I feel like an entry is overdue but I don't feel like doing a bunch of research for part 3 of the vaccine entries so instead I'll do a little rambling about things that have been on my mind. As an aside, one reason I haven't written is that I learned a very expensive lesson about computers and computer compartments of backpacks.
When putting your backpack on, be sure you have zipped up the computer compartment zipper. If you don't, your precious laptop will fly out and crash onto the concrete, causing the motherboard to fail. Then you will need to buy a new computer. I had been planning to buy an ipad2 for school (cuz all the other kids are doing it). It seems those plans have been bumped up. I went ahead and made a small gamble and decided to buy the best ipad2 with all the bells and whistles and forgo buying an actual compooter. Hopefully it works out.
I ordered my ipad2 the last day of March so it should be here in a week. If it doesn't, I'm fine with that cuz I know that god/the conscious universe is making me wait even longer for a reason and that reason will eventually be revealed to me. And if it isn't, then I can take comfort in knowing that god works in mysterious ways, and just because things don't make sense to me doesn't mean everything isn't going perfectly according to plan (AND in my favour!). I warned you this was going to be random!
School: The End of the Beginning (and further proof there is a god/conscious universe)
In about March 2009 I made the decision to go back to school to pursue my dream of being a community college philosophy instructor. I spoke to the head of the MA program at UNLV and based on my transcripts, he informally accepted me to the program (so long as I didn't totally mess up my GRE). In Sept. 2009 I wrote my GRE exam with the intention of starting the program the following year. Just under a year went by and I was accepted into the program and was about to register for classes. As you may remember from a previous post, that didn't exactly happen.
Budget cuts happened and 5 weeks from the beginning of the program starting, it was shut down. Instead of waiting a full academic year to reapply to new schools I decided to go to ASU as a general grad student, despite having to pay the exorbitant out of state tuition costs. It figured it might be a good idea to have some academic records more current than a decade, and if I did ok I could get the all important letters of recommendation so critical to grad school applications. Despite a rough start, the semester at ASU went ok-- I got respectable grades and the coveted letters of recommendation.
After my semester at ASU I decided that in order to ensure acceptance into a decent program I'd have to rewrite the GRE, especially now that my brain had been re-awoken from it's ten year slumber. There is only one thing less fun that studying for an exam: studying for the same exam a second time. To say studying for the GRE was emotionally and mentally taxing would be like saying eyeball acupuncture tickles (but it's soooo worth it! It will cure blindness!).
When I wrote the exam, I learned something interesting about computer based tests. For those who don't know, the way it works is that the computer program is trying to determine your level. To do this it adjusts the difficulty of the questions based on previous answers. If you are consistently answering correctly the computer will adjust the difficulty level upwards, and vice versa. The upshot of this is that no matter how well you are doing, the questions will always seem difficult.
So, paradoxically, the better you do, the more difficult the test will appear and the worse you do, the easier the test will appear. Because the way our brains works, we will not typically interpret "damn! this question's difficult" as "I'm gonna ace this test!". So not far into the test I started to panic because the questions seemed way more difficult that the ones in the study guide.
At the end of the exam, before you see the score you can opt to have the results erased. You will not be able to see how you did and the score will not be recorded. I felt like some of the questions had been so difficult that when this screen was presented to me I was seriously going to choose this option. I actually had my finger on the button. The only reason I didn't press it was because I knew I could rewrite in a month and I thought it would be good to know how much more I needed to improve.
When my score appeared on the screen, anyone watching me must of thought I was a crazy person. I think I fist pumped, laughed, and sobbed all at the same time. I ended up scoring way above my most conservative best case scenario. As I walked out of the test centre I just started screaming and howling in the parking lot. I couldn't stop myself. And all the way home I blared music and alternated between screaming out my window and crying tears of joy/relief. For this exam over the winter holiday I had given up spending time with friends and family whom I get to see once a year at best, usually less--and the sacrifice had payed off. I couldn't stop the emotions coming out of me. The last time I felt that happy was 2003 in Japan, when after only 6 months of teaching, my dance team was selected to represent Japan in the World Salsa Congress and we hadn't even auditioned.
So, now I had a "pimpin" GRE score, letters of recommendation, and good current grades to bolster my letters of recommendation. After all I'd been through I wasn't about to take chances. So, I applied to 12 grad programs (very expensive...I don't recommend it!). Anyway, I got accepted at most of them but got offered funding at 3. When declaring which school you will attend, the deadline is Apr. 15. The week prior to the deadline only Texas Tech and University of North Florida had offered me funding. Texas Tech offered slightly better funding and a TAship but the Grad Coordinator a UNF was working very had to get me to commit; calling me, asking what else they could do to get me to go to them.
It was tough. On the one hand Texas Tech has a slightly stronger program but is in a small, ultra-conservative, right-wing, bible- thumping one-horse (actually one mall) town and I didn't know if I'd be happy living there. I also felt swayed by UNF's willingness to reach out to me and call me several times personally on my schedule, not his (very rare). It spoke well for the individual support I'd get as a student. After agonizing (actutally, it kind of made me crazy) over the decision for at least a week and changing my mind more times than I'd like to admit I finally settled on Texas Tech. My reasoning was that the effects of the education will last forever, and I can live just about anywhere short-term if it means better long term pay off. Special thanks to my friends at ASU for the valuable advice.
Well, on the 14th, the day before I was supposed to commit to TT I was driving home from my doing my taxes and the phone rang. It was U of Houston and they wanted to offer me full funding and a TA position. My response to this poor guy who had called me? Maniacal laughter. No joke. Poor guy. He calls me up to offer me a position and I don't say a word in response. Just start laughing. It's all I could do. All the agonizing I'd gone through to finally make my decision to go to TT and now I had to consider a 3rd option!
U of H had been one of my top picks before I'd heard back from anyone. They are a top 10 MA program and are located in a livable city. When I regained my senses I told him I was in my car but would go online and look at their program and call him back. After refreshing my memory of the program's strengths I called him back and explained my situation. He asked if there was anything they could offer that would make me pick them. I said if they'd accept all my ASU credits I'd say yes. The next day he made it happen and I made my choice. The truth is that I liked the TT program a bit better (more flexibility for course choices) but the difference isn't so great as to be a deal breaker.
So, here I am about 2 years after my decision to go back to grad school. Yes. 2 years. It took 2 years just to get to the point where I can start. But that's ok because I know god/the conscious universe initiated the budget cuts at UNLV just so I could one day go to U of H where I really belong. Obviously at U of H I will discover the solution to the world's most perplexing philosophical dilemmas (which I will dutifully post on this blog first), that's why I am being sent there. One day ye of little faith will understand that everything happens for a reason. Nothing is random.
A big thank you to all my friends and family who have been so supportive and encouraging while I have struggled along this path. I could not have made it this far without you all. Despite what Ayn Rand thinks, no man is an island. Our successes and failures are tightly causally bound to those around us....and more often than not, the randomness of the world around us.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Sunday, March 27, 2011
The Vaccine Debate Part 2: With Whom is the Debate and Should We Listen?
The Vaccine Debates Part 2: With Whom Is the Debate?
Intro
As I've been looking more into the vaccination “debate” (I'm using quotes because amongst scientists and physicians there is no debate) I've discovered a wealth of literature. Because I am far from an expert in biochemistry I will not discuss the individual studies that compile the mountains of positive evidence for vaccines but will instead look at general plausibility of anti-vaccination claims.
Who are the Anit-Vaxers and Should we Listen?
It might be instructive to take a quick look at who the anti-vaccination people are. Just like any group, there are many subgroups but there are some common traits. Some are suckers for the naturalist fallacy, some are anti-government activists, and some have an affinity for conspiracy theories. Most members of this group have a mistrust of what they call the “medical industrial complex”. I will grant that in the context of the profit based US medical system, there is warrant for healthy skepticism when considering the claims of large for profit drug companies and insurance companies. Where I feel the justification for this skepticism breaks down is when we consider the attitudes toward particular health policies of systems that are not profit driven. Consider that every single country that has some form of nationalized/socialized medicine has a national vaccination program. Coincidence? Not only that, but the WHO (World Health Organization) also recommends vaccines and has mountains of research demonstrating their safety (vs. the risk of not vaccinating).
Lets pause for a second and think. I understand that conspiracy theories are exciting but is it really plausible that every scientist that works for every national healthcare plan and every WHO scientist has been bought out by big pharma to act as their shill? Really? I know what you're thinking...how else can you explain the fact that all these scientists churn out year after year of long term studies demonstrating vaccine efficacy? Um....may I humbly suggest that it might be because the research and its conclusions are valid? Is it really possible that big pharma is paying all these scientists to fudge their research? Lets suppose it's true. Where's the smoking gun? By now at least one disgruntled scientist or spouse of a scientist would have spilled the beans. Ah! I forgot. The media's in on in it too and are covering up the story. Right.
So, lets say you're still not convinced. You poke your finger in my chest and your logical fallacy detector screeches “Argument from authority! Aruga! Aruga!” You are right to point out that an argument from authority is not a good argument but sometime appeal to authority is valid. The argument from authority as a logical fallacy usually only applies when you only appeal to an individual or a small group of “experts” like, say...appealing to an Andrew Wakefield study.
When there is broad consensus amongst a field of experts, this is not an argument from authority; it is prevailing wisdom. A quick example: if your car has a problem and you take it to a hundred mechanics and 99 of them say there's a problem with the regulator but 1 says the problem is with the alternator, which are you going to get fixed? Add to that example that the other 99 mechanics say the lone mechanic is a hack. Who would you listen to? Please don't say that “well what if the 99 mechanics are being paid by the regulator industrial complex and the 1 mechanic is fighting the good fight”. I might have to hurt you.
Lets apply the example to something less controversial (than vaccines, not regulators/alternators) like climate change or evolution. 100% of biologists support evolution and all but one or 2 climate science experts support the idea of anthropogenic climate change. Should we listen to theologists when it comes to evolution? Should we give equal weight to the views of the 1 or 2 dissenting climate scientists? Hopefully not.
To be sure there is disagreement among the experts about interpretation of the data and the details, just as there are matters that are still unsettled. That's why research is ongoing. But none of these experts in their respective fields would deny the main tenants of the overarching theories: That evolution happened/is happening, that there is anthropogenic climate change and that the benefits of vaccines far outweigh the risks of not being vaccinated.
