Weakening the herd through liberal elitism

So the thought goes: "If I don't give my kid "needless" vaccines that the "doctor recommends" then they have less risk of getting autism or some other vaccine-related malady."
That's really special, and I respect your right to protect your kid from the frying pan by placing them in the fire.

But here's the thing, and for some reason I hadn't thought about this before:

My daughter is protecting yours from polio, and that's not fair.

You see, if nobody got the polio vaccine (like they did before 1955), then polio would rage unchecked through America (like it did before 1955), and the health problems would abound (like they do in countries without polio vaccine availability). But widespread use of vaccines has made diseases like polio and smallpox rare if not non-existent in the United States. Parents that choose to not vaccinate their children against these diseases may get away with it; the vast majority of children get the polio vaccine and act as a buffer, making the disease essentially intransmissible by factor of the lack of viable hosts.

So what you end up with is a bunch of liberal elitists, refusing to vaccinate their children against deadly diseases for fear of autism or other possible drug side effects...who are completely depending on the masses to go ahead and vaccinate their own children and protect the unvaccinated from the disease. But these anti-vaccine parents are dependent on the U.S. drug machine to keep something like 80% of kids vaccinated, or some of the diseases could catch hold. And then who'll be looking down their nose?

The funny thing is, you see it in their eyes when they tell you "we've figured out how to skip 19 of the shots doctors recommend for babies between 0-18 months of age." and you say "well I just let my doctor give my kid whatever shots he thinks my kid needs. You know, because he's a doctor and I'm an engineer and therefore he knows more than I ever could about this." and they respond "well that is your choice" but what they are really saying is "thanks for keeping my kid safe while I make stupid decisions based on my the-man-is-out-to-get-me-and-playing-Russian-roulette-with-my-kids-health-is-okay philosophy towards the drug industry."

If you are offended by this, take a good long look at your kids. Do you want them to look like this? Because that is what polio looks like.

UPDATE: Just spotted this coincidentally timed post by Melissa Lafsky, the web editor at Discover Magazine and blogger at Reality Base. Worth a read, because I am so right it makes me laugh sometimes.


_

Read More

One last note on Robots:

Since my official stance apparently is pro-robot, pro-teenage-builders-of-robots, I feel I must point out Grant Imahara's book (that's Grant from Mythbusters): "Kickin' Bot: An Illustrated Guide to Building Combat Robots" available at most bookstores and Amazon.com. Widely considered the definitive reference on combat robot building, I recommend any teenager who considers robots cool read this book.

I also recommend "Robot Building for Beginners."


_

Read More

Yglesias stumbles into my realm...

Normally a smart, lucid writer, Matt Yglesias (stupidly?) argues that we should be anti-robot because an eventual robot uprising is "one of the most widely predicted scenarios in all science-fiction."

If you travel to Borders or B&N, or any local book store, you notice that interspersed within, or adjacent to, the science fiction section is the "Fantasy" section. In this section, dominated by L.E. Modesit and Andre Norton and J.R.R Tolkien (ever heard of him?), the most widely accepted historical fact was that in medieval times there were elves and dragons. Should we then believe that it is true that at one point dragons breathed fire at elf rangers who were hunting through the forests with their animal companions? Or should we instead believes that humans somehow exist on other planets where elves and dragons do in fact exist, and they engage in magical adventures? Notice: the fantasy section is not next to the science section.

Authors do not use, and reuse, and reuse a plot element because it is an absolute truth. They use it because they are lazy. Time travel is another good example. In many works of science fiction, future humans eventually find a way to travel through time in neat little capsules and mess with the timeline. However time travel is most likely impossible without harnessing the total energy of a solar system for a one-way trip. That is, time travel in the future is not impossible, but is extremely unlikely, yet authors use it all the time as a plot element. Why should a robot uprising be any different?

I don't understand Yglesias' irrationality on this. Please Matt, read my previous article on this.


_

Read More

Terminator (via Washington Post)

A piece in yesterday's Washington Post made me pause, then shake my head at MSM fearmongering. John Pike writes:

Within a decade, the Army will field armed robots with intellects that possess, as H.G. Wells put it, "minds that are to our minds as ours are to those of the beasts that perish, intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic."

Armed robots will all be snipers. Stone-cold killers, every one of them. They will aim with inhuman precision and fire without human hesitation. They will not need bonuses to enlist or housing for their families or expensive training ranges or retirement payments. Commanders will order them onto battlefields that would mean certain death for humans, knowing that the worst to come is a trip to the shop for repairs. The writing of condolence letters would become a lost art.

First off, Pike needs to turn off the Terminator 2: Judgement Day DVD and think before he writes an article that is basically a summary of the movie, except reality. What's the plot of T2? A scientist develops a better microchip that leads to the super-assassin Terminator robots, who kill with precision and without mercy? Isn't that what Pike just surmised was reality? Perhaps I should write an oped piece about a giant grasshopper shaped space vessel that is on it's way to earth and will release 36 giant saucers that are 15-miles in diameter that will strategically position themselves over major cities and use our satellite system against us to coordinate their attack. Then we'll fight back by planting a virus in their computer systems to lower their shields, and a rogue, alcoholic fighter pilot (who looks like Randy Quaid) will destroy one of their ships by flying an F-18 up its kazoo.

