits of Hell™. Based on his behavior, why on earth would I ever want to be associated with his religion? His rudimentary argument, when countered with logic and facts, quickly descended into juvenile insults and pettiness. I pointed out that people like him are exactly why I moved away from religion.

On a new thread today, he actually mentioned me and my friend Doug by name, wondering what we'd have to say about the new topic. He also dug up something I'd written in November 2009 (I don't know if it was on my blog or in a comment) in which I said that I can't understand why Sarah Palin or anyone would find it desirable to be "purposefully retarded," and he wrote that I was making fun of the mentally handicapped. No...I was making fun of Sarah Palin, although I suppose the phrase "mentally handicapped" would also apply in her case! I'm seriously going to keep my eyes peeled for this guy, because he seems to have a rather unhealthy obsession with anyone who dares to question his superiority and authority. I never became insulting or abusive with him—again, not my style—but he apparently has a real problem with me. Since he lives in my area, that concerns me.

Perhaps he'll come back and visit my blog again. I invited him to, and welcomed his comments here. I said that some of my readers would probably enjoy them.

I know I would.

Mama’s got some brand new boobs

No, not me. I'm sticking with the ones I've got.

When reading my "sources" today, I read about Heidi Montag's new boobs and saw pictures of her in a bikini. Apparently, she's launching a swim wear line, so maybe she can write off the new tits as a marketing expense.

I had never heard of this broad until recently, and that was because she was in the news for her extensive plastic surgery:

In addition to having 10 plastic surgery procedures performed in one day – including a mini brow lift, Botox, nose job, fat injections in her cheeks and lips, a chin reduction, liposuction to her neck, her ears pinned back, buttocks augmentation, liposuction to her waist and thighs and a breast augmentation revision – Montag recently revealed on Ryan Seacrest's radio show that she also had her "back scooped."

When asked to explain what a "back scoop" procedure entails, Montag replied, "I actually didn't know."

You know, it's probably not a good idea to have surgery if you don't even know what it is. Jeez, what a dumbass.

I guess she's some sort of reality TV star [exaggerated finger quotes] but I have no idea what show she was on, and I'm not going to Google it because I really don't care.

What I do care about is why so many people feel the need to have extensive plastic surgery. I mean, look at her before picture...she's a very pretty girl! She looks sort of genuine and natural. In her after picture, sure, she's a knockout, but I think she looks fake (because she is). I guess it depends on what you're going for, and how much money you have. And maybe your level of self-esteem.

I'm guessing that anyone that looked that pretty to begin with, but feels the need to make herself look "better," has some serious self-esteem issues. How sad that some people (and women seem especially susceptible to this) would feel so bad about themselves—and I think it has more to do with how they feel about themselves as a person, rather than their looks—that they would spend thousands of dollars and undergo painful surgery in order to remake their looks. In her bikini photos (I won't post one here, but you can easily find it on the Web), she looks out of proportion and ready to topple over. I know some guys get off on that, but the guys I love and respect the most are not so easily "beavdazzled." (Yes, I made that word up. I like it.)

We all have a certain amount of vanity, and I'm no exception to that. I like it when I look good and get attention. But I've never felt the need to change my looks so drastically through plastic surgery. It seems more realistic and practical to work with what you've got, and a healthy dose of self-confidence can do wonders in making that work.

In addition to being insecure about her entire sense of Self, apparently her faith is very important to her. In the snippets of the interview included in that picture, when asked if she struggled with changing what God gave her, she said, "I prayed about it for a long time, and said 'God, if it's wrong, then I won't do it.' But I never got that feeling. My body is just a shell: God doesn't care. It's what's inside that God cares about."

That's an interesting argument. I guess God doesn't care, but the people you want to get money from do care! So pretty up, bitch! But she is right about what is inside being what is most important. No matter how pretty you are on the outside, if you've got an ugly, gooey center like some rancid piece of chocolate, it can make you a very unattractive person.