Ok, so I know what you're thinking. “Science” has been wrong before, and those in the minority view were eventually vindicated. True. Sometimes it happens. But it takes extraordinary evidence to overturn mountains of confirmatory evidence for an overarching theory. And so far that evidence hasn't materialized. As the skeptics say “extraordinary claims demands extraordinary evidence.”
Next post I'll (finally) write about the basic science surrounding the vaccination question)
Thursday, March 10, 2011
The Vaccine Debate Part 1: The Legal Aspect of the Feb. 22 Ruling
Preamble
Because this blog post is likely to attract new readers to my blog, before I get into the meat of the debate I feel some preamble is in order. Facebook is a wonderful thing. It allows us to reconnect and stay in contact with friends to a degree that old skool letter writing simply wouldn't allow. One interesting derivative of facebook is that we can learn how our own views differ from those of our friends and our friends' friends. As we progress though life we tend to surround ourselves most closely with people who share our own point of view. Facebook allows us to observe in real time how our views have changed or are diverging from past peer groups.
So what's my point? I guess what I'm getting at is that I think having friends/friends of friends who have divergent views from my own allows me to examine my own beliefs more critically. For example, politically I have what Americans call a "liberal" bias (in Canada I'd be much closer to the centre) but thanks to facebook I can read articles that my more right leaning friends post. Having access to these articles allows me to see things from a perspective that I probably might not have otherwise. Sometimes I discount these countervailing views as malarky but occasionally I will agree with some of the points and modify my position. The most fruitful reaction is when I respond to the article. Doing so allows me to clarify my own position to myself and determine whether my position is simply an opinion or whether there are strong arguments and/or evidence which support my position. Sometimes things get heated but as long as my friends and I stay within boundaries appropriate to our friendship/character the outcome is usually fruitful for the both of us. Basically, this blog entry the the result of one of those interactions.
As a caveat, I loves me some sarcasm, it's built into my DNA so I urge you not to take too much offence if I am dismissive of any of your cherished beliefs. I'll do my best to temper it (Ha!) On the bright side I can take just as well as I can dish it...so give me your best!
Although I'm but a babe in the woods in academia and I have no specialized knowledge, I would argue that training in philosophy qualifies one quite well in the evaluation of arguments. The subsequent blog post is about several issues in the vaccine debate. So, what are my medical credentials you ask? Well, I'm not a doctor, but I did play one for over 2 years with Chippendales. If that doesn't convince you of my bonifides, I don't know what will. Without further ado...
Issue 1: Government "Protection" of Vaccine Producers
My good friend Nima posted the following article on his facebook page with a subject line that he knew would bate me (we do this to each other....it's fun!)
http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/March-2011/No-Pharma-Liability--No-Vaccine-Mandates-.aspx
Besides the fact that this article is poorly written with grammatical errors and missing words (see ad hominem attack) there are so many factual fabrications it reads like fox news (see "ad hominem" again!). Basically I'm having a hard time deciding where to begin. Lets try this. I'll summarize the article, point out the main errors, then give some examples of dishonesty in the article.
The main points of the articles are as follows: 1. Vaccine producers are protected from civil liability should a vaccine cause injury, 2. a) 'mericans are legally compelled to be vaccinated by government b) and that's a violation of FREEDOM! (chant USA! USA! USA!) 3. Vaccines are baaaaad.
Vaccine Producers are Protected from Civil Liability
First of all the way this claim is made is disingenuous. Thoughout the article the claim is made that there is "no liability" and "no accountability" for vaccine producers. The tacit implication that it is very difficult if not impossible for victims of vaccine side effects to receive compensation. I commend the writer for not outright lying but his account is misleading. Here are the actual facts:
1. In 1986 the US government set up the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVI) to provide no-fault compensation to those claiming to be victims of vaccines. So, children suffering from what may be side effects of vaccines have an avenue by which they can receive compensation. The threshold for a successful claim to demonstrate a causal link is very weak and the effects need only manifest themselves within a reasonable time frame after the injection. It is important to note that the causal link between most vaccines and the purported side effects is weak at best.
In many cases, for compensation to be awarded there need only be a temporal causal link between symptoms and vaccination, not physiological or biochemical. Basically just because event B occurred after event A does not mean that event A caused event B. I will get into the science of that later. With the NCVI Children are provided medical, rehabilitation, counselling, and educational expenses in the case of a successful claim.
Assessment: While it is true that vaccine producers are protected from civil liability, it is not true that victims have no recourse for compensation. In defence of the article writer, they never outright say this but any uninformed person reading the article could easily draw this conclusion.
So how did this whole ruling come about? Well, basically there was a case in which a family from Pennsylvania went to the NCVI claims committee looking for compensation and didn't get it. The condition--residual seizure disorder--which afflicted the daughter had been removed from the schedule of approved reactions that qualify for compensation . In other words, there was no evidence indicating or plausible mechanism for a causal link between the vaccine and that particular condition. Despite this, the plaintiff argued that the vaccine company had knowledge of a safer vaccine and if they had distributed the newer vaccine their daughter would not have had the reaction. The family did not accept the ruling of the NCVI and eventually their case made it to the supreme court.
In order to understand the supreme court ruling we need to look at the wording of the key passage in the 1986 NCVI law:
No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.
The two keys to the case are the phrase "side effects that were unavoidable" and "the vaccine...was accompanied by proper directions and warnings". Lets look first at the later. Before a child gets any vaccine it is the law that the parents read and sign a vaccine information statement (VIS):
A VIS must be given with every vaccination, including each dose in a multi-dose series. Each VIS contains a brief description of the disease, as well as the risks and benefits of the vaccine. Each VIS is developed by the CDC and distributed to state and local health departments as well as individual providers.(my italics, thank you wikipedia)
Because this blog post is likely to attract new readers to my blog, before I get into the meat of the debate I feel some preamble is in order. Facebook is a wonderful thing. It allows us to reconnect and stay in contact with friends to a degree that old skool letter writing simply wouldn't allow. One interesting derivative of facebook is that we can learn how our own views differ from those of our friends and our friends' friends. As we progress though life we tend to surround ourselves most closely with people who share our own point of view. Facebook allows us to observe in real time how our views have changed or are diverging from past peer groups.
So what's my point? I guess what I'm getting at is that I think having friends/friends of friends who have divergent views from my own allows me to examine my own beliefs more critically. For example, politically I have what Americans call a "liberal" bias (in Canada I'd be much closer to the centre) but thanks to facebook I can read articles that my more right leaning friends post. Having access to these articles allows me to see things from a perspective that I probably might not have otherwise. Sometimes I discount these countervailing views as malarky but occasionally I will agree with some of the points and modify my position. The most fruitful reaction is when I respond to the article. Doing so allows me to clarify my own position to myself and determine whether my position is simply an opinion or whether there are strong arguments and/or evidence which support my position. Sometimes things get heated but as long as my friends and I stay within boundaries appropriate to our friendship/character the outcome is usually fruitful for the both of us. Basically, this blog entry the the result of one of those interactions.
As a caveat, I loves me some sarcasm, it's built into my DNA so I urge you not to take too much offence if I am dismissive of any of your cherished beliefs. I'll do my best to temper it (Ha!) On the bright side I can take just as well as I can dish it...so give me your best!
Although I'm but a babe in the woods in academia and I have no specialized knowledge, I would argue that training in philosophy qualifies one quite well in the evaluation of arguments. The subsequent blog post is about several issues in the vaccine debate. So, what are my medical credentials you ask? Well, I'm not a doctor, but I did play one for over 2 years with Chippendales. If that doesn't convince you of my bonifides, I don't know what will. Without further ado...
Issue 1: Government "Protection" of Vaccine Producers
My good friend Nima posted the following article on his facebook page with a subject line that he knew would bate me (we do this to each other....it's fun!)
http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/March-2011/No-Pharma-Liability--No-Vaccine-Mandates-.aspx
Besides the fact that this article is poorly written with grammatical errors and missing words (see ad hominem attack) there are so many factual fabrications it reads like fox news (see "ad hominem" again!). Basically I'm having a hard time deciding where to begin. Lets try this. I'll summarize the article, point out the main errors, then give some examples of dishonesty in the article.
The main points of the articles are as follows: 1. Vaccine producers are protected from civil liability should a vaccine cause injury, 2. a) 'mericans are legally compelled to be vaccinated by government b) and that's a violation of FREEDOM! (chant USA! USA! USA!) 3. Vaccines are baaaaad.
Vaccine Producers are Protected from Civil Liability
First of all the way this claim is made is disingenuous. Thoughout the article the claim is made that there is "no liability" and "no accountability" for vaccine producers. The tacit implication that it is very difficult if not impossible for victims of vaccine side effects to receive compensation. I commend the writer for not outright lying but his account is misleading. Here are the actual facts:
1. In 1986 the US government set up the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVI) to provide no-fault compensation to those claiming to be victims of vaccines. So, children suffering from what may be side effects of vaccines have an avenue by which they can receive compensation. The threshold for a successful claim to demonstrate a causal link is very weak and the effects need only manifest themselves within a reasonable time frame after the injection. It is important to note that the causal link between most vaccines and the purported side effects is weak at best.
In many cases, for compensation to be awarded there need only be a temporal causal link between symptoms and vaccination, not physiological or biochemical. Basically just because event B occurred after event A does not mean that event A caused event B. I will get into the science of that later. With the NCVI Children are provided medical, rehabilitation, counselling, and educational expenses in the case of a successful claim.
Assessment: While it is true that vaccine producers are protected from civil liability, it is not true that victims have no recourse for compensation. In defence of the article writer, they never outright say this but any uninformed person reading the article could easily draw this conclusion.
So how did this whole ruling come about? Well, basically there was a case in which a family from Pennsylvania went to the NCVI claims committee looking for compensation and didn't get it. The condition--residual seizure disorder--which afflicted the daughter had been removed from the schedule of approved reactions that qualify for compensation . In other words, there was no evidence indicating or plausible mechanism for a causal link between the vaccine and that particular condition. Despite this, the plaintiff argued that the vaccine company had knowledge of a safer vaccine and if they had distributed the newer vaccine their daughter would not have had the reaction. The family did not accept the ruling of the NCVI and eventually their case made it to the supreme court.
