As if preventing the flow of H1N1 is not hard enough, a group of paranoid conspiracy theorists are adding fuel to the debate over whether to be vaccinated or not. This was reported in today's New York Times.

So why not treat this as a grand scientific experiment and have everybody register as "vaccinated" and "not vaccinated." When someone who is non-vaccinated falls ill with a horrible, life threatening flu, it will be noted. We will then be able to see who is properly protected, and the debate might be settled once and for all.

To these paranoid anti-vaccination nuts: If vaccines are a scam, what happened to Smallpox and Polio? They didn't just go away on their own. They were eliminated through vaccines. They could not have just disappeared... they had existed for too long for that to happen. In countries where the vaccine is unavailable, people still get sick from these diseases.

Step up to the plate and get a shot. You might get a lollipop.

Does this demand Activism?

Here is another website set up by people who really have too much time on their hands:

www.consumerfreedom.com

Either drink soda or don't. Eat at McDonald's or don't. Make a decision. You don't have to justify your nutritional choices to the world. Nobody cares.

It won't matter if Congress passes a tax on soda because people will pay the extra fifty cents for a Coke.

Whom are these "consumer advocates" trying to fool? Soda is bad for you. End of story. It is delicious, but totally without nutritional value. There is nothing wrong with that. Candy is candy.

These people ought to find a worthwhile political cause. Why do they have a problem with people eating in a healthy way? These people should just eat their junk food and be quiet.

So Ayman al-Zalawhri called Obama a fraud. Here's a link to the article:

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/09/28/al-zawahri-obama-al-qaeda.html

So I have to ask why he bothered. These people have gone out of their way to show that they don't like America, why offer a wimpy criticism of the President in a video? And what did people expect? That he would come out in favor of our President?

And how will this comment affect the outcome of next election? Bizarre.

An example of Wilson

Barack Obama should have made a direct example of Joe Wilson.

Let's be honest: The healthcare bill is far from perfect. It has been so watered down that it will be a miracle if anything changes after it passes, if it manages to even do that. It is too expensive, and the government simply does not have the money. Maybe next time.

But why did Wilson say choose to respond to Obama's statement that illegal immigrants would not be covered under the current plan?

Obama should have stopped his speech, said, "Who said that?" He then should have called Wilson up on stage next to him, handed him the bill and said, "Prove I'm lying. Find the part where illegal immigrants are covered."

This would have shown that even a senator cannot just say whatever he feels like and spread confusion about an already perplexing bill.

There has to be evidence. You cannot just make claims about something without backing it up. Why do conservatives feel the need to fabricate problems with the bill? There are plenty of real problems to examine and dispute. Why did he lie if he did not have to?

The logic is very strange.

So What?

So what if Obama gives an address directed at school kids? Some people are acting as if this is the first time any politician has spoken directly to children (with a political agenda in mind). It is impossible for a POLITICIAN to do anything but practice politics. That is his job. Speaking to children is great for publicity and might encourage a few of them to pay closer attention to American politics... who knows?

Besides, it will be another vague, cliché filled speech about staying in school, not doing drugs, breaking barriers, creating a better tomorrow, etc. Conservatives and moderates need not worry about Obama trying to brainwash kids with a message of Socialism. This is a stunt, like most Presidential appearances with or addresses to children or young people.

It won't be a useful speech, that is the worst it could possibly be.

No wonder stress is rising

I don't think I even have to comment on this... it is just disgusting and those responsible should be ashamed and banned from the world of graphic design.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/wildlife-group-condemns-a-911-tsunami-ad/

Just spread this article around. Make sure ad designers see it and know that there is a line that can easily be crossed when trying to spread a message. And just when PTSD levels from 9/11 are rising.

Speaking of which, why are all these new movies being released on September 11? Do they think people aren't going to notice? The idiot movie executives in Hollywood seem to think that Americans can't remember anything more than what happened five minutes ago. How hard would it have been to release movies the next week so as to avoid these connotations?

Baseball v. Religion

This isn't as infuriating as it is weird:

The New York Yankees’ home game against the Boston Red Sox on Sept. 27 will revert to its original start time to avoid a conflict with the Jewish holiday Yom Kippur.

