Not my usual sort of tribute, but this has been growing on me...
Monday, March 30, 2009
Saturday, March 28, 2009
The Rhetoric of Science, or, the rejection of science
Earlier this morning,the family and I visited the "fish store," deciding whether or not Sweet Toddler J's fascination with fish is a lasting experience or a fad. If it were a lasting experience, we would purchase a small aquarium and possibly some clown fish; if it were a fad, we should make a few more trips to the aquariums or zoos in the area so she could persuade us that she would like fish, then a monkey, maybe a rhino, so forth and so on. We decided not to buy at this moment, though we are still undecided on the fish issue.
While we were looking at the "big fish"-- the typical assortment of Japanese Koi that you would find at the entrance of a restaurant-- in the pond at the front of the store, a women and her autistic daughter entered so her daughter could feed the "big fish." While Megs and Sweet Toddler J went to look at other fish, the women with the autistic daughter turned to me and said:
Now, certainly there is a lot to unpack in this scenario. First, if one were to "do your research," a person would find that, first, the scientist who claimed there was a connection with the MMR shots and autism would find out that the scientist manipulated the data to create the appearance of a link.
In addition, a recent court case that reviewed the evidence between the shots with mercury and autism and, consequently, ruled against families who brought forth a suit against drug companies, also found that no link existed between the shots and autism. According to CNN, in the trial, scientists have failed to establish a link between the shots and audience. Of course, even with the Court's ruling, people who believed in the link rejected the Court's decision, claiming a conflict of interest existed as the Court ruled in favor of the government (Health and Human Services), since a person must bring forth a claim against HHS rather than the drug manufacturer. This tends to lead to conspiracy rhetoric though, which usually brings forth a dangerous set of arguments.
Second, even though science has failed to establish a connection, some people with autistic children still advance the argument that the shots are the cause. In my encounter, rather than mention this, for what good would it have done to disagree with here, especially at a fish store, I listened to her story. What struck my while listening to her was her outpouring of guilt ("I worked full time" and "could not pay attention,") and the scapegoating of the vaccinations, even without a evidence of a connection between the MMr vaccines and autism.
I wonder if it would be appropriate to mention this in a public setting. It seems that because of not knowing the other person, there would be no credibility to engage in a debate about this topic with the mother. Further, with her child as an inartistic proof, the mother would just say here is my daughter who regressed, especially in her communicative abilities, after receiving vaccinations.
While I certainly was not in any condition to debate with the mother, it also seems I may have an ethical responsibility as a professor to try and correct what seems to be incorrect assumptions about the link between the vaccinations and autism. I would do this in a classroom and, hence, I should be willing to do it when speaking with others about a topic I could address with some credibility. Granted, I am not a physician, but because of professional and personal relationships, I have followed this debate.
Thoughts?
While we were looking at the "big fish"-- the typical assortment of Japanese Koi that you would find at the entrance of a restaurant-- in the pond at the front of the store, a women and her autistic daughter entered so her daughter could feed the "big fish." While Megs and Sweet Toddler J went to look at other fish, the women with the autistic daughter turned to me and said:
How cute your son, I mean daughter,-- I just saw the blue jacket-- is. I just wanted to let you know, watch the children when they receive their shots. Watch them after every shot and every booster. I worked full time and never could pay that close attention... Now I want to tell people.... My daughter, at age three, lost all language, the ability to point, to jump... It's the mercury. I just want to tell parents because no one told me. Do your research. But I just feel as if I need to tell people.
Now, certainly there is a lot to unpack in this scenario. First, if one were to "do your research," a person would find that, first, the scientist who claimed there was a connection with the MMR shots and autism would find out that the scientist manipulated the data to create the appearance of a link.
In addition, a recent court case that reviewed the evidence between the shots with mercury and autism and, consequently, ruled against families who brought forth a suit against drug companies, also found that no link existed between the shots and autism. According to CNN, in the trial, scientists have failed to establish a link between the shots and audience. Of course, even with the Court's ruling, people who believed in the link rejected the Court's decision, claiming a conflict of interest existed as the Court ruled in favor of the government (Health and Human Services), since a person must bring forth a claim against HHS rather than the drug manufacturer. This tends to lead to conspiracy rhetoric though, which usually brings forth a dangerous set of arguments.
Second, even though science has failed to establish a connection, some people with autistic children still advance the argument that the shots are the cause. In my encounter, rather than mention this, for what good would it have done to disagree with here, especially at a fish store, I listened to her story. What struck my while listening to her was her outpouring of guilt ("I worked full time" and "could not pay attention,") and the scapegoating of the vaccinations, even without a evidence of a connection between the MMr vaccines and autism.