In order to understand the supreme court ruling we need to look at the wording of the key passage in the 1986 NCVI law:
No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.
The two keys to the case are the phrase "side effects that were unavoidable" and "the vaccine...was accompanied by proper directions and warnings". Lets look first at the later. Before a child gets any vaccine it is the law that the parents read and sign a vaccine information statement (VIS):
A VIS must be given with every vaccination, including each dose in a multi-dose series. Each VIS contains a brief description of the disease, as well as the risks and benefits of the vaccine. Each VIS is developed by the CDC and distributed to state and local health departments as well as individual providers.(my italics, thank you wikipedia)
Basically this amounts to informed consent. The plaintiff wanted to argue that despite the informed consent the vaccine manufacturer knew about a more attenuated vaccine and should have offered it.
The judges ruled that despite this, the informed consent that was for the vaccine at hand, not another version of the vaccine. Also, despite what the National Vaccine Information Centre NVIC article states, there are state laws that allow for abstention from taking vaccines.
The judges ruled that despite this, the informed consent that was for the vaccine at hand, not another version of the vaccine. Also, despite what the National Vaccine Information Centre NVIC article states, there are state laws that allow for abstention from taking vaccines.
So, the family could have refused that vaccine if the known risks which were on the VIS had been unacceptable to them. That is to say, the family could have declined having the vaccine administered to their daughter if they were concerned about the "side effects that were unavoidable". (Actually, in the article the NVIC contradicts themselves because in the first part of the article they say that Americans are legally required to get vaccinated, but at the end of the article they ask for donations to continue their support of existing state laws that allow for exemption--go figure).
The supreme court noted that if the law were otherwise interpreted it would open the door for very difficult cases. Here are a couple of analogies I came up with as thought experiments to illustrate the point: Let say you buy a car the year before they install airbag technology into the model. You get into an accident and the injuries you sustained could have been prevented if there had been an airbag in the car. The car company knew about airbag technology and maybe even sold some of your model with airbags in another country (with less stringent testing regulations, for example). Can you sue the car company? They knew about a safer modification to the vehicle. Or lets say that midway production they started adding airbags. You bought a car from an early production run that didn't have one. Does the car company now need to pull all non-airbag (safer) cars from the market and junk them?
Here's another that maybe isn't so much of an analogy but a similar case. Lets say you have a headache and decide to take your usual ibuprofen (NSAID) which can cause stomach ulcers with prolonged frequent use. Meanwhile just 2 days ago that same drug company just concluded a 5 year FDA trial and received FDA approval for a similar drug but the new one is less likely to cause stomach ulcers. Is the drug company expected to recall all existing stock of ibuprofen and destroy it just because it has produced on innovation that is slightly safer? I'm not so sure it has this obligation.
If we consider these imperfect analogies we can see how it would be difficult for the court to rule in favour of the plaintiff and the difficulties that would arise out of setting such a legal precedent. The bottom line however is that all this legal stuff is secondary to the science. The science does not support any causal link between the DTP vaccine and many of the claimed side effects. (Again, I will discuss the science in part 2 which I hope to write over the weekend)
Anyway, hopefully this fosters some perspicuity on how the ruling came about and why the supreme court ruled the way it did. One final note. At this point any careful reader should notice what seems to be a logical inconsistency in my position. On the one hand I am implying that vaccines are safe but on the other I am saying that there is the NCVI which provides compensation for those experiencing side effects. If vaccines are so safe why should there be a body which decides on compensation for side effects? Ah! ha! good question. I will elaborate on this when I discuss the science of vaccines.
Why Protect Vaccination Producers?
Although the issues surrounding this particular case are interesting, the more important issue is why the US enacted the NCVI law in 1986 in the first place. Why should government (once again) protect big bad pharma? Before I continue I'd like to clarify that I do not think that pharmaceutical companies are particularly ethical actors. In fact, there are many instances where they have proven to be quite the opposite. Despite this there are important reasons for which the NCVI law was enacted.
A little background which I have stolen from this article
I'll summarize for those of you who are already bored with the topic and don't wish to do any further reading:
In 1982 NBC produced an "expose" of alleged DTP vaccine related injuries. This began the first major anti-vaccination movement and proliferation of misinformation.
While in 1979 there was only 1 DTP-related lawsuit, by 1986 there were 255, with a total of over $3 billion sought by claimants. This clearly was not sustainable for the vaccine industry, and in fact manufacturers went out of business. In 1967 there were 26 US manufacturers of vaccines. By 1980 this number had dropped to 15, and by 1986 there were only 3 companies still making vaccines in this country. Vaccine prices skyrocketed, and manufacturers found it difficult to obtain liability insurance.
Basically, the sheer legal costs of defending claims made doing business prohibitive. The alternative was for pharmaceutical companies to stop producing vaccines. I know if I were selling vaccines in that environment I'd close my doors too and stick to selling aspirin. What rational business person wouldn't? So, it seems that the CDC and related government agencies were faced with a decision: offer some protection to vaccine producers, or eliminate the vaccine program all together.
In 1982 NBC produced an "expose" of alleged DTP vaccine related injuries. This began the first major anti-vaccination movement and proliferation of misinformation.
While in 1979 there was only 1 DTP-related lawsuit, by 1986 there were 255, with a total of over $3 billion sought by claimants. This clearly was not sustainable for the vaccine industry, and in fact manufacturers went out of business. In 1967 there were 26 US manufacturers of vaccines. By 1980 this number had dropped to 15, and by 1986 there were only 3 companies still making vaccines in this country. Vaccine prices skyrocketed, and manufacturers found it difficult to obtain liability insurance.
Basically, the sheer legal costs of defending claims made doing business prohibitive. The alternative was for pharmaceutical companies to stop producing vaccines. I know if I were selling vaccines in that environment I'd close my doors too and stick to selling aspirin. What rational business person wouldn't? So, it seems that the CDC and related government agencies were faced with a decision: offer some protection to vaccine producers, or eliminate the vaccine program all together.
Now I know what your thinking. They should have eliminated the vaccine program. If people would just think more positive thoughts they wouldn't get sick. All sickness comes from either negative (quantum?) energy, stress, and poor access to triple rainbows. I know! But you're preaching to the choir. All this crap about genetic predispositions, viruses, bacterial infection, different diseases having different aetiologies and pathologies... can all be avoided by simply tapping into the universe's positive energy. And if you should accidentally unplug yourself from the positive waves of quantum energy, easy solutions are just around the corner. Got mumps? Laugh away those bumps....homeopathy will fix it! Got polio? Just look at my portfolio...super doses of vitamins will have you healthy in no time! Problem with your spleen? Easiest thing I've ever seen...Reflexology will do the trick, just massage your foot where it's thick! I've got hundreds of these folks, but I'll spare you--you get my point.
I know it sucks to give legal protection to big corporations (and I'm actually being serious here) but I think in this particular instance it is warranted.
OK folks, what was supposed to be a quick overview of the vaccine issues sprinkled with witty remarks has turned into a full-blown research project. I have to work over the next few days but over the weekend I'll try to produce a part 2 focusing on the research/science. Please post your comments and hate mail!
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Thoughts on "Waiting for Superman"
I just finished watching "Waiting for Superman" and decided I'd write a couple of my thoughts. My first thought was "how did I ever survive growing up in the ghettos of Dunbar?" (note for my international readers, that's a middle-class neighbourhood in Vancouver. It's a joke you see... because it's not a bad neighbourhood, and as the more I explain the joke, the funnier it will get!)
Actually one of my first thoughts was, how did I manage to avoid all those horrible teachers the film talks about? I'm sure I had some teachers that weren't spectacular and I was a very average student up until grade 10 when I decided to take things a little more seriously. Actually, my Dad told me I couldn't play any sports until I showed that I could maintain a "B" average. I went from a lifetime "C" student to "B" student in a month. Did my teachers all of a sudden get better?
I have a thought here but I'm having trouble deciding how to express it... I guess it's that while I certainly agree with the thesis of the film that great teachers can make a difference, students also need to be self-motivated. I remember lots of classes where I would walk out of the class (especially math, sometimes physics) and have no clue what we just did for an hour but I'd go home, read the examples in the textbook and do the problem sets, and eventually after some serious mental anguish I'd get it. Of course sometimes I wouldn't be able to do it and I'd call a classmate for help but more often than not I'd struggle with it until I figured it out. So, part of what I'm trying to say is that while it's fine and dandy to point the finger at teachers, learning takes effort. The teacher cannot learn for you.
STOP! I just had a revelation: I'm old. Ya know how I know? Cuz in this next paragraph I'm going to bemoan "kids these days". Seriously, kids these days want everything to come easy. Everything is too hard. Boohoo. It seems everywhere I look, this is the attitude of the times. Can I say the zeitgeist of the times? I like that phrase and don't get to use it often enough...It seems the kids want all the success and wealth with none of the sacrifice and hard work. They only want to do what they like to do when they want to do it. Ok, I know it's not every kid but I seem to encounter this attitude a lot.
This kind of leads to my next point about the movie which is they don't ask what are the 20 something other countries' education systems that are out-competing the US doing differently? Well, as someone who has taught high school kids in Japan I can tell you that the difference does not lie in the quality of the teaching. In fact, given my experience teaching in Japan, (and I'm sure anyone else who's taught in Japan can back me up on this) if we extend the "it's the teachers' fault hypothesis" to Japan I'd say it's a freakin' miracle Japanese kids can tie their shoelaces. Oh! Little Johnny can't learn because his teacher doesn't make learning FUN! He doesn't encourage him enough! Really!? Try sitting in a Japanese high school class. Johnny's class will seem like a field trip to Disneyland with all the candy he can eat with his own cheer-leading squad (Mmm...cheerleading squad......)