Originally scheduled for a 1 p.m. start, the game was moved to 8 p.m. New York time at the request of Walt Disney Co.’s ESPN network. Because that is after sundown on Yom Kippur, observant Jews who purchased tickets won’t attend the game or watch it on television.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601079&sid=aqq9k2G0aLqg

Boohoo, you wouldn't get to see the Yankees game because of a holiday you impose on yourself.

If you were religious enough to be observing Yom Kippur, why would you have purchased tickets for that day? Also, if the importance of the Yankee-Red Sox game is equal to the importance of the Day of Atonement, then what does that say about the current state of faith? Yom Kippur is not a social gathering; it is a serious religious holiday. You can't be strictly religious and a die hard Yankees fan at the same time... although they are both forms of faith in one way or another.

And what if it goes into extra innings? Well, as the Old Testament (I think in Leviticus) says: "If it should be the ninth of the innings, and yea thou shalt see scores of equal value, thou willest take thine brew of barley and hops and quit the stadium forthwith." Do those who are observant see how strange this is? I don't care if they do it, I just want them to see how weird it really is.

If it were the Mets game we were discussing, I could at least understand if you would want to pray fiercely afterward, for those are great sins we see committed on the field.

Sensitivity

In previous posts, I have written about religious garments and laws in the modern world. People are free to dress how they want and to live by whatever moral code they see fit. Our country protects that... it is what makes our country truly different.

What I don't understand is how people expect to somehow walk down the street in religious garments without other people judging them by appearance. As humans, we cannot avoid making judgements about other people based on their togs. If I see a woman walking along the street in a burqa, I immediately identify her with a very strict religious sect that treats women as cattle. I don't have the right to tell her to do differently, since it is really none of my business, but I am allowed to respond in my mind, and I am certainly allowed to have thoughts.

It is the same if I see someone wearing a Mets hat. I quickly assume that this person is a Mets fan. Why else would he wear the hat? I can then say that he probably watches baseball games. Other than that, I know very little about him, but I still can venture a guess about the best way to strike up a conversation.

People don't seem to realize that, while it is really the individual that matters, without getting to really know someone, it is impossible not to judge based on clothing and that which is exterior. I have absolutely no right to judge who people are internally, but once they make public their beliefs through their garments, or through the way they carry themselves, it is fair game.

Why are we surprised?

Barack Obama is not a champion of liberalism. During the campaign, he ran on a platform of bi-partisanship and compromise, and that is exactly what he is doing now in his plan for health care reform... compromising.

I grant that the President has made concessions that have rendered any reform essentially moot, but at least he tried to understand the other side of the argument, as opposed to former President Bush, who not only dispensed with intelligent debate, but went out of his way to criminalize and stifle opposition to his policies. He has thus far behaved as if there are subtler shades of gray to policy making, and that public policy does not break down into black and white. Obama said he would reach across the aisle, and this is what he has done (albeit sometimes unsuccessfully). Why are people so surprised? We elected a negotiator, not a self-proclaimed crusader. We had eight long years of that. One scandal followed another. Thousands of American soldiers died as a result of that dreadful dogma. The economy crashed. If we are to remain a republic, compromise must remain the crucial element of the Office of President. Anything else is simply Tyranny.

Boys and their Toys.

First of all, when the framers of the Bill of Rights wrote the second Amendment, which reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", they did not have AR-15s in mind. They were firing single-shot muskets and slow-loading shotguns at the time, and could not have imagined the destructive power of our current firearms.

Ok, so how about this: People have the right to keep and bear the arms the founding fathers used. That means no more M-16s. No more AKs, no more sniper rifles, and no more handguns in the hands of the private citizenry. Legally, we should only be allowed to buy flintlock muskets with separate powder and ammunition. That is solidly defended under the Bill of Rights, and even I might support that.

Secondly, George Washington once wrote, "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined." I can accept the premise that people already are used to the right to high-tech weaponry, and I know that no legislation, no matter how strong, can ever change that, but shouldn't we follow the first president's advice and be disciplined about guns? This would mean that you can't show up to a presidential speech armed to the teeth (which is probably the stupidest thing anyone could do; if the secret service sees you packing heat, YOU are the one who will end up dead).

