Update on MMR Thoughts

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.

Theocracy and Violence

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--hmmm, brains seem to be optional

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.  

Super Bowl Commercials

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.

Addressing Some Points About U.S. Civil-Military Relations

MY former student, and one of the most intelligent people I have had the pleasure to know, DH, recently gave the following post on his Facebook page and requested directly the thoughts of a few people--myself included for some reason:

"This is a serious question.

I believe that the American military is the greatest fighting force ever assembled, and I believe the American military is often on the side of good, honorable causes. I am deeply appreciative of the sacrifices military members (and military families) make on behalf of the US. War is hell, and freedom isn't cheap, so I'm tremendously grateful when someone else volunteers to shoulder the cost for me.

In view of that recognition, I've done some things here and there to help comfort veterans, assist military families, and honor the fallen. Nothing I've done is noteworthy when compared to the price paid by those more directly involved, but it's sort of the best I can do. Beyond that, I pretty regularly make a note to pause and reflect, to listen to veterans and military members, and to keep alive a sense of importance for what the US armed forces are doing and have done.

But I also firmly believe a few things about our armed forces that, in my view, ought to be uncontroversial.

First, I believe we have a civilian government with a military at its disposal, not the other way around; as such, the military executes the objectives set forth by the civilian side of government in accordance with the Constitution. In respect of our armed forces, we should have a robust national debate about how we use their power, and sometimes, that debate will run counter to what the military itself wants, since nobody is right all the time and most people are wrong more than they think.

Secondly, I believe that the military is filled with people, and people tend to be pretty horrible to each other. I don't think our sailors and soldiers are immune from temptations to do wrong, so just like I demand accountability from my politicians, my bureaucrats, and others, I demand accountability from (and oversight of) the military. And if someone in the military has done something wrong, they ought to be held to account for it.

Thirdly, I believe that there should be a distinction between things we must do and things we should want to do. In defense of a nation, soldiers are often asked to choose between bad alternatives, and as a result, regrettable things sometimes happen. We should never lost sight of the regrettable nature of armed conflict.

Fourth, I believe that there is a distinction between talking about an individual service member and talking about the military as a whole. If one of our warriors is criticized for doing a specific bad thing, it's not a critique of the whole apparatus; if the apparatus is criticized for bad objectives, planning, or execution, it's not a critique of a specific military member or family.

Finally, I believe every life is valuable. Hard stop. No qualifiers about whether that life is American or Christian or white or friendly or not. That doesn't imply the military should never kill, or that the military should hesitate to kill enemies. It's also appropriate to have graded objectives, and choosing between an American life and (say) an Iraqi life isn't a problem. But every life is valuable, and in thinking about the military, we should never forget that core principle.

None of these things seem particularly controversial to me, and none of them seem at odds with respecting those who serve in the armed services. None of them seem unpatriotic to me, either, but it seems that anytime these sentiments are operationalized in a real-world situation, the person operationalizing them is branded unpatriotic, despicable, and un-American.

So how do we have an appropriate, respectful discussion about the military when (it would seem) that anything other unbridled praise is considered inappropriate? What's the right way to think about the things I laid out above? What am I missing in this discussion?"

---------------------------------------------

Thoughtful questions require careful replies. Full disclosure (or as full as I'll give) requires I state that I served in the U.S. Air Force in a capacity that allowed me to develop unique perspectives on military service and civil-military relations from the point of view of an airman. I am now, quite happily, a pointy-headed, academic who specializes in the study of political conflicts (primarily violent, but some non-violent stuff as well). I concur with Daniel on most of his assessment, but have my own take on the issues addressed.

I am a veteran. For the most part, I do not want much recognition, in fact I find most recognition embarrasing--I made a choice to serve, I served, I am nothing special because of this choice. Were I disabled by wounds I had received as an active member of military service, I would expect those who I had represented to provide for such treatment and assistance as necessary for me to continue life's journey. As a civilian I am offended by the poor administrative quality of the Office of Veterans Affairs because if fails in what I believe is one of our civic responsibilities--to provide that treatment and assistance. I do not believe, however, that we owe any "special" benefits beyond contractual and civic responsibilities to veterans.

DH proposed a few things in his comments. One is that the military exists at the disposal of the civil authority. Absolutely DH, the military exists to do the missions assigned to it by the civil authority. When military leaders lose sight of this fact, they become dangerous the the civic order and to the security of the country and world--check the end of Douglas MacArthur's career for insight on failing to maintain proper civil-military relations. Healthy debate over foreign policy and the military's role in taking action in foreign policy is necessary and often not present. My personal issue is that I have issues with putting military force on the table at the beginning of determining/negotiating foreign policy rather than recognizing use of force as an alternative rather than primary means of international interaction.