You know why the other countries are out-perfoming US students? As a world renowned expert I will tell you: 1. The students do their freakin' homework; 2. Those societies still show some modicum of respect for teachers so when a teacher disciplines a child, the parent backs up the teacher not the student; 3. It's not "cool" to be a failure and/or ignorant in those countries; 4. The culture values education (unlike the US where science is chased out of the classrooms in place of religious superstition) 5. Again, the teachers know that the parents back them 100% so if a kid is being disrespectful/not doing their work the teacher can enforce discipline rather than what happens here, i.e. the parent thinks their kid is perfect and how dare the teacher be "mean" to their child. 6. The kids are expected to work hard and do well. 7. The teacher is not expected to be a cheerleader for the kids, praising them for every minor thing they do well. Here's a wacky idea...you're supposed to do your homework and do well in school--that's the norm! Why should we praise people for achieving the norm?
Despite all the reasons why these other countries are out-performing the US, US culture is not going to become like Japan's. The film makers are correct to say changes need to be made in how education is carried out in the US, especially in the inner cities. We're going to have to accept that maybe the teachers will have to act as cheerleaders and will have to make leaning "fun". The fact of the matter is that what works in one culture might not work in another and that current educational policies aren't working. We (or just me, I'm fine with that) can blame the kids until we're blue in the face but it's actually the adults that failed them long ago. ...the children! save the children! (I probably shouldn't make light of these things but how can I pass up an opportunity to use a cliche)
One important idea that emerged from the film was that teachers' unions are a major part of the problem. This relates back to how I started this post, wondering how it is that I magically by passed all the "lemon" teachers. It could be that in Canada the education system and socio-economic circumstances are quite different, or at least they are at the 1 elementary and 3 high schools I went to. I find it hard to believe that the amount of crappy teachers out there is so great as to so greatly negatively effect the level of education. Were there no crappy teachers in the US in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s when the US was leading the world in education?
Also, the amount of education required for someone to be a teacher now is significantly greater than what it was back in the golden age of US education. Tonnes of research has been carried out on effective methods, which teachers learn as part of teacher training. So, how can poor teaching be such a problem if teacher now has at least 2 extra years of education specific to teaching methods? It just doesn't add up. The film hinted at one possible explanation, which was that the US did so well comparatively because the other nations didn't have education systems to speak of. Ok, that would make sense but when you compare 1960s US metrics to current US metrics, the 1960 students performed much better. Did all the extra teacher training lead to crappier teaching? Unlikely.
Getting back to the crappy teacher hypothesis, I felt that there was a compelling argument for at least reducing the facility with which teachers attain tenure and for allowing better performers to be better paid. To be sure there are problems with changing these things but I think some flexibility on the part of the teachers union might be helpful--if a teacher has been proven to suck definitively he should be fired just like in any other job.
Regarding granting tenure to teachers after only 2 years, when compared to what university professors have to go through it seems a bit easy. A university professor must endure on average 10 years of post secondary education, writing, researching, and publishing articles (for free), and working on committees (for free). At the end of it all there is not guarantee of tenure. I do however feel that tenure is important because if someone is going to invest 5 or 6 years of their life getting an education for a career path that pays very little, they deserve a little security. How else are we going to attract any talent? Also, it is very easy to imagine a situation in the US and A where a good biology teacher in the South wants to teach evolution but can't because he knows he'll get chased out of town with torches and pitchforks.
Furthermore, there will be complications with performance based pay because the demographics of your school have a significant effect on student abilities/behavioural problems/parent support/etc... Nevertheless, I don't think these problems are irresolvable and remember we are doing it for the children! How can you argue with that?
Regarding granting tenure to teachers after only 2 years, when compared to what university professors have to go through it seems a bit easy. A university professor must endure on average 10 years of post secondary education, writing, researching, and publishing articles (for free), and working on committees (for free). At the end of it all there is not guarantee of tenure. I do however feel that tenure is important because if someone is going to invest 5 or 6 years of their life getting an education for a career path that pays very little, they deserve a little security. How else are we going to attract any talent? Also, it is very easy to imagine a situation in the US and A where a good biology teacher in the South wants to teach evolution but can't because he knows he'll get chased out of town with torches and pitchforks.
Furthermore, there will be complications with performance based pay because the demographics of your school have a significant effect on student abilities/behavioural problems/parent support/etc... Nevertheless, I don't think these problems are irresolvable and remember we are doing it for the children! How can you argue with that?
All this bickering of educational policy and methodology...tsk tsk. The solution is sooooooo simple. Haven't you read "The Power of Now" or "The Secret"? These kids are failing because they are not willing the universe hard enough to give them "A"s. Clearly, they and their parents just don't want it badly enough. It's all their fault. Those silly inner city kids. If they just wanted it badly enough the universe would conspire to give them A's. To quote Hansel, "it's so simple".
Anyway, I'd love to hear what other people think about this...
Anyway, I'd love to hear what other people think about this...
Sunday, February 27, 2011
The Egyptian Revolution
I love being wrong. Well, maybe I should qualify that. I love being wrong when my original beliefs that were pessimistic about humanity turn out to be wrong. I also like finding out I'm wrong about factual beliefs because then I have the opportunity to correct them...but that's tangential to what I want to focus on--the first type of instance in which I like to be wrong. (Editor's note: that was a very confusing and overly wordy introduction paragraph--let me try again).
I wanted to say that everybody, unless they've been living in a cave, knows about the on going Arab democratic uprisings, but I'm going to guess that despite living in a cave, even Osama bin Laden knows what's going on. When I first started to hear about what was happening in Egypt and began following it I honestly didn't think much would come of it. Happily I was wrong. Then when it looked like Mubarak was getting the boot for good I was skeptical that this was necessarily a good thing. Not that democracy is a bad thing (although I'm not convinced it's always a good thing either), but I was concerned about the practical mechanics of how power would be transferred and the possibility of Egypt reverting back to a theocracy.
Once Mubarak put 2 and 2 together and saw that the likelyhood of his reign continuing indefinitely was about as likely as homeopathy curing--insert your favourite chronic disease here--he offered to hold power over a transitional period. This was not enough for the Egyptian people: they wanted him and his officials to leave immediately. I understand the sentiment of the people but I'm still not sure if this is the best approach, before you tell me to go hang out with Glen Beck let me explain why.
Who's Going To Run the New Government?
Mubarak and his peeps have been in power for 30 years. It is quite possible that many of his government officials are corrupt but they also know something about running the various ministries or government branches with which they are charged. I could very well be wrong about this but if you are kicking out the only people who have any experience running the various government offices, how will the new officials learn how to do their job? I find it difficult to believe that somebody could just step in as Minister of Finance or Transportation etc. without any prior experience. Imagine that the masses kicked you and all your coworkers out of your company and then without any guidance or previous experience took over your jobs and company. How successful would that company be? Seriously, if you've every been in any sort of management position think about how long it takes to train someone to do something even as simple as work at McDonald's. And that's with guidance and also occurring within an existing system.
Although the circumstances are different I think something could be learned from the S.Africa model where Mandela's government retained some of the prior government officials to help with training and so on. Revolutions are not the typical way that government power transfers occur and there is no "typical" revolution so there is no clear right way to transfer power.
In democracies when a government is voted out and a new one voted in there is a transition period so the incoming officials can learn the ropes and also typically some of the members of the new party were already in government as members of the opposition. None of this applies to what's happening in Egypt. It is quite clear that the Egyptian people want nothing to do with anyone who held any position of note over the last 30 years and I guess I have some concerns about how people are going to learn to run a country when nobody has any prior experience. It just seems a bit worrisome from a practical point of view. Hopefully, I will be proven wrong again!
The (Holy) Spectre of an Islamist Theocracy
Ok, my first reaction to the early reports of the Egyptian revolution was to be worried about the potential rise of an Islamist state via the Muslim Brotherhood. It's no secret that I'm a secularist and regard religion as one of the greatest impediments to human progress. So if you want to accuse me of bias here, I graciously accept it. Not that anecdotes should carry much weight but let me share one with you to give you an idea of why I am worried about the co-opting of the Egyptian government by fundi Islam:
Back when I was a bright-eyed and bushy-tailed backpacker, I spent about a month backpacking in Egypt. It was a great experience and I met many wonderful people. There was however one negative encounter that has always stuck with me. I was staying in a Cairo youth hostel (actually quite close to Tahir Square) and had made good friends with a group of young Egyptian boxers who were in Cairo for the national boxing championship. Everyday I'd hang out with them, go watch their matches, watched them pray 5 times a day, and drink tea. As an aside, Egyptian culture is (obviously) very different from ours and it is common for men to hold hands when walking, so everyday when we'd hang out they'd all compete over who got to hold my hand when we walked down the street. Thinking about this now makes me laugh when I imagine doing the same with some of my North American and European grappling partners. It's fine to roll around half naked in each others sweat but holding hands?!
But I digress...anyway if I can pull myself away from revelling in the memories of my youth, my point is this: One evening I was talking to my Egyptian friends about Israel. One of the guys said if he ever saw a Jew walking down the street he would kill him. Just like that. He didn't even try to temper this sentiment and it was said as though this is the natural thing to do. There was no caveat. It wasn't even like when people tell a racist joke and quickly look around to see if the anyone in the target group is in earshot. I asked him, "even if you'd never met him before and he'd done nothing to you?" Same answer. Well, at that moment all I could think was, "thank goodness I opted to have that horn-removal surgery". I think I had told them that I was Christian. Early in my trip in Egypt I'd learned not to say I didn't have a religion because they don't understand that concept. The idea of not having a religion is so foreign to them that it fries their internal circuitry and it become much easier (even for an avowed atheist) to say you belong to a particular religion (unless you say you are a Jew, of course). A little bit of trivia for y'all: in the Middle East your religion is on you ID card. How 'bout them apples, anti-profilers!
I rambled a bit but hopefully the reason why I have some misgivings about Islam entering the institutions in Egypt are apparent. Let me say as a prolepsis that what I am suggesting about the Islamic craziness is not particular to Islam. Intolerance of infidels is inherent in almost every religion, save perhaps Buddhism (which is arguably not a religion). I've heard similar statements of blind irrational hate and intolerance from Christians and Jews alike and, sadly, one does not have to look hard to find them in the public sphere...all the more reason to keep religion out of government.