Guns are not toys... they are tools for professionals. If you want to play with deadly weapons, join the military and at least get paid for it. We have to learn that the right to own a gun is a very serious right, not one to be taken lightly. But I suppose the urge to overcompensate for personal insecurities will almost always dominate, and Americans will continue to buy and misuse guns.

The Other Russia

This is a pro-Kasparov organization that reports corruption and mismanagement in the Russian Government. It also advocates democracy in post-Soviet Russia. It is worth a look for those interested in current Russian politics. Here is the URL:

http://www.theotherrussia.org/

Once as tragedy, twice as farce.

So now those at Fox News are up at arms over the White House e-mail list that had addresses of people who had not requested a presence on any such government mailing lists. They have already made allusions to 1984 in calling the White House "Big Brother". Not only has Fox News sunk its teeth into this juicy item, but the ACLU is raising a holler as well. Never thought those two would agree on anything.

Good God! The government is tracking people without their consent or knowledge! This is totally unprecedented in White House practice! Thank God for the objective media that immediately informed us of this travesty of justice!

Oh wait. That's right. The Bush wiretaps and warrentless computer surveillance programs. Right, right, right. Forgive me for raising my voice and repeating what I've written before, but where was this kind of concern for the privacy of citizens DURING THE BUSH YEARS?! WERE YOU BORN YESTERDAY?

No, you were not born yesterday. That was harsh. But Fox News does not get to play the "Big Brother" card after its shameless support for the Bush administration and its unconstitutional policies.

Are they aware of this hypocrisy or are they just not paying attention? Are they aware that the past has an effect on the present? Or maybe they just pray we don't remember anything for more than a week or two. It's a shame they take Americans for idiots.

Some Nerve.

On Sunday, August 16, Richard Shelby, the senior republican senator from Alabama, was being interviewed on Fox News by commentator Chris Wallace.

The subject of the discussion was health care, and the conversation came down to the question of whether or not health care would be rationed in a public option. After J. James Rohack, the president of the AMA stated that health care is already rationed by the private insurance companies, Chris Wallace turned to senator Shelby and asked, with unusual candidness for Fox News, if there was any hypocrisy in the GOP at this point, given actions of the Bush administration involving end of life counseling and health care rationing. The senator deflected the question and responded,

"... let's be honest, when you start rationing health care and you start counseling [for end of life options] too far into life, you are going to create problems and you are going to create fear in this country."

Really? A staunch supporter of the former Bush administration worrying about spreading fear? I could have sworn, given the behavior of the GOP over the last decade, that they would be into this kind of thing. Fear mongering for political advancement is almost a sport for the conservative movement. Maybe they should be into death panels after all... can you imagine the fear?

There is no Soclialist Threat.

Reread the title. Let it sink in.

In almost all images of outraged citizens protesting health care reform, there is at least one person holding a sign that says something to the effect of "NO SOCIALISM" or "SOCIALISTS OUT OF AMERICA!" or " 'THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS; KEEP SOCIALSIM OUT!"

Yes, a public health care option would be a social program. Yes, it would provide an even footing for those who cannot currently afford medical care. Yes, it would be government run. But would it be socialism?

Absolutely not. Socialism is dead. It has been tried and it has failed. It is too susceptible to corruption, blah, blah, blah. We've all read Animal Farm by George Orwell, even though that particular work is somewhat misleading about the nature of socialism. No congressman, no senator, no representative in this government, least of all those in the Obama administration have any interest in creating a Socialist state. They know better. They've read Animal Farm too.

One thing critics of health care reform don't seem to realize (or refuse to acknowledge) is that we already have a nation that has social programs.

If these protesters really have such a fear of an antiquated theory of government, how about this:
Why doesn't the government refuse to send them social security checks when they retire? Why not refuse them Medicare and Medicaid? Karl Marx supported public education in The Communist Manifesto, so that should probably go too. If they are so afraid that they are willing to stand in a town hall ferociously chanting "KILL THE BILL!", elimination of these programs should come as a relief. They'll have no money, but at least there won't be a threat of Socialism.

RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!

Yet again, the conservatives are using scare tactics.

We all know that the Bush administration was big on this. Bush openly lied to the American people when he told us that Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons (or weapons programs, or whatever). Of course, being told that there could be a nuclear explosion on American soil at any minute scared much of the media and many Americans into submission. Let's face it, scare tactics work – Especially in a post 9/11 America. They allow anyone to mask any fact at any given moment.

Now those in opposition to the current health care bill (many former Bush supporters) are jumping up and down shouting, "Look! The president is trying to create DEATH PANELS! These will decide who lives and who DIES! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!" (Of course, the great conservative intellectual Sarah Palin coined the term.) How stupid do these miscreants think Americans actually are? Have they no shame?

What seems a lot scarier to me is that most U.S citizens are inadequately insured and, quite frankly, one car accident away from bankruptcy and poverty. This is actually scary, but hey, let's worry more about fabricated threats from the maniacs on the far right.

I don't have to say that these "Death Panels" are a load of nonsense. That has been well documented in several newspapers and has been denied by people who actually know something about what is being put into the health care bill.

I can instead only react with seething rage as I watch these rumors spread. These are "Run for your Life" politics as usual.

Watch where you wave that Constitution.

On the cover of the August 12 New York Times, there was a photo with the following caption:

" 'You are trampling on our Constitution!' Craig Anthony Miller shouted at Senator Arlen Specter at a meeting in Lebanon, Pa."

While Mr. Miller is right to question the direct constitutionality of a universal health care bill (as there is absolutely no mention of health care in the Constitution), there is the ninth amendment of the Bill of Rights, which reads, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Simply because a right is not mentioned specifically in the Constitution does not mean that it does not exist and should not be defended. Every citizen of the United States has the unalienable right to reliable, safe, affordable health care in order to be secure in his or her person. It may not be in the text, but the B.O.R supports it.

And where was this constitutional fervor DURING THE BUSH YEARS?! Have you already forgotten the torture? The illegal wiretapping? The signing statements rendering any regulation of the USA PATRIOT Act moot? Alberto Gonzales? Scooter Libby? Where was the outrage then?

If you are going to resort to shouting and waving one of the nation's most important documents in the face of officials, at least be consistent about it.

Anachronisms: Can we get with the program?

I'm going to go ahead and assume that I'm not the only one who has observed something like this:

Sitting in Footlocker on 34th Street near Herald Square waiting for a friend to pick out some shoes for his younger sister, I noticed a group of four girls is doing some shopping. This would not be out of the ordinary, but one of these young women was dressed in a full length Burqa. Her friends were all dressed in jeans and t-shirts, but there she was, covered from head to toe in a black cloak (in Manhattan in 90 degree weather, mind you).

(An aside: Not that I don't believe in modesty; I believe that many Americans could benefit from a little more bodily coverage.)

So she wears a traditional garment that identifies her with a religious community. No problem. We all need to belong sometimes. But in a Lady Footlocker? Really? Does the Qur'an contain any rules about shopping in chain shoe stores?

I think to myself, "Well, let's be fair... maybe she's just here while her friends look around and she actually has utter disdain for this commercial outlet." Not so. In fact, she is the first one to look around and try on some shoes.

It is at this point that I notice the Gucci handbag hanging from her shoulder. Again, the twelfth-century desert garb did not seem to match terribly well. Also, Gucci is anything but representative of modesty, as is the burqa.

In the end, this young woman simply appeared anachronistic and, in a word, silly. I had trouble deciding which is worse, an ancient and serious religious garment being wrapped up in brand-name selection and expensive handbags, or a symbol of faith-based misogyny trying to cram its way into a modern, progressive setting. (I would say the latter, but that is not necessarily right). What I am about to say is not politically correct, nor is it terribly open minded, so if this kind of this offends you, avert your eyes and get back to prayer, but if a person wishes to lead a pre-medieval lifestyle, why does he or she have to do it in New York City? This is a modern city where there are dozens of different traditions and even more languages, but why do symbols of old fear and unfounded hatred have to be a part of it? Is there no way to abandon the bad aspects of one's hereditary identity and save that which is good?

This bizarre mixing of the modern and the anachronistically traditional does not only apply to those who follow the Islamic faith, but to another abrahamic religion: Ultra Orthodox (or Haredi) Judaism.

(Interestingly, Haredi or Chareidi is derived from the Hebrew "charada", meaning fear or anxiety, used in this context to mean, "one who trembles in awe of God." Isn't wikipedia great?)

Isn't it strange to see a man walking down the street in near ceremonial garb, talking into a cell phone? Funnier than that, what about seeing someone with peyos talking on a blue-tooth? Is there anything in Talmudic law that dictates whether the blue-tooth must be worn on or under the peyos?

A fairer person than I might say, "Well, obviously it is impractical to shut the world out completely. Besides, they only use their cell-phones for work. They need them as tools..."

I'll tell you what's impractical: A woman shaving her head after her wedding day and replacing it with a wig that looks exactly the same as her former hair. Wearing thick coats and large, fur lined hats in the middle of summer. These human-made laws governing every waking hour of existence from birth to death. These are hilariously impractical, yet they still accept the convenience of a mobile phone?

In the end, it does not matter to me how other people spend their lives. I just hope that the young woman in Footlocker realizes how ludicrous and, frankly, out of place she really is.

Toy Guns in the Airport?

At the security check of the Air France terminal at JFK International Airport, there was what appeared to be a small family of about five or six saying good-bye to a relative. There were a few older members of this family and two children, one of whom was young enough to be in a stroller. What made this little baby interesting was the toy it was waving at its sister – a plastic shotgun.

Not only was this kid carrying a toy gun into an airport (right next to the security gate), but tucked into the side of the stroller was a plastic ninja sword.

Really? Have the parents not been paying attention for the past decade?

Of course, it was at this point that a friend of mine said, "I'd give you fifty bucks to walk up, stand behind the stroller and scream."

Oh, come on...

This was published some time ago, but I gotta start somewhere. I have included the link to the original, and the New York Times ran a similar article.

Is your gasoline Kosher? Not if there's ethanol in it.

Speaking about ethanol: Green house gases aside, there’s talk around the fact that it’s not kosher.

Yaniv Ban-Zaken, a gas station owner in Teaneck, New Jersey, is selling Passover gasoline that’s non-ethanol. Ethanol, or E85, you see, is typically derived from corn, which is a forbidden food for Jews on Passover.

His services will include sip honing off the non-Kosher gasoline and replacing it with the Kosher gasoline in a process supervised by a Rabbi. (A special exemption to the EPA rule regarding the plant ethanol content of gasoline had to be obtained from the government.)

Rabbi Shalom Silver, of Congregation Ohel Emeth in Teaneck, has suggested that his congregants not buy the gas...

"Although Jews of Ashkenazi descent are not permitted to eat corn on Pesach, they are permitted to derive benefit from corn byproducts, such as gasoline with ethanol additives," he said.

However, Rabbi Mordechai Silver (no relation to Shalom Silver), of Yeshivas Torah Ohr in nearby Englewood, disagrees, "In Jewish law, we have a principle of lifnim mshura s hadin--going above and beyond the basic requirements of the law," he explained. "Thank G-d, many people in the area can afford to do so in this case."

Affording it is another deal. The ethanol-free gas will be around $9.69 per gallon, due to the fact that it is made in small quantities. Ben-Zaken, claims that he will not be making any profit off the Kosher gas. "I'm doing this more as a community service. My hope is that people will be more likely to patronize my station the rest of the year."

Hey, you gotta love him for that.

From: http://blogs.edmunds.com/strategies/2007/04/is-your-gasoline-kosher-not-if-theres-ethanol-in-it.html

I'm no Talmudic scholar, but I'm not sure that automobiles make an appearance in the Old Testament (the New Testament is a little fresher, but I don't think cars are there either). How does one extrapolate rules concerning the combustion engine from a text written (way) prior to its invention? You'd almost think people are inventing these rules as they go...

So those who are observant leave corn out of the passover dinner. Fine. I don't know that corn works with hard boiled eggs and bitter herbs anyway.

What I want to know is, how did those in Teaneck make a connection between the gas tank and the digestive system? I guess some of the ethanol could be absorbed through the lungs, but in New Jersey, unsavory (not to mention treific) substances are carried into the body with every breath anyway, right? So what difference does it make in the end? (A cheap shot, but I stand by it).

And what does that mean, "Above and beyond... (cf. above)"? Is it really possible to earn brownie points with an omnipotent force such as the Judeo-Christian God? What exactly does going "above and beyond" satisfy?

I guess we now know how ancient peoples dealt with OCD...