Oh, and speaking of that...she has also said in the past, "If women aren’t jealous of you, talking about you and cutting you down, then you’re a nerd, and I would never want to be that."

Well, since I'm writing about you here and cutting down what you've done, my dear, I guess that technically means that you're not a nerd. So rest easy. However, I'm not jealous of you. I find you vapid, shallow, self-absorbed, vain, narcissistic, obsessed with your own importance, easily and pathetically swayed by the pervasive message delivered by the media, and generally a boring, idiotic, insipid twat. There...do you feel less nerdy? Happy to help.

Dumbasses in the news

I've been meaning to do an entry about this for some time, and I read some news last night that prompted me to get my ass in gear.

Jim Carrey and Jenny McCarthy split. Yeah, I'm all broken up about it, too.

I haven't cared about those two idiots for some time—he hasn't made a funny or interesting movie in a over a decade, and the last thing I remember her in was some crappy sitcom—but they have certainly pissed me off in a big way with their anti-vaccination stance. Long story short, McCarthy has an autistic son, and for years she has gone around talking about the link between autism and vaccines. I first became fully aware of their involvement in this ignore-the-science issue when I saw them both appear on Larry King Live last year. I was struck by their smugness ("Oh, you silly non-celebrities...we obviously know so much more than you do!") and their easy dismissal of doctors and scientists who stated that study after study showed no link between vaccines and autism.

McCarthy can speak about the issue as much as she wants, but merely being the mother of an autistic child (or in Carrey's case, the boyfriend of the mother of an autistic child) does not make her an expert. I wonder at our willingness to accept as experts those who have not been trained in a particular field, merely because they've had some experience with the situation. I'm sure she's an expert in dealing with her own autistic child; that does not make her an expert in scientific research and study.

However, she has positioned herself as just that. Partly because of her influence, many parents have chosen to forgo certain vaccines for their children, resulting in an increase in preventable infectious diseases such as mumps, measles, and meningitis. I believe this is negligent on her part, and on the verge of criminal, because it's not just those unvaccinated kids that are affected; it's all those who come into contact with them, and some might be immunocompromised and in more danger of severe illness and death. Some see her as a menace to public health, and I agree. It is very much a case of how a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. If you are not fully versed in all the aspects of an issue, you can cause much more harm than good.

In the March 8, 2010 issue of Time magazine, she is quoted as saying, "Come and see our kids. Why won't the CDC come and talk to the mothers, talk to the families? Then tell us there isn't a link." It doesn't work that way, you silly bitch. You don't prove theories by "talking to the mothers." I absolutely despise such an attitude, and I'm seeing it more and more from people so willing to discount scientific evidence whether it concerns evolution or the importance of the flu vaccine. It's an acceptance of others who are "just like us" and a distrust of the "elite." Just a thought: doing some online research and reading up on something does not make you qualified to make decisions concerning matters of public health, and it does not make you a doctor. People go to school for that, and it's a smart idea to accept their expertise (nothing wrong with getting a second opinion, of course, and that's recommended for major diagnoses) rather than believing that you know more than they do because you "read up on it."

I'm not implying that doctors or scientists are infallible. In the Microbiology lab, we would occasionally get calls from doctors wondering what to treat an infection with. We couldn't issue recommendations, but based on susceptibility patterns we tracked over the previous year and on known resistance mechanisms, we could often say that a particular antibiotic wasn't effective for that organism. This wasn't just our opinion; it was based on solid data and documented studies.

That's where people like McCarthy and Carrey are dangerous. They base their statements on opinion and theoretical assumptions rather than relying upon empirical evidence. Because they are in the public eye, there are people out there listening to them who decide it's a great idea to also be a dumbass, and follow along with whatever they say. (McCarthy also said that if there was a "purpose from God," it's that she could get booked on talk shows in order to spread her anti-vaccination rhetoric.)