Lets see if I can get back to some semblance of a coherent discourse...what was I talking about? Ah! yes! the Muslim Brotherhood. I found it quite interesting how different branches of the media presented this organization. Predictably the right wing media resorted to fear mongering. What was more interesting was how the less ideological media portrayed them. My primary source of news is NPR and the interviews they had with Brotherhood leaders were very softball. No hard questions were asked about giving evidence that the Brotherhood had make an ideological break with its violent past or commitment to theocratic rule. Whenever the interviewer asked such questions the interviewee dismissed these concerns as unjustified, yet the interviewer never challenged any of the replies. If the interviewer had done a little bit of research there would have been ample grounds to challenge the responses. I felt like NPR was trying to avoid any accusations of being anti-Islamist in the name of preserving its public image as fair and balanced but this was in fact poor journalism. If the interviewer had been interviewing a politician who favours cutting education you can bet there would have been some tough questions and responses wouldn't be accepted at face value (i.e. good journalism).
If you don't have the time to read the entire article or just don't care here are a couple of facts about the Muslim Brotherhood which I have stolen from an insightful article from the American Humanist website.
http://blog.thehumanist.com/?p=2572&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thehumanist%2FXNiZ+%28Rant+%26+Reason%29
Excerpt:
The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928, with a credo of “Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations.” There isn’t the slightest doubt about the Muslim Brotherhood’s agenda today, because it was published for all the world to see in 2007. The model is shamelessly copied from Iran: a council of “senior religious scholars” must be established, with power to overrule any government decision not in accord with Muslim Sharia law. Since Sharia purports to govern every aspect of human existence, the God experts reign supreme; Qutb, the chief architect of the Brotherhood's theology, taught that Sharia is so complete as a legal and moral system that no further legislation is possible. Just last September, the current head of the Brotherhood preached that “the improvement and change that the [Muslim] nation seeks can only be attained through jihad and sacrifice and by raising a jihadi generation that pursues death, just as the enemies pursue life.”
Ok, maybe they're not as moderate as NPR allowed them to make themselves out to be. But it could also very well be that there moderate members and these are the members with which NPR spoke. Very few large organizations have internal ideological purity. So what? Well, at first I thought, "OMG this a terrible threat, Egypt will turn into Iran, the peace treaty with Israel will be over and the Middle East will be even worse off." But then I thought, "like, um...who am I to judge what system people voluntarily submit to?" I suppose if it's what people vote for through legitimate democratic means, then so be it. Americans voted for two terms of Bush, how much worse could the Egyptians do? There are other reasons why I don't think the possibility of a backward Islamist state is much cause for concern:
1. After listening to quite a few interviews with the average Egyptian it seems that degree to which the Muslim Brotherhood holds political power in Egypt is much less than we in the West think.
2. After fighting so hard for democracy it is unlikely that Egyptians will give it all up to an Iranian style "democracy".
3. The style of democracy that emerges in Egypt (and other parts of the Middle East) will not likely look exactly like what we have in the West, nor should it. It needs to be specific to that culture and history. So it's going to have some Islamist elements but from my point of view the US government is just a hop skip and a crusade away from being a theocracy itself. So why be so demanding of absolute secularism from the Egyptians?
The important point is that the government will be democratic and to some degree responsive to the demands of the people. In such an environment more enlightened secularist values at least have a chance of emerging while more rigid medieval religious rules (can I add "draconian?" or would that reveal my bias?) can be diminished. Also if the people discover that a reversion the dark ages isn't all it's cracked up to be they can vote the offending government out, and bring in a new one. Democracy doesn't guarantee the best government but at least it gives you a chance to experiment and discard those that don't act in your best interest.
Well, I need to get ready for work but there so much more I wanted to write about. Lets call this Part 1. I'll conclude by saying again that over the last few weeks I have been happily disabused of some ill founded beliefs. I think especially now, with the support of the international community, a new enlightened era in Egyptian history is dawning. Obviously it's not going to happen over night or perfectly smoothly but in the long run the people of Egypt will be much better off. I would like to apologize to Allah for my initial skepticism toward the revolution. I attribute this attitude to the fact that the only other historical examples of revolutions in the region that I know of are Afghanistan, Iran, and pre-Kadaffi Libya...and they didn't turn out so well for most people. It is unfortunate that in most post-colonial countries the post-revolutionary governments ended up being worse in many respects than colonial rule.
Thank for reading. And a final reminder to Jews: if you plan on visiting Egypt it's worth having your horns removed before going.
I wanted to say that everybody, unless they've been living in a cave, knows about the on going Arab democratic uprisings, but I'm going to guess that despite living in a cave, even Osama bin Laden knows what's going on. When I first started to hear about what was happening in Egypt and began following it I honestly didn't think much would come of it. Happily I was wrong. Then when it looked like Mubarak was getting the boot for good I was skeptical that this was necessarily a good thing. Not that democracy is a bad thing (although I'm not convinced it's always a good thing either), but I was concerned about the practical mechanics of how power would be transferred and the possibility of Egypt reverting back to a theocracy.
Once Mubarak put 2 and 2 together and saw that the likelyhood of his reign continuing indefinitely was about as likely as homeopathy curing--insert your favourite chronic disease here--he offered to hold power over a transitional period. This was not enough for the Egyptian people: they wanted him and his officials to leave immediately. I understand the sentiment of the people but I'm still not sure if this is the best approach, before you tell me to go hang out with Glen Beck let me explain why.
Who's Going To Run the New Government?
Mubarak and his peeps have been in power for 30 years. It is quite possible that many of his government officials are corrupt but they also know something about running the various ministries or government branches with which they are charged. I could very well be wrong about this but if you are kicking out the only people who have any experience running the various government offices, how will the new officials learn how to do their job? I find it difficult to believe that somebody could just step in as Minister of Finance or Transportation etc. without any prior experience. Imagine that the masses kicked you and all your coworkers out of your company and then without any guidance or previous experience took over your jobs and company. How successful would that company be? Seriously, if you've every been in any sort of management position think about how long it takes to train someone to do something even as simple as work at McDonald's. And that's with guidance and also occurring within an existing system.
Although the circumstances are different I think something could be learned from the S.Africa model where Mandela's government retained some of the prior government officials to help with training and so on. Revolutions are not the typical way that government power transfers occur and there is no "typical" revolution so there is no clear right way to transfer power.
In democracies when a government is voted out and a new one voted in there is a transition period so the incoming officials can learn the ropes and also typically some of the members of the new party were already in government as members of the opposition. None of this applies to what's happening in Egypt. It is quite clear that the Egyptian people want nothing to do with anyone who held any position of note over the last 30 years and I guess I have some concerns about how people are going to learn to run a country when nobody has any prior experience. It just seems a bit worrisome from a practical point of view. Hopefully, I will be proven wrong again!
The (Holy) Spectre of an Islamist Theocracy
Ok, my first reaction to the early reports of the Egyptian revolution was to be worried about the potential rise of an Islamist state via the Muslim Brotherhood. It's no secret that I'm a secularist and regard religion as one of the greatest impediments to human progress. So if you want to accuse me of bias here, I graciously accept it. Not that anecdotes should carry much weight but let me share one with you to give you an idea of why I am worried about the co-opting of the Egyptian government by fundi Islam:
Back when I was a bright-eyed and bushy-tailed backpacker, I spent about a month backpacking in Egypt. It was a great experience and I met many wonderful people. There was however one negative encounter that has always stuck with me. I was staying in a Cairo youth hostel (actually quite close to Tahir Square) and had made good friends with a group of young Egyptian boxers who were in Cairo for the national boxing championship. Everyday I'd hang out with them, go watch their matches, watched them pray 5 times a day, and drink tea. As an aside, Egyptian culture is (obviously) very different from ours and it is common for men to hold hands when walking, so everyday when we'd hang out they'd all compete over who got to hold my hand when we walked down the street. Thinking about this now makes me laugh when I imagine doing the same with some of my North American and European grappling partners. It's fine to roll around half naked in each others sweat but holding hands?!
But I digress...anyway if I can pull myself away from revelling in the memories of my youth, my point is this: One evening I was talking to my Egyptian friends about Israel. One of the guys said if he ever saw a Jew walking down the street he would kill him. Just like that. He didn't even try to temper this sentiment and it was said as though this is the natural thing to do. There was no caveat. It wasn't even like when people tell a racist joke and quickly look around to see if the anyone in the target group is in earshot. I asked him, "even if you'd never met him before and he'd done nothing to you?" Same answer. Well, at that moment all I could think was, "thank goodness I opted to have that horn-removal surgery". I think I had told them that I was Christian. Early in my trip in Egypt I'd learned not to say I didn't have a religion because they don't understand that concept. The idea of not having a religion is so foreign to them that it fries their internal circuitry and it become much easier (even for an avowed atheist) to say you belong to a particular religion (unless you say you are a Jew, of course). A little bit of trivia for y'all: in the Middle East your religion is on you ID card. How 'bout them apples, anti-profilers!
I rambled a bit but hopefully the reason why I have some misgivings about Islam entering the institutions in Egypt are apparent. Let me say as a prolepsis that what I am suggesting about the Islamic craziness is not particular to Islam. Intolerance of infidels is inherent in almost every religion, save perhaps Buddhism (which is arguably not a religion). I've heard similar statements of blind irrational hate and intolerance from Christians and Jews alike and, sadly, one does not have to look hard to find them in the public sphere...all the more reason to keep religion out of government.
Lets see if I can get back to some semblance of a coherent discourse...what was I talking about? Ah! yes! the Muslim Brotherhood. I found it quite interesting how different branches of the media presented this organization. Predictably the right wing media resorted to fear mongering. What was more interesting was how the less ideological media portrayed them. My primary source of news is NPR and the interviews they had with Brotherhood leaders were very softball. No hard questions were asked about giving evidence that the Brotherhood had make an ideological break with its violent past or commitment to theocratic rule. Whenever the interviewer asked such questions the interviewee dismissed these concerns as unjustified, yet the interviewer never challenged any of the replies. If the interviewer had done a little bit of research there would have been ample grounds to challenge the responses. I felt like NPR was trying to avoid any accusations of being anti-Islamist in the name of preserving its public image as fair and balanced but this was in fact poor journalism. If the interviewer had been interviewing a politician who favours cutting education you can bet there would have been some tough questions and responses wouldn't be accepted at face value (i.e. good journalism).