I wonder if it would be appropriate to mention this in a public setting. It seems that because of not knowing the other person, there would be no credibility to engage in a debate about this topic with the mother. Further, with her child as an inartistic proof, the mother would just say here is my daughter who regressed, especially in her communicative abilities, after receiving vaccinations.
While I certainly was not in any condition to debate with the mother, it also seems I may have an ethical responsibility as a professor to try and correct what seems to be incorrect assumptions about the link between the vaccinations and autism. I would do this in a classroom and, hence, I should be willing to do it when speaking with others about a topic I could address with some credibility. Granted, I am not a physician, but because of professional and personal relationships, I have followed this debate.
Thoughts?
Thursday, March 26, 2009
The title alone . . .
necessitated that I post this article, which is linked on MSNBC.com's homepage.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Why Don't Conservatives Plan Revolutions When Republicans Are in Office
First, Chuck Norris announced that he may run for President of Texas because the Country was on the verge on losing its identity/ rights/ path/ deep discounts at Walmart/ ability to beat up bad guys in scripted confrontations.
Now, Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) invoked the right to revolution. According to Politico:
Ironically, when the revolution were to occur, Jefferson was president of the United States and I do not think he used the bully pulpit to argue for a revolution.
I would argue that Norris and Bachmann are just grandstanding, but what do I know...
Now, Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) invoked the right to revolution. According to Politico:
"I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us ‘having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,’ and the people – we the people – are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States.”Of course, Bachmann must not have actually read the Jefferson quote and does not know the irony of the quote. Here is what Jefferson wrote:
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion... We have had thirteen States independent for eleven years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half, for each State. What country before ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion?" --Thomas Jefferson to William S. Smith, 1787. ME 6:372
Ironically, when the revolution were to occur, Jefferson was president of the United States and I do not think he used the bully pulpit to argue for a revolution.
I would argue that Norris and Bachmann are just grandstanding, but what do I know...
Tee Shirt of the Week®: Both Wholly Offensive, and a Retrospective Honorariam to St. Patrick's Day
Harrogate, btw, though no hater of bad puns like Supadiscomama and M, is not a huge fan of them either. Still, he likes this bad pun because of its linguistic realism.
Fun With The Intersection Between Pop Art, Race, & Partisanship: Michael Steele Raps
The embarrassment to politics that is Michael Steele continues to render gold for the comedy sectors, at any rate.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Celebrating (Again) The Creativity of Britney Spears: The Question of the Day
Building upon the illustrious work of Harrogate.(I cannot believe I am writing about this).
With her song, "If you see Amy," Britney Spears*** is following in the footsteps of blues pianist Memphis Slim, the Canadian band April Wine, the pop-punk band Poster Children, James Joyce in Ulysses, and William Shakespeare in Twelfth Night. Here is Slate's take, with all of the references.
Oh well, it could be worse, as James Joyce notes:
But, I ask you Situationers, what other examples of this type of brilliant wit do you admire?
*** Disclaimer: It is highly unlikely that Britney Spears wrote the lyrics to that song or the song itself, but, for a moment, we can live with the illusion.
With her song, "If you see Amy," Britney Spears*** is following in the footsteps of blues pianist Memphis Slim, the Canadian band April Wine, the pop-punk band Poster Children, James Joyce in Ulysses, and William Shakespeare in Twelfth Night. Here is Slate's take, with all of the references.
Oh well, it could be worse, as James Joyce notes:
If you see kay
Tell him he may
See you in tea
Tell him from me.
But, I ask you Situationers, what other examples of this type of brilliant wit do you admire?
*** Disclaimer: It is highly unlikely that Britney Spears wrote the lyrics to that song or the song itself, but, for a moment, we can live with the illusion.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
March Madness; or, ". . . The Hunt is Canned!!!"
Well, it is upon us. The time designed to maximize heartbreak and bad fortune in the shortest possible period of time.
Ought to be an excellent opening weekend. And here, yet again, is that beautiful song by Megadeath. That song that is soooo, as it were, apropos. And ahh, that opening bass.
Enjoy. And Go Tar Heels!!!!!
Presidential Bracketology
Watching Obama engage the brackets is fun for many of us, of course--which is likely why ESPN provides this as an embedded link.
But actually it makes a lot of sense that Obama would make moves like this to augment the Rhetorical Situation popularly known as March Madness. Not only does it reinforce his already stratospheric credentials with the younger generations, but more importantly, in this economy it would certainly not do to sneeze at a cross-continental multi-million dollar spectacle, replete with cash infusions into the travel and service industries by wealthy boosters and frenzied alumni alike, an upsurge of television advertising funds, too, and perhaps consequently, a spike in retail consumerism, etc.