Despite the recent retraction of the 1998 Lancet article, due to unethical practices and faulty conclusions, that started all this nonsense, McCarthy and her adherents continue to cling to this bad science and misinformation and support its author, Dr. Andrew Wakefield. In the meantime, how many children have died from diseases that could have been prevented? How many kids have gone deaf because they got meningitis, and how many little boys were rendered sterile because of the recent mumps outbreak? Not to mention the buckets of money that have been thrown at multiple studies disproving the connection that could have gone towards finding causes and cures for autism. Alison Singer of the Autism Science Foundation said, "I felt that 22 vaccine studies were enough. Given that we don't have unlimited resources, it made sense to say we looked at vaccines and found no causal relationship."

According to the CDC's website:

Recent estimates from CDC's Autism Developmental Disabilities Monitoring network found that about 1 in 150 children have ASD. This estimate is higher than estimates from the early 1990s. Some people believe increased exposure to thimerosal (from the addition of important new vaccines recommended for children) explains the higher prevalence in recent years. However, evidence from several studies examining trends in vaccine use and changes in autism frequency does not support such an association. Furthermore, a scientific review by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) concluded that "the evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines an autism." CDC supports the IOM conclusion.

Here is a partial list of several studies cited by the CDC in support of its conclusion. You can find the entire list here: Chart of Autism Studies.

American Journal of Preventive Medicine August 2003: This study took advantage of the cessation of thimerosal use in Denmark and Sweden in 1992 to conduct a before and after comparison of the incidence or case numbers of autism. In both countries, autism increases throughout the years 1987-1999, contrary to the decrease in autism that would be expected after 1992 if thimerosal exposure was related to autism. The increasing trend for autism is most notable in Denmark where the number of autism cases rises substantially even after the discontinuation of thimerosal use.

Pediatrics November 2003: No association was shown with autism.

New England Journal of Medicine September 2007: The weight of the evidence from this study does not support an association between early ethyl mercury exposure from thimerosal-containing vaccines and/or immunoglobulins and neuropsychological functioning at ages 7 to 10 years.

Pediatrics February 2009: The overall results of the study [conducted in Italy] do not support neurological or developmental harm to children resulting from thimerosal exposure. This strong study adds to the body of scientific evidence that thimerosal in vaccines is not harmful to children.

New England Journal of Medicine November 2002: This study [conducted in Denmark], which followed more than 500,000 children, over 7 years, found no association between the MMR vaccination and autism.

Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders April 2006: The study provided no evidence of an association between regression in ASD and MMR vaccination.

William Schaffner, professor and chairman of the department of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, said, "Since Wakefield's study came out, some 20 other studies have come out, and each one of these studies, done by different researchers, in different populations and in different countries, has denied the associations between vaccines and autism. Scientifically, this story is over."

Scientifically, this story is over. It's time for wannabe scientists like Jenny McCarthy to start following the science and stop preaching about the dangers of vaccination. The risks of death and disability from preventable infectious diseases is far greater than any alleged (and now disproven) risk of autism.

Real wrath of God type stuff

A few points before I start on this.

I know this might piss some people off. Since when has that stopped me writing about anything? This is just my opinion, merely something I've been pondering, and it is not intended to hurt or anger anyone. If it makes you do a little pondering, too, that would make me happy.

I've been thinking about this because of a Facebook conversation. If the person involved reads this, they will recognize the reference, and I want to assure them that I am not angry with them, and I know that their intentions were not hateful or meant to be unkind. This is a very sweet person and I realize that. I meant no ill will in my comment there, and I mean none here. I would hope that no one here would attack this person for their feelings.

I am also not trying to convince anyone to not believe. That is a very personal choice, and I don't try to force my lack of beliefs on others; I don't appreciate it when people try to force their beliefs on me, so I would never do that. Faith can be a source of great strength to some, and I respect others' desire to have that. I've seen it recently in some members of my family, and I would never try to take that away from them. Again, this is just something I've been thinking about, and perhaps some of you will leave comments that continue to make me think.

Now...let's get to it, shall we?

When the 7.2 earthquake in Baja California hit last night, a Facebook friend noted (and I won't go into specific detail) that it was a perfect reminder on Easter of God's sacrifice for us because it reminded them of the stone rolling back before the tomb. As I said above, I know this person is sweet and loving and doesn't have a mean bone in their body, so I know it wasn't intended in a bad way.

But it really struck me wrong. At that point, no one knew if there were deaths or injuries (we now know that so far there are two deaths, and about 150 injuries), and before too long I saw on Facebook that one of my nieces in San Diego was scared to the point of tears. I just feel that something is wrong with seeing signs of anything in a disaster that brings death and destruction to anyone, especially one that is an occurrence easily explained by science. I didn't react well, and although I tried to temper my remark, I know it seemed rather cutting...I suggested that perhaps those affected by the earthquake might not be quite so thrilled by it, or words to that effect.

A little more discussion ensued, nothing antagonistic, but there was more about seeing signs. I finally said (and it was my final comment there about it) that if God is trying to wake people up by causing death and destruction, then that is someone I want nothing to do with, and if that's his plan to bring people to him, well...that's a pretty crappy plan.

I've pondered this before, and I think these are very legitimate questions. If God wants more people to believe in his love and compassion, why would killing hundreds of thousands in Haiti make me believe in that? Why would I believe that someone who rains down such misery upon my fellow human beings has my best interests at heart? If he wants to make his presence known, why not just give a press conference and say hey, it's me, I'm real. Why all this mysterious and, quite frankly, murderous behavior? I'd be a hell of a lot more impressed if I started seeing the absence of misery, starvation, and abject poverty, all topped off with a natural disaster to really twist the knife on people whose lives have already been a never-ending struggle to survive.

I find it akin to the assertions by fucktards like Pat Robertson that natural disasters are visited upon people because of their sins (and homosexuality seems to be the biggie there). Here's a newsflash for you, folks. We live on a planet that does shit. It moves. It shifts. Currents change. Weather patterns shift. We seem to have a penchant for doing things to it that accelerate these changes, like fucking with the wetlands and barrier islands on the Gulf Coast in such an egregious manner that the natural protections that evolved are all but wiped out. These are all things that are easily and readily explained by science, and they are well-documented.

Before we had this knowledge, we attributed weather and natural phenomena to angry gods. We appeased them by sacrificing animals (including the human kind) to them. We sacrificed to the earth goddess to save our crops; we sacrificed to the sun god in order that he would return each spring to drive away the cold; we sacrificed to the river god to stop the flooding; we tossed virgins into volcanoes to keep them from erupting. It has been a bloody and brutal litany of death and murder in the name of whatever deity we happened to be fixated on at the time. And in the end, the crops were affected by the rain and temperatures; the earth kept tilting on its axis so the summers got warm; the river flooded every so often, sometimes wiping out entire villages; and those damn volcanoes just kept going all splodey on us.

I reject the cult of death. Why on earth would I even consider being involved in such a thing? And how could I ever believe in a god that is visiting disaster upon other people in order that I might find peace and hope because he's sending me a secret message that he loves me? What makes me special--so special--that I gotta have such attention? That would be like I'm Jodie Foster, God is John Hinckley, Jr., and the people of Haiti are Ronald Reagan. John Hinckley, Jr. tried to off Reagan in order to impress Jodie Foster. That seems about as logical to me as thinking that natural disasters, in which thousands are killed, are a sign that God loves us and is coming for us. Well, except for all those people that he killed, anyway. Collateral damage. But other than them, he loves everybody. You know what they do with people like John Hinckley, Jr.? They lock them up as mentally deranged and medicate the hell out of them.

Again, I am not trying to convince anyone. But maybe stop and ask yourself some of these questions; I ask them myself all the time. I question. It's my nature. And the more I question, the less sense it all makes.