If you don't have the time to read the entire article or just don't care here are a couple of facts about the Muslim Brotherhood which I have stolen from an insightful article from the American Humanist website.
http://blog.thehumanist.com/?p=2572&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thehumanist%2FXNiZ+%28Rant+%26+Reason%29
Excerpt:
The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928, with a credo of “Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations.” There isn’t the slightest doubt about the Muslim Brotherhood’s agenda today, because it was published for all the world to see in 2007. The model is shamelessly copied from Iran: a council of “senior religious scholars” must be established, with power to overrule any government decision not in accord with Muslim Sharia law. Since Sharia purports to govern every aspect of human existence, the God experts reign supreme; Qutb, the chief architect of the Brotherhood's theology, taught that Sharia is so complete as a legal and moral system that no further legislation is possible. Just last September, the current head of the Brotherhood preached that “the improvement and change that the [Muslim] nation seeks can only be attained through jihad and sacrifice and by raising a jihadi generation that pursues death, just as the enemies pursue life.”
Ok, maybe they're not as moderate as NPR allowed them to make themselves out to be. But it could also very well be that there moderate members and these are the members with which NPR spoke. Very few large organizations have internal ideological purity. So what? Well, at first I thought, "OMG this a terrible threat, Egypt will turn into Iran, the peace treaty with Israel will be over and the Middle East will be even worse off." But then I thought, "like, um...who am I to judge what system people voluntarily submit to?" I suppose if it's what people vote for through legitimate democratic means, then so be it. Americans voted for two terms of Bush, how much worse could the Egyptians do? There are other reasons why I don't think the possibility of a backward Islamist state is much cause for concern:
1. After listening to quite a few interviews with the average Egyptian it seems that degree to which the Muslim Brotherhood holds political power in Egypt is much less than we in the West think.
2. After fighting so hard for democracy it is unlikely that Egyptians will give it all up to an Iranian style "democracy".
3. The style of democracy that emerges in Egypt (and other parts of the Middle East) will not likely look exactly like what we have in the West, nor should it. It needs to be specific to that culture and history. So it's going to have some Islamist elements but from my point of view the US government is just a hop skip and a crusade away from being a theocracy itself. So why be so demanding of absolute secularism from the Egyptians?
The important point is that the government will be democratic and to some degree responsive to the demands of the people. In such an environment more enlightened secularist values at least have a chance of emerging while more rigid medieval religious rules (can I add "draconian?" or would that reveal my bias?) can be diminished. Also if the people discover that a reversion the dark ages isn't all it's cracked up to be they can vote the offending government out, and bring in a new one. Democracy doesn't guarantee the best government but at least it gives you a chance to experiment and discard those that don't act in your best interest.
Well, I need to get ready for work but there so much more I wanted to write about. Lets call this Part 1. I'll conclude by saying again that over the last few weeks I have been happily disabused of some ill founded beliefs. I think especially now, with the support of the international community, a new enlightened era in Egyptian history is dawning. Obviously it's not going to happen over night or perfectly smoothly but in the long run the people of Egypt will be much better off. I would like to apologize to Allah for my initial skepticism toward the revolution. I attribute this attitude to the fact that the only other historical examples of revolutions in the region that I know of are Afghanistan, Iran, and pre-Kadaffi Libya...and they didn't turn out so well for most people. It is unfortunate that in most post-colonial countries the post-revolutionary governments ended up being worse in many respects than colonial rule.
Thank for reading. And a final reminder to Jews: if you plan on visiting Egypt it's worth having your horns removed before going.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Airport Security and Racial Profiling Part 2
After rereading my last post on racial profiling and doing some thinking I realized that the issue of racial profiling in the context of airport security is a much more complex issue to which there is probably no clear correct answer. No matter what position we take, we are going to have to compromise on some of our (commonly) held values. Also, coincidentally about a month ago on NPR there was a very interesting panel debate with some of the top experts in the world on the subject, which got me to figuin'. I'm going to recap the main themes of some the arguments and give some of my own thoughts. By the by, here's the link to the debate if you're interested:
http://www.npr.org/2010/11/24/131575316/should-airports-use-racial-and-religious-profiling
There are 3 main issues that I find interesting: the legality of racial profiling; the "human" aspect of profiling; and the efficacy aspect.
The legal issue
Lets look at the legality of racial profiling in the context of airport security. I find it interesting that in the mainstream media you don't hear too much about this. Maybe it will be mentioned indirectly in conjunction with the human aspect but I've never read (maybe I just haven't looked hard enough) an article devoted exclusively to legal considerations. So, being the US constitutional scholar that I am, I will endeavour to fill this void.
The legal argument revolves around the 4th amendment. For those of you aren't rabid libertarians or don't have wikipedia on hand, the amendment concerns search and seizure without probable cause. Off the top of my head (not lifted from wikipedia, I just like to pepper my writing with the occasional blue) the 4th amendment
"guards against searches, arrests, and seizures of property without a specific warrant or a 'probable cause' to believe a crime has been committed."
So, from this perspective it seems a legal argument against profiling might have legs. There doesn't seem to be much probable cause. However, there is more to the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment regarding search and seizure without a warrent or probable cause is generally directed at actions occurring within someone's domicile. For this reasons there are some important exceptions that are relevant to our investigation, and as a long time constitutional legal scholar specializing in the 4th amendment article on wikipedia.org I can cut and paste the additional information for you:
Searches conducted at the United States border or the equivalent of the border (such as an international airport) may be conducted without a warrant or probable cause subject to the "border-search" exception.[68] Most border searches may be conducted entirely at random, without any level of suspicion, pursuant to U.S. Customs and Border Protection plenary search authority. However, searches that intrude upon a traveler's personal dignity and privacy interests, such as strip and body cavity searches, must be supported by "reasonable suspicion."[69] The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Ninth circuits have ruled that information on a traveler's electronic materials, including personal files on a laptop computer, may be searched at random, without suspicion.[70]
So, like it or not, it seems that there is a general legal argument for search without warrant and probable cause in airports. An interesting issue does arise however: wikipedia tells us that "border searches may be conducted entirely at random". Does that mean, that they don't have to be at random? That is to say, they can be carried out "unrandomly"? I don't feel like clicking on the link to "US Customs and Border Protection" to read all the specifics so I'm just going to hypothesize that, who is searched is up to each border officer.
Tangential but relevant to all this is the interpretation of "probable cause":
the Court ruled in Dumbra v. United States, 268 U.S. 435 (1925), that “the term probable cause...means less than evidence that would justify condemnation[,]”
So where do we stand with the legal argument? Basically, it seems that in international airports the US government has a legal right to search individuals with or without probable cause. I have not found anything on the wikipedia 4th amendment page concerning biasing "random" searches toward certain groups; therefore, information regarding this matter does not exist. Were I a betting man, I wager there's probably another wikipedia page about another amendment that could indirectly support the no profiling position.
On the other hand, any 1st year philosophy or political science student can tell you that pretty much the only role of government all people of all political stripes agree on (excluding anarchists, of course) is that of national defence. If the populace, right or wrong, feels that the government is failing in this regard, that government is fair game for overthrow. This means that given conflicting legal principles the government, and probably most segments of the population will lean toward the interpretation that favours (perceived) national security rather than violation of civil rights (profiling).
Conclusion? Racial profiling in US international airports in probably legal.
The "Human" Issue
I'm going to do something I don't usually do. I'm going to appeal to anecdotal emotional arguments to illustrate the issues here. First a story about a family friend
I have a friend who is Egyptian-Canadian. He is quite successful and holds an executive position for a very large US firm, in the US. As part of his job he has to fly all over the US. After the airports reopened after 9-11, naturally he had to fly all over the US for business meetings. On one of his first post-9/11 flights he got up from his seat in the business section to use the lavatory. As he was making his way to the lavatory the stewardess yelled at him "you better sit your ass down or I'm gonna tackle yer ass!"
There are so many things wrong with this scene it's hard to know where to begin. The basic issue is this, when you paint everybody from one group with the same brush, you end up with injustice to those who are innocent of any wrong doing. Do we really want to live in a society in which this occurs? What if, by chance, holding our personalities constant, those of us who have almost no pigment in our skins were born with higher levels of pigment? And/or were born into a family that believed in one set of beliefs (Islam) rather than other? To put it poetically, that would suck.
But I'd like to counter this anecdotal argument with one of my own. When I lived in Japan, I lived in small and mid sized cities. In the non-cosmopolitan parts of Japan some business won't serve foreigners, apartments won't rent to you, and even video stores won't give you a membership. I'm not making this up. I lived it. But there were some instances where I felt this profiling was justified, and I even begrudgingly approved of it.
In one of the towns where I lived there was only one night club, so if you wanted to go out, your options were limited. This night club would not let foreign men in without a Japanese friend that would "vouch" for you. At the door, you'd give your Foreigner ID card number and your Japanese friend would give his name. Sounds a bit much, doesn't it? The Japanese love of protocol and bureaucracy notwithstanding, what was this all about?
Well, since the first foreigners came to Japan, they have for the most part acted like savages by drinking and fighting and abusing the women. The latest culprits are Brazilian imported labourers and US military personnel. If anyone has spent a night in Roppongi (the foreigners' nightclub district in Tokyo) you could not blame the Japanese for their policy. Roppongi is notorious for fights and drunken debauchery. I lived and worked in Roppongi for a year, at not once did I see a fight, or problem that involved a Japanese national, but I didn't observe a shortage of instances involving foreigners, especially US military.
The was also a foreigners' bar in that same aforementioned mid-sized town. I saw plenty of fights there, all between foreigners.
So, to wrap it up, I don't blame the Japanese for painting us white devils all with the same brush. Could I reasonably expect them, at a glance, to identify me as one of the "good" ones? In fact, when I went to the Japanese club with my Japanese friends I never had to worry about fights and drunken slobs. The atmosphere was much more pleasant, and even though it was a bit more trouble for me to get in, I benefited from the profiling. So, in an indirect way, this is an argument for profiling.
There are of course many objections that can be raised. People don't have to go to night clubs but may have to travel for their business and livelihood; Japan is 97% ethic Japanese, US and A is not ethnically homogenous, and so on. This is true, but I only seek to illustrate a principle.
So, is racial profiling ugly? Yup. But should national security policy be based on the "yuck" factor? Probably not. Have I lost the thread of my argument? Yup.
I guess the human issue comes down to values. If racial profiling can be shown to be more effective than not in airport security, should we adopt it regardless of the undesirable consequences to a segment of the population? Or, phrased other way, do the negative consequences to a segment of the population outweigh potential increases in security efficacy?
Lets use another anecdote to illustrate the point. The man who sold the tickets to some of the terrorists on one of the 911 flights felt suspicious about them. Something to do with the fact they they were wearing "poor man's shoes" but they had bought 1st class tickets, and of course they looked middle eastern. The three factors converged to raise the man's suspicions. Normally, in such a case, he'd walk the passengers over to security and give the security guys a signal to select them for a "random" security check. But on that day he didn't. He said he didn't because he didn't want people to think he was a racist. If his account is true, this man lives with the knowledge that he might have stopped a terrorist act.
So where do we stand now? Having been subject to profiling (although, not as a terrorist, just as a barbarian) myself, given the history and other considerations I understood the why. On the other hand, my heart goes out to my friend. I certainly don't want anyone to have to go endure physical threats every time they get up to go to the bathroom. But that was an extreme case. No one is going around to Muslims now saying they are going to "tackle their ass". They are being pulled out of line to be searched more thoroughly. Annoying, yes. Humiliating and hateful? I'm not sure.
Ok, this entry is getting too long to be a blog entry. I'm going to stop here and do a part 3, regarding empirical evidence of efficacy of methods later. Ta!ta!
By the by, I'd love to hear what y'all think about this. I think it's a really interesting issue.
http://www.npr.org/2010/11/24/131575316/should-airports-use-racial-and-religious-profiling
There are 3 main issues that I find interesting: the legality of racial profiling; the "human" aspect of profiling; and the efficacy aspect.
The legal issue
Lets look at the legality of racial profiling in the context of airport security. I find it interesting that in the mainstream media you don't hear too much about this. Maybe it will be mentioned indirectly in conjunction with the human aspect but I've never read (maybe I just haven't looked hard enough) an article devoted exclusively to legal considerations. So, being the US constitutional scholar that I am, I will endeavour to fill this void.
The legal argument revolves around the 4th amendment. For those of you aren't rabid libertarians or don't have wikipedia on hand, the amendment concerns search and seizure without probable cause. Off the top of my head (not lifted from wikipedia, I just like to pepper my writing with the occasional blue) the 4th amendment
"guards against searches, arrests, and seizures of property without a specific warrant or a 'probable cause' to believe a crime has been committed."
So, from this perspective it seems a legal argument against profiling might have legs. There doesn't seem to be much probable cause. However, there is more to the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment regarding search and seizure without a warrent or probable cause is generally directed at actions occurring within someone's domicile. For this reasons there are some important exceptions that are relevant to our investigation, and as a long time constitutional legal scholar specializing in the 4th amendment article on wikipedia.org I can cut and paste the additional information for you:
Searches conducted at the United States border or the equivalent of the border (such as an international airport) may be conducted without a warrant or probable cause subject to the "border-search" exception.[68] Most border searches may be conducted entirely at random, without any level of suspicion, pursuant to U.S. Customs and Border Protection plenary search authority. However, searches that intrude upon a traveler's personal dignity and privacy interests, such as strip and body cavity searches, must be supported by "reasonable suspicion."[69] The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Ninth circuits have ruled that information on a traveler's electronic materials, including personal files on a laptop computer, may be searched at random, without suspicion.[70]
So, like it or not, it seems that there is a general legal argument for search without warrant and probable cause in airports. An interesting issue does arise however: wikipedia tells us that "border searches may be conducted entirely at random". Does that mean, that they don't have to be at random? That is to say, they can be carried out "unrandomly"? I don't feel like clicking on the link to "US Customs and Border Protection" to read all the specifics so I'm just going to hypothesize that, who is searched is up to each border officer.
Tangential but relevant to all this is the interpretation of "probable cause":
the Court ruled in Dumbra v. United States, 268 U.S. 435 (1925), that “the term probable cause...means less than evidence that would justify condemnation[,]”
So where do we stand with the legal argument? Basically, it seems that in international airports the US government has a legal right to search individuals with or without probable cause. I have not found anything on the wikipedia 4th amendment page concerning biasing "random" searches toward certain groups; therefore, information regarding this matter does not exist. Were I a betting man, I wager there's probably another wikipedia page about another amendment that could indirectly support the no profiling position.
On the other hand, any 1st year philosophy or political science student can tell you that pretty much the only role of government all people of all political stripes agree on (excluding anarchists, of course) is that of national defence. If the populace, right or wrong, feels that the government is failing in this regard, that government is fair game for overthrow. This means that given conflicting legal principles the government, and probably most segments of the population will lean toward the interpretation that favours (perceived) national security rather than violation of civil rights (profiling).
Conclusion? Racial profiling in US international airports in probably legal.
The "Human" Issue
I'm going to do something I don't usually do. I'm going to appeal to anecdotal emotional arguments to illustrate the issues here. First a story about a family friend
I have a friend who is Egyptian-Canadian. He is quite successful and holds an executive position for a very large US firm, in the US. As part of his job he has to fly all over the US. After the airports reopened after 9-11, naturally he had to fly all over the US for business meetings. On one of his first post-9/11 flights he got up from his seat in the business section to use the lavatory. As he was making his way to the lavatory the stewardess yelled at him "you better sit your ass down or I'm gonna tackle yer ass!"
There are so many things wrong with this scene it's hard to know where to begin. The basic issue is this, when you paint everybody from one group with the same brush, you end up with injustice to those who are innocent of any wrong doing. Do we really want to live in a society in which this occurs? What if, by chance, holding our personalities constant, those of us who have almost no pigment in our skins were born with higher levels of pigment? And/or were born into a family that believed in one set of beliefs (Islam) rather than other? To put it poetically, that would suck.
But I'd like to counter this anecdotal argument with one of my own. When I lived in Japan, I lived in small and mid sized cities. In the non-cosmopolitan parts of Japan some business won't serve foreigners, apartments won't rent to you, and even video stores won't give you a membership. I'm not making this up. I lived it. But there were some instances where I felt this profiling was justified, and I even begrudgingly approved of it.
In one of the towns where I lived there was only one night club, so if you wanted to go out, your options were limited. This night club would not let foreign men in without a Japanese friend that would "vouch" for you. At the door, you'd give your Foreigner ID card number and your Japanese friend would give his name. Sounds a bit much, doesn't it? The Japanese love of protocol and bureaucracy notwithstanding, what was this all about?
Well, since the first foreigners came to Japan, they have for the most part acted like savages by drinking and fighting and abusing the women. The latest culprits are Brazilian imported labourers and US military personnel. If anyone has spent a night in Roppongi (the foreigners' nightclub district in Tokyo) you could not blame the Japanese for their policy. Roppongi is notorious for fights and drunken debauchery. I lived and worked in Roppongi for a year, at not once did I see a fight, or problem that involved a Japanese national, but I didn't observe a shortage of instances involving foreigners, especially US military.
The was also a foreigners' bar in that same aforementioned mid-sized town. I saw plenty of fights there, all between foreigners.
So, to wrap it up, I don't blame the Japanese for painting us white devils all with the same brush. Could I reasonably expect them, at a glance, to identify me as one of the "good" ones? In fact, when I went to the Japanese club with my Japanese friends I never had to worry about fights and drunken slobs. The atmosphere was much more pleasant, and even though it was a bit more trouble for me to get in, I benefited from the profiling. So, in an indirect way, this is an argument for profiling.
There are of course many objections that can be raised. People don't have to go to night clubs but may have to travel for their business and livelihood; Japan is 97% ethic Japanese, US and A is not ethnically homogenous, and so on. This is true, but I only seek to illustrate a principle.
So, is racial profiling ugly? Yup. But should national security policy be based on the "yuck" factor? Probably not. Have I lost the thread of my argument? Yup.
I guess the human issue comes down to values. If racial profiling can be shown to be more effective than not in airport security, should we adopt it regardless of the undesirable consequences to a segment of the population? Or, phrased other way, do the negative consequences to a segment of the population outweigh potential increases in security efficacy?
Lets use another anecdote to illustrate the point. The man who sold the tickets to some of the terrorists on one of the 911 flights felt suspicious about them. Something to do with the fact they they were wearing "poor man's shoes" but they had bought 1st class tickets, and of course they looked middle eastern. The three factors converged to raise the man's suspicions. Normally, in such a case, he'd walk the passengers over to security and give the security guys a signal to select them for a "random" security check. But on that day he didn't. He said he didn't because he didn't want people to think he was a racist. If his account is true, this man lives with the knowledge that he might have stopped a terrorist act.
So where do we stand now? Having been subject to profiling (although, not as a terrorist, just as a barbarian) myself, given the history and other considerations I understood the why. On the other hand, my heart goes out to my friend. I certainly don't want anyone to have to go endure physical threats every time they get up to go to the bathroom. But that was an extreme case. No one is going around to Muslims now saying they are going to "tackle their ass". They are being pulled out of line to be searched more thoroughly. Annoying, yes. Humiliating and hateful? I'm not sure.
Ok, this entry is getting too long to be a blog entry. I'm going to stop here and do a part 3, regarding empirical evidence of efficacy of methods later. Ta!ta!
By the by, I'd love to hear what y'all think about this. I think it's a really interesting issue.
Update and New Year's Resolution
Updayyt
Oh! My poor blog, how I have neglected thee! This time it was not out of pure laziness; I've actually been working my butt off. First order of bi'nis.
My semester at ASU:
Man! I will start by saying this. That was a lot more difficult than I expected. I did not admit this at the time but after the 2nd week I was seriously considering dropping out and choosing a different path. After going on a long hike and then talking to my Mom (thank you, Mom!), I talked myself off the ledge and decided to stick it out. Actually, she helped soothe my self-doubt several times over the semester.
I have never wanted to quit anything. If anything, I continue doing things purely out of spite long after it becomes apparent that no positive results will emerge. I've always believed that if other human beings can do something, so can I. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. So many "I"s=bad writing. Startng now, the person wrtng ths wll stop usng so many eyes. Ok, maybe a few won't hurt.
Long story short, as the semester progressed, my brain slowly "remembered" how to function at a decent level and I ended up with some respectable grades. Nevertheless, I feel like I'm at least a semester away from where I'd like to be in terms of my ability to grasp concepts. With that in mind I have made a reading list and study plan for myself so I can be better prepared for next fall when I hopefully get accepted into a program that doesn't get it's funding pulled 6 weeks before classes start.
GRE/Grad Skoo
In my typical style I made plans that were overly ambitious and oblivious the realities of the world. My plan was to rewrite the GRE in the first week of January AND get all 12 or so applications done for Grad skoo, and do it all over the holidays when everyone else around me is relaxing and laughing and telling me to come out to this and that, and family dinners. HA! (that's reality laughing in my face). Not to say I haven't tried to do all I set out to do. I've studied every night except one and I haven't gone out with the exception of NYE and family dinners.
I finished my last term paper sometime in the afternoon around the 15th of December after a 48 hour marathon. I took a nap then woke up and started studying for the GRE. So far so good.
I initially wrote it the GRE in Sept. 2009. I figured 2 weeks this time should be fine. Well, not really. At least this time I remembered what the math concepts were, although I didn't get too many of questions right on my first practice test.
As for the applications, the first round was due on the Jan 1,2,3, and 5. Nothin' but time, I thought. I figured each application would take about 2 hours. Fill out a form here, answer a question here, press "send" and done. Enter reality.
I'm not going to bore you with details, but anyone who's applied for grad school knows (and I know now) that I was as delusional as a homeopath peddling remedies for autism.
Basically, after about the 3rd or 4th day of studying, reality started to rear its ugly head, and more caffein wasn't going to make it go away. I was 2 weeks away from my target date and nowhere near ready--and I was exhausted.
Basically since the beginning of December I'd been pushing myself to finish term papers. And then I had to pack up my room, drive my stuff back to Vegas (shout out to my girl for helping me), continue to work on papers, fly to Vancouver (the whole flight I was frantically working on a paper). Arrive at me Ma's house at 1am and basically kept working until the paper was done.
But it wasn't until I started working on my applications that reality came crashing in like a fatman (wearing a bumble bee outfit) through Japanese paper doors.
So, after trying to keep the fatman in the bumble bee suit out as long as I could I've had to reassess the situation and reset my goals. I stopped studying for the GRE for 5 days and just did applications. Now I'm caught up on those. Now I'm pushing my GRE date to the 1st week of Feb. The schools that I've already applied for and that I apply for in late Jan. won't get the new (hopefully higher) scores. My original scores aren't terrible, it's just that they're not spectacular either. Enough about that stuff. Lets talk new year's resolutions.
New Year's Resolutions
I almost made a resolution this year, but before I talk about it I would like to thank all the people who make fitness and diet resolutions every year. Thank you for keeping my gym fees low. Without you fools signing year long contracts every year to "finally" get in shape, gyms would not be able to offer the low membership prices they do for those of us who actually attend regularly. For this gift I am willing tolerate, for 6 weeks max, your hurkey-jerky movements in the gym, your preworkout, workout, and post-workout "nutrition" drinks, your either decades-old gym wear or obviously-never-before-used-brand-spanking-new gear; the crazy out dated exercises you learned back in high school P.E. class or remember from that aerobics class you took in the 80s. In fact I'm even willing to tolerate those of you who act like you've been going to the gym all along even though you stand out like tourist in Vegas. Yes, I will be magnanimous to you all...but only for 6 weeks. After that I want my gym back. Thank you for coming...see you next year!
Lest you all think I'm a gym snob, I'm quite the opposite. I love helping beginners out. When I see a kid (or adult) trying to do something and it is painfully obvious they have no clue what they are doing, I always go over and (politely) ask if I may offer some suggestions. I've even given random strangers my phone number if they want me to help them out next time I'm at the gym. No....I do not wish failure on anyone. I wish everyone success. It's just...it's hard not to by cynical sometimes when you've seen the same thing over and over, every January.
So, to all those newbies this year, don't be afraid to ask for some help from someone who seems to know what they are doing. Most of us are happy to help and offer encouragement...even though we might snicker about you as a group. Good luck!
That brings me to what was going to be my new year's resolution. I thought it might be good for me not to ridicule people with ridiculous beliefs. The problem is, it's so hard to refrain! It's not like I think I know everything in the world, but there are some beliefs and belief systems that are clearly ridiculous. So, I've decided to take a moderate approach to this resolution because, I think in principle it's a good thing to do, and I'm definitely guilty of going overboard sometimes. Also, that sort of behaviour is unbecoming of a philosopher. So, here's my modified resolution: I will limit my scorn and ridicule of others to my blog. I endeavour to abstain from such behaviour in public and (maybe) facebook!
Oh! My poor blog, how I have neglected thee! This time it was not out of pure laziness; I've actually been working my butt off. First order of bi'nis.
My semester at ASU:
Man! I will start by saying this. That was a lot more difficult than I expected. I did not admit this at the time but after the 2nd week I was seriously considering dropping out and choosing a different path. After going on a long hike and then talking to my Mom (thank you, Mom!), I talked myself off the ledge and decided to stick it out. Actually, she helped soothe my self-doubt several times over the semester.
I have never wanted to quit anything. If anything, I continue doing things purely out of spite long after it becomes apparent that no positive results will emerge. I've always believed that if other human beings can do something, so can I. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. So many "I"s=bad writing. Startng now, the person wrtng ths wll stop usng so many eyes. Ok, maybe a few won't hurt.
Long story short, as the semester progressed, my brain slowly "remembered" how to function at a decent level and I ended up with some respectable grades. Nevertheless, I feel like I'm at least a semester away from where I'd like to be in terms of my ability to grasp concepts. With that in mind I have made a reading list and study plan for myself so I can be better prepared for next fall when I hopefully get accepted into a program that doesn't get it's funding pulled 6 weeks before classes start.
GRE/Grad Skoo
In my typical style I made plans that were overly ambitious and oblivious the realities of the world. My plan was to rewrite the GRE in the first week of January AND get all 12 or so applications done for Grad skoo, and do it all over the holidays when everyone else around me is relaxing and laughing and telling me to come out to this and that, and family dinners. HA! (that's reality laughing in my face). Not to say I haven't tried to do all I set out to do. I've studied every night except one and I haven't gone out with the exception of NYE and family dinners.
I finished my last term paper sometime in the afternoon around the 15th of December after a 48 hour marathon. I took a nap then woke up and started studying for the GRE. So far so good.
I initially wrote it the GRE in Sept. 2009. I figured 2 weeks this time should be fine. Well, not really. At least this time I remembered what the math concepts were, although I didn't get too many of questions right on my first practice test.
As for the applications, the first round was due on the Jan 1,2,3, and 5. Nothin' but time, I thought. I figured each application would take about 2 hours. Fill out a form here, answer a question here, press "send" and done. Enter reality.
I'm not going to bore you with details, but anyone who's applied for grad school knows (and I know now) that I was as delusional as a homeopath peddling remedies for autism.
Basically, after about the 3rd or 4th day of studying, reality started to rear its ugly head, and more caffein wasn't going to make it go away. I was 2 weeks away from my target date and nowhere near ready--and I was exhausted.
Basically since the beginning of December I'd been pushing myself to finish term papers. And then I had to pack up my room, drive my stuff back to Vegas (shout out to my girl for helping me), continue to work on papers, fly to Vancouver (the whole flight I was frantically working on a paper). Arrive at me Ma's house at 1am and basically kept working until the paper was done.
But it wasn't until I started working on my applications that reality came crashing in like a fatman (wearing a bumble bee outfit) through Japanese paper doors.
So, after trying to keep the fatman in the bumble bee suit out as long as I could I've had to reassess the situation and reset my goals. I stopped studying for the GRE for 5 days and just did applications. Now I'm caught up on those. Now I'm pushing my GRE date to the 1st week of Feb. The schools that I've already applied for and that I apply for in late Jan. won't get the new (hopefully higher) scores. My original scores aren't terrible, it's just that they're not spectacular either. Enough about that stuff. Lets talk new year's resolutions.
New Year's Resolutions
I almost made a resolution this year, but before I talk about it I would like to thank all the people who make fitness and diet resolutions every year. Thank you for keeping my gym fees low. Without you fools signing year long contracts every year to "finally" get in shape, gyms would not be able to offer the low membership prices they do for those of us who actually attend regularly. For this gift I am willing tolerate, for 6 weeks max, your hurkey-jerky movements in the gym, your preworkout, workout, and post-workout "nutrition" drinks, your either decades-old gym wear or obviously-never-before-used-brand-spanking-new gear; the crazy out dated exercises you learned back in high school P.E. class or remember from that aerobics class you took in the 80s. In fact I'm even willing to tolerate those of you who act like you've been going to the gym all along even though you stand out like tourist in Vegas. Yes, I will be magnanimous to you all...but only for 6 weeks. After that I want my gym back. Thank you for coming...see you next year!
Lest you all think I'm a gym snob, I'm quite the opposite. I love helping beginners out. When I see a kid (or adult) trying to do something and it is painfully obvious they have no clue what they are doing, I always go over and (politely) ask if I may offer some suggestions. I've even given random strangers my phone number if they want me to help them out next time I'm at the gym. No....I do not wish failure on anyone. I wish everyone success. It's just...it's hard not to by cynical sometimes when you've seen the same thing over and over, every January.
So, to all those newbies this year, don't be afraid to ask for some help from someone who seems to know what they are doing. Most of us are happy to help and offer encouragement...even though we might snicker about you as a group. Good luck!
That brings me to what was going to be my new year's resolution. I thought it might be good for me not to ridicule people with ridiculous beliefs. The problem is, it's so hard to refrain! It's not like I think I know everything in the world, but there are some beliefs and belief systems that are clearly ridiculous. So, I've decided to take a moderate approach to this resolution because, I think in principle it's a good thing to do, and I'm definitely guilty of going overboard sometimes. Also, that sort of behaviour is unbecoming of a philosopher. So, here's my modified resolution: I will limit my scorn and ridicule of others to my blog. I endeavour to abstain from such behaviour in public and (maybe) facebook!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)