But seriously, here's my real problem with this future-death-robot scenario: If we can make robots that are hyper-precise shooters, and can run into gun-battles without hesitation and fear, why not program them to disarm the enemy? If they can shoot an enemy dead with computer precision, surely they could also shoot the enemy's hand off so they can't fire back? Doesn't it make more sense to incapacitate your enemy, rather than kill them? From a psychological standpoint, forcing the surrender of your enemy, rather than killing them, is better for you and worse for your enemy. The enemy army cannot easily rally behind the image of a martyr if you instead have that person rotting in a jail, and your troops will not feel the effects of possible psychological damage associated with killing another human being.
There is, of course, the future scenario where our hyper-precise death-robots battle our enemy's hyper-precise death-robots, in which case, may the best robot live and the other die. But if we are to use our armed robots as a replacement for the combat infantryman in battles against other humans, it makes ethical and logical sense to program them to super-effectively injure, disarm and capture, not to kill.


_

Read More

The Ramsey-Waller Bailout Plan: Addendum

Has anyone besides me thought a great way to prevent foreclosure, or at least help some faced with it, would be to reduce or drop property taxes on homes for a short period of time?

And if the government wanted to encourage people to buy homes, wouldn't it be a great idea to offer them a hiatus from property tax? If the county whined that they couldn't afford to not charge property tax, then maybe the government could give people an income tax credit equal to their property tax.

Here's an idea: First-time homebuyers get a 5-year income tax credit equal to the amount of property tax they owe each year.
Repeat home-buyers get a 3-year income tax credit equal to the amount of property tax they owe each year.
Current homeowners that refinance from an ARM to a fixed-rate mortgage get a 3-year income tax credit equal to the amount of property tax they owe each year on their home.

Now, I'm sure it'd have to be more complicated that that, but it seems like a nifty way to encourage people to start buying homes...because lowering interest rates really isn't working, it's just encouraging refi's.


_

Read More

Church of the Resurrection

Speaking of Jesus, TAE and Mrs. TAE have gone to the local methodist mega-church twice now and twice has TAE found the head minister, Adam Hamilton, to be an incredibly compelling preacher. Arguably, some of the finest performances I ever witnessed by a minister were performed by Holly McKissick, the reverend at St. Andrew CC in Olathe, Kansas, but her best is rivalled by Rev. Hamilton. The man is simply a powerhouse.

If you ignore that his message was extremely compelling; both TAE and Mrs. were moved and felt like radically changing our lives after both services, and purely look at his public speaking style, the man is as fluid a speaker as I have seen. Imagine the opposite of George W. Bush. Hamilton's cadence is perfect, his rise and fall in volume is well timed. The President-Elect seems amateurish in comparison. Seriously. Though his message was nearly half an hour long, he interspersed several shocking examples which jolted the audience right when they threatened to fade. Though I have seen ministers get overcome by emotion week after week at some churches, Hamilton is composed, to the point that when he did show emotion, it was shocking and real, and unexpected.
His message was basically harsh, attacking his fellow Christians for their hypocrisy, but at the end the audience felt uplifted and motivated to change their lives. We did feel admonished, we felt we were in fact hypocritical, as he had accused, but we also felt very capable of self-improvement. He made no less than 13 references to Jesus teachings, citing every time Jesus uses the word Hypocrite in the Bible.

As Mrs. TAE and I continue our search for a church home, we consider 4 factors.
1. How compelling is the preaching from week to week?
2. How compelling does Mrs. TAE find the worship music?
3. Does the church regularly partake in communion, which TAE finds critical to a relationship with Jesus?
4. Does the church have a fun, not-anti-science Sunday school program from which the Abstracted Daughter can learn about God and Jesus?

On these things, COR scores a 4/4, and Mrs. TAE is eager to return. I am hesitant, however, to sign on at a church so large. Megachurches are (in my mind) that size because for a reason, and I have to believe the reason in this case is Rev. Adam Hamilton. TAE is concerned that at a church so large, individual ministry is impossible. However, a family friend named Darlene stopped me after the service and reported that when she was in the hospital for brain surgery, a minister from COR visited her every day all ten days she was there! Although access to Rev. Hamilton is almost impossible, I was informed the church retains a small army of ministers who have no other duties except to minister to the lay, each responsible for a section of the alphabet like the three counselors at my high school.

Anyway, if a reader finds themself in Leawood on a Sunday, visit the church, if for no other reason that to hear Hamilton preach. He is a once in a lifetime talent.


_

Read More

Generosity with a catch

I like to go off about people donating hundreds of millions to Harvard's endowment, where their money becomes a drop in a bucket, and they really don't make a difference. Better, I believe, that they donate that money to a small, private college, where they'll significantly boost the endowment and affect the lives of young people in tangible ways.
However, it has come to my attention that no matter where you donate money, seeking acknowledgement for the donation is not a Christian activity.

Matthew 6:2 says "Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward."

Basically that means don't shout from the hilltops "Hey, I made a donation to a private school!"
Which is exactly what Oprah has done. I laud Oprah for donating money to an inner-city school. I find her charity efforts in the U.S. and Africa very good and worthy of praise. However she always puts her name on her charitable activities; most of the money comes from the Oprah Winfrey Foundation, that way the public knows exactly who it is that is donating the money.

It's not that Oprah doesn't want to help people, I just fear that she, becuase of her wealth, is doing it to improve her image. I am afraid she doesn't want to be seen as a mega-wealthy tv star, so she tosses checks (with her signature clearly written) at charitable foundations and holds a press conference to show what she has done.

The teachings of Jesus encourage tithing, and donations to charity, and helping the poor. However, I'd love to see a press conference where a private school got a $365k donation from "anonymous." I understand Oprah's chagrin at being considered a mega-wealthy jerk, and her urge to do good with her wealth. However, she shouldn't care what people think. She should only care what God thinks.


_

Read More