The military is indeed populated by human beings. I personally believe that all people are fallen from the grace of God and as such pretty much schmucks. The GOOD NEWS is that we are offered redemption and can overcome the penalty of being Adam's offspring. The fact is that because we are Adam's offspring we are fallible. Society must hold its members accountable for their actions regardless of what their position is within the society. Civil magisterial authority was created for the purpose of holding members of society accountable for actions detrimental to the good of society--a further rationale for why civil authority trumps military position.

DH's third point is about regrettable actions being necessary, if I understood him correctly. I do not concur here. I find nothing that I must do, up to and including taking of another human life, regrettable. As I do not consider killing to be the equal of murder, I have no regrets regarding the taking of any human life when it is found necessary for the good and order of society. Backtracking for a moment, it might be regrettable, for discussion purposes, if the military is required by civil authority to engage in a conflict that is morally or politically purposeless, but I would hope that by full debate of civil authority that such decisions would be rare. Also, in such cases, it is potentially possible for the military to consider such orders to be "unconstitutional/unlwaful" and not comply--but at a price, as most decisions to not comply will result in severe punishment of those non-complying members of the military.

In DH's fourth point he makes the distinction about a member of the military versus the entire military and is correct. His second and third points talk about individuals, but his first point is about the military as a whole. The military as a whole belongs to the country. Individuals are part of the country as citizens or legal residents (in the U.S. military non-citizens are allowed to serve as legal residents and actually earn citizenship status during their service). We must always be careful in whether we are critiquing the action of an individual or the entire organization regardless of the organization in question. In other words avoid ecological fallacy in our reasoning.

I know what I said in response to DH's third point. But I agree with him in his final point. Every life is valuable regardless of the defining features of that life. While I do not regret that taking life might be considered necessary, I believe the choice to do so is difficult and difficult for the reason that life is valuable. DH even says that the military should not hesitate to kill enemies, so the point, I believe, is that we should hesitate to call people enemies and necessitate potential killing and destruction of that society and its members.

For my two cents, DH has issued a thoughtful line of questions and positions to consider. All to often we are called unpatriotic if we question the use of force. I consider the use of force in Iraq in 2003 to have been poorly considered, ill-planned, and unfortunate in its execution. Does this make me unpatriotic or disrespectful of the current, past, or future members of the military? I should really hope not, or a few damn good current and former members of the military are all guilty of being unpatriotic. Perhaps the angst of DH's argument is based in part on the political circles in which we function. Are we considered less than patriotic in Republican circles if we have issues with some military operations? Are we considered less than patriotic in Democratic circles if we elevate the military to some special status in society because of what it does for society as a whole? If so, I am a great patriot, and a rotten member of society all wrapped into one being. Perhaps that is the truth of all of us and most of us are unwilling to admit it and have an honest discourse regarding the military.

Sabbatical Time

So, at 8 am this cold morning in Grove City, PA I sat in my recliner in my living room and drank coffee in my pajamas (yeah, I know scary visuals and too much information, etc.).  For the first time since May 1988 on a college/university class day, I was not in my office by 6:30 am and for the first time since 2004, not in the classroom teaching a class (excluding, of course, days I was ill).  Hooray for the sabbatical.

I have no official teaching duties until late August this calendar year.  I guess now I really have no excuse for not getting some good stuff written.  I look forward to challenge of appropriately managing my time and getting a few things written.  I have also decided on a few other agenda items for the break.  I want to read at least 4 journal articles per month related to the courses I teach.  I am going to do some online refresher courses for a few languages that I have some training in but have not used in many years (I am thinking Xhosa and Portuguese (African dialect), maybe Zulu).  I am even going to spend about a 1/2 hour per day working on my handwriting (love fountain pens, but I have really let my handwriting become quite sloppy in the last 20 years).

So, what else should I do...let me know if you have any ideas.  For my two cents, every academic should get a sabbatical every three to five years, I had to wait six to apply here and I think that is too long.  But, once you can apply, apply.     

Remembrance for Charlie Hebdo

Sad stuff today in Paris.  I really don't care a whole lot for a whole lot of Charlie Hebdo cartoons and cacophony.  However, for my own two cents, channeling my inner Voltaire, I do believe I would defend (and did imperil my life at one point in time) to the death the right of a free press.  Charlie Hebdo has correctly pointed out at times the inconsistency with which we apply rules regarding what is and is not appropriate use of satire and criticism in the press (cartoons about how it is acceptable to say bad things about Islam, but saying something negative about Israel/Judaism is unacceptable).

So in honor of the fallen at Charlie Hebdo this day in Paris, I offer the following cartoons/pictures: