Leaonard Nimoy has passed away. I am a Star Trek (original that is) junkie. Never could understand the dumb@$$ness of the Next Generation (only First Contact was fit for human consumption) or the silly spin-offs of that part of the franchise. Newer Star Trek movies brought technical quality updates to Star Wars without really destroying the nature of Kirk, Spock, Bones, and the gang. A few good Spock quotes:
“Fascinating is a word I use for the unexpected, in this case I would think interesting would suffice.”
“May I say that I have not thoroughly enjoyed serving with Humans? I find their illogic and foolish emotions a constant irritant.”
A good man has questioned my previous posting about MMR and vaccinations in general. I admit that my earlier commentary probably seems quite contrary to my normal positions vis-a-vis government regulation regarding much of anything. So, hats of to JS for making me thinking more and I offer the following as clarification of my earlier two cents.
My different position on the issue of immunization is based on responsibility issues. I realize that not all immunizations really work that well (I have chosen not to have a flu vaccination in over 20 years, my wife and I disagree, so she and the boys get theirs yearly). If a business chooses because of liability costs to post notice that non-flu vaccinated individuals are not allowed inside the doors, well, I am not allowed inside the doors.
The problem for me is that you personal choice and my personal choice can have consequences for other people--am I being personally responsible if I do not get an MMR? I may be responsible for my own health, but I am also responsible for the potential harm I can cause to other people. While I am quite libertarian in my thoughts regarding most government intrusion in our lives, where it does intrude I believe it should be for the purpose (more often than not) of regulating our behaviors that can be negative toward others without intent. The passing of disease from me to you because I have not had an immunization is without intent if I did not know I was ill. The passing of the disease from me to you is also without intent if I am immunized, carrying the germ, and you are not immunized and receive the germ from our contact. I am also willing to give a caveat, as I thought I noted, that we are not talking about all immunizations, but those that can cuse health issues to others.
I guess that my concern here is for the principle, first do none harm. Some immunizations (HPV immunizations) are really about social engineering of promiscuity and not about health concerns (in my humle opinion) due to ready transmission of regularly circulating germs, and thus outside of what I would consider necessary immunizations. I think we need to be careful about what we consider necessary immunizations for curtailing the spreading of germs unintentionally versus immunizing simply to keep us safe from our own poor life choices. So, some immunizations, in my opinion, will fall outside of those necessary to keep us from being lousy parents if we do not get these for our kids.
Thanks again JS for the questioning response to my earlier two cents.
Nothing like traveling to give yourself time to think. So, what did I spend my time thinking about for eight hours today? Of course, political motivated violence was on my mind. Specifically I wound up thinking about statements made last week by President Obama about violence by Daesh (If the Arabic population can call it Daesh, so can I, but for the rest of you IS(IS)) and the off-hand comparative statement about Christian violence in the Crusades.
From 1096 to 1456 sixteen "Crusades" were organized by the rulers of Western principalities. The first thing to note is we are talking about politically sponsored calls to battle in a time of feudalism. We should also note that Papal authority was held to be authority over religious and civil matters, making government somewhat theocratic. So a collection of theocratically controlled leaders led campaigns to take control of territory considered sacred to the faith against another collection of theocratically controlled leaders who controlled the territory sacred to the Christian faith, but also sacred to their own Islamic faith. Therein ends the comparative value of the crusades to understanding Daesh. Why? Because we do not live in a feudally organized global society as of 1648, the culmination of negotiations between 1618 to 1648 was the Peace of Westphalia (please do not call it the Treaty of Westphalia as the "Peace" was a compilation of two complimentary treaties signed between May and October 1648 after 30 years of negotiation---30 YEARS of negotiation).
So, my two cents worth on the subject matter at hand is simple. The only comparable theocracy that could be looked at potentially is Israel, but does Israel sponsor violence on the ground that the opponents are simply not Jewish? If you believe that Israel sponsors violence against other populations simply because they are not Jewish, please let me know I have beach front property for sale. With the exception of transnational terrorist organizations based on radical theocratic ideologies, religion does not serve as the basis for organized political violence in contemporary society. Nazi Germany's issue with Jews was not absolutely that they were not Christian, but that racially they were different from Aryan Germans. While religion is an identity feature in ethnic identity it has rarely been the primary identifier of groups engaged in violent ethnic conflict. So, Daesh is an anomaly as a theocratic state in the contemporary world, except, possibly from past leaders of states with majority Muslim populations trying to keep a Jewish state from existing. Oops, we are supposed to avoid calling Islam violent, right--at least I think that was the point desired by Obama when he made the intellectually irresponsible comparison of the Crusades with the current. behavior of Daesh.
MMR, measles/mumps/rubella three simple words, three deadly diseases, one shot to keep it all away. I have had my shot, three times. I got it while a military dependent, could not find the shot record and had to get it again when I joined the military, had to get it AGAIN when I re-enrolled in college after the military and could not find the shot record, AGAIN (moral to this story, do not lose shot records). My children, my wife, and I have had the vaccination, so no woe to you un-vaxxed dumb-@#$es out there from me, but I hope that you get pegged for not being vaccinated and lose your shirt, shoes, and undergarments in the lawsuits that follow. Oh wait, we allow people to opt out in the U.S. for religious reasons, etc. And, we cannot control--why not?--entry into this country by un-vaccinated individuals.
My two cents, ban people from public venues who cannot prove they are vaccinated? Or, make the owner/renter/financial gainer from use of the public venue fiscally responsible for costs associated with spread of MMR from allowing un-vaccinated customers. Further, if I can be denied entry into countries without proof of vaccination against certain diseases/fevers, why the heck is it not possible for the U.S. government to deny entry into the U.S. by anyone who cannot show proof of MMR vaccination. You can even set up vaccination centers in airports for those who show up without proof of vaccination (these practices exist in many countries already).
I may be a lousy father--gruff, mean, demanding, selfish, etc.--but those of you who refuse to get your kids vaccinated, you are really lousy parents.
I will not bother wasting your time with the list of bad and so-so commercials. In fact, there were only two that mad me laugh and one other that made me smile. Overall, I would judge this year a loser for Super Bowl commercials. Not even a top 5 list today, so here are my top 3 commercials from the Super Bowl.
3. Pete Rose's Skecher's Ad
I still think it is a travest that Rose is banned not just from playing/coaching/managing baseball but from the HOF as well. At least Charlie Hustle was not doping, heck he did not even shave points, he bet on his own team to win (if he had doubts about their ability to win, he did not place a bet on his team). Hats off to you Pete, glad to see you can make jokes at your own situation.
2. Liam Neeson Clash of Clans
Honestly I do not really care about video games much at all. Sure, I play video games with my sons a few times a year, but not a big concern for me. But this was good for two reasons. One, Clash of Clans has a few commercials that have led me to ask my sons about the game and this commercial just added to that curiosity. Two, Liam Neeson was funny and Clash of Clans as a title relates somehow to Clash of the Titans (remake not as great as original, but good stuff).
For My Two Cents, the best of the ads:
1. Snickers Brady Bunch Parody
Cool stuff here, Danny Trejo and Steve Buscemi, hillarious. As a kid in the 1970s we watched Brady Bunch reruns in the afternoons, heck we had three channels what else were we supposed to watch? Danny Trejo's axe to the table made it better than the original scene by far.
I am sure some people out there think that cute puppy dog ads are cool. But I have to look at the product being sold and sorry Budweiser, I prefer beer to swill. Same with the human Pacman commercial for Bud Light (light swill), though this last one almost made my list because I spent way too many quarters in that machine. Coca-Cola thinks they can make people happier and less angry online, the only thing that will solve cyber angriness/bullying/stupidity is forcing people to say anything face to face that they (hey you know who you are) would write online--most of you are two chicken @#$% to say anything to anyone's face, which is why you (and you know who you are) are online. Sorry Nissan, even though I am a dad, heartstring pulling does not work with me so you don't make the list. Dumbest commercial of the day has to go to Nationwide sell me insurance by saying that insurance ownership will keep accidental child deaths from happening; having insurance does not keep anything from happening, it reimburses you/protects you financially when something does happen.
I almost forgot one commercial that did not make me chuckle, but did not make me go back to reading the newspaper:
Honorable Mention: Mexican Avocados First Draft:
I feel for Polar Bear, but at least Polar Bear did not get drafted by Mexico or Brazil.