And it is worth mentioning that the Final Four this year will take place in..... Detroit, a city that, ahem, can use all the help it can get, right now.
And then there's the psychological excitement of the thing--wise, perhaps, to inject Bracketology into a Public Discourse overly dominated by doom and gloom.
But actually it makes a lot of sense that Obama would make moves like this to augment the Rhetorical Situation popularly known as March Madness. Not only does it reinforce his already stratospheric credentials with the younger generations, but more importantly, in this economy it would certainly not do to sneeze at a cross-continental multi-million dollar spectacle, replete with cash infusions into the travel and service industries by wealthy boosters and frenzied alumni alike, an upsurge of television advertising funds, too, and perhaps consequently, a spike in retail consumerism, etc.
And it is worth mentioning that the Final Four this year will take place in..... Detroit, a city that, ahem, can use all the help it can get, right now.
And then there's the psychological excitement of the thing--wise, perhaps, to inject Bracketology into a Public Discourse overly dominated by doom and gloom.
A True Innovator
Muktar Mai scores another one for Pakistani women. I am in utter awe of her courage, determination, and general bad-ass-ness.
Proving Once Again that Obama Is Good For Gay Rights {And a Label Harrogate Could Not Resist}
From the AP:
The Associated Press has learned that the Obama administration will sign a U.N. declaration calling for the worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality that President George W. Bush had refused to endorse.
U.S. officials said Tuesday they had notified the French sponsors of the declaration that the administration wants to be added as a supporter of the declaration. The Bush administration was criticized in December when it was the only Western government that refused to sign.
The officials said the administration had decided to sign the declaration to demonstrate that the United States supports human rights for all around the world.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Music for a Tuesday
Just like the cover of Macy here. Makes me want to get a good recording to run through B&Ws.
Monday, March 16, 2009
"The case against breast-feeding"
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
The article, "The Case Against Breast-feeding," by Hanna Rosin (from this month's The Atlantic), has been discussed elsewhere various members of TRS. I found this interview with Dr. Nancy Snyderman and Hanna Rosin, which was on this morning's Today Show, really interesting. For the record, I like Snyderman a lot. Each time I see an interview with her, I think she gives really practical advice, especially about medical issues associated with kids, often saying things like "Here is what I'd say to do as a doctor, and here is what I have done as a parent." I like that she recognizes that there is often a disconnect b/w the medical science and parenting.
As for Rosin's argument that breast-feeding may not always be the best choice for mothers, I agree. I find her argument that few people consider the time commitment associated with breast-feeding really compelling. I devoted a lot of time to breast-feeding Wild Man, especially in the first year of his life. It became less time consuming the older he got, and I'm glad I was in a position to breast feed exclusively. Not all mothers are, and not all mothers want to. And rather than continue the debate (which I find to be remarkably like the working mom vs. the stay-at-home mom debate), we should accept that this is a highly personal decision.
Oh, and for the record, I also agree with Rosin that the scientific evidence touting the medical benefits of breast-feeding isn't particularly compeling. For more on this, read articles by Joan Wolf, including this one.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Cheney To The Rescue
If you just look at it in terms of what has actually happened, it is quite amazing that he just comes out and does John King's show on CNN, and King treats him with all this respect and everyone acts like its normal, a Vice President with a vast store of experience and a perspective to give.
As opposed, say, to a corporate mouthpiece with blood on his hands.
But anywho. Check out this little framejob by Powerline, a Rightist web site that consistently shilled for President Bush throughout.
The money line:
The contrast between Cheney's lucidity and the babbling brook who now serves as Vice President is painful.
Geez. Harrogate's not a big Biden fan, but that statement right there, that's just embarrassing writing Powerline. Even for you guys, this is caricature.
Oxy?
Before we handle the annual APB for Harrogate, we must address this question, which deserves to be taken seriously:
Oxy? Where are you?
Oxy? Where are you?
Newswriting & Public Humiliation: How Many Different Ways Can One Guy Get Messed Up Anyway?
After a string of highly serious posts (perhaps most emblemized by Harrogate's Walter Egan tribute) it is time perhaps for some fun, if slightly mean-spirited, celebrity gossip. The first two words of the headline, "Madonna wins in custody row with Guy", are the most important words in this story.
In that context you gotta love the last sentence in the story. Hmmm. Which reminds Harrogate, A-ROD nowhere to be found in the sublime world of Madge these days. Maybe she discovered that the rumors about steroids "side effects" are not only true, but also not really what one would call a "side effect."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)