I have had about all I can stomach with regard to the recent spate of mass shootings. What motivates these people to kill a bunch of other people? In Elliot Rodger's case, he hated women. He couldn't get a date, he couldn't find someone to have sex with him, in Southern California, not even trolling around in an expensive BMW that daddy bought for him, something that (according to legend) absolutely melts panties. Guys, I just had my 12th wedding anniversary and I still occasionally get women that hit on me, and I am not exactly a superior specimen. I'm overweight, I have plaque psoriasis, I'm a confessed alcoholic, and my job isn't what you would call high-paying. I was a solitary person growing up, I didn't relate well with people, and I suffered from a fairly moderate case of depression. Somehow I managed to impress a woman or two.
I only mention this because the person in question this time lacked something that I have. For all my faults, I am a caring individual, almost to a fault. It shows in the dedication I have at my job, the mannerisms I display, and my interactions with others. In other words, I am not a raving lunatic. This guy was, and the most obvious explanation for why he couldn't get laid is because he scared the living hell out of every woman he encountered. There's an old axiom about this: if you think that everyone around you is crazy, you're the one that's crazy. Instead of recognizing this fact for what it was, he decided to become the American Marc Lepine and take it out on a bunch of innocent women.
This is just the most recent incidence of loons going crazy and seeking some sort of revenge, closure, I don't even know what to call it. Suffice it to say that it simply doesn't make any sense to the rest of us. So I humbly submit a proposal: rather than killing a bunch of other people, stick the gun in your mouth and pull the trigger. It would save us all a lot of handwringing, it would spare the families of those killed a never-ending feeling of loss, and it would solve your problem, all in one fell swoop. It's what you want anyway, so do it and get it over with. Some people simply cannot be saved. Let's save our time, resources, and sympathy for those we can and give the rest the way out they so clearly desire.
One thing we should not do, even as I do it myself, is let these people occupy any part of our time or our thoughts. We should reinstate the old Roman policy of damnatio memoriae. Don't name the person, don't put his picture up, don't pay any mind to lunatic "manifestos" that are nothing of the sort. Treat the killer as an object rather than a person. When they do these things they are of no more value than the half-ounce piece of lead they put through their deranged brains. Maybe then we can eliminate these idiots, these attention-whoring nutjobs that shoot people up because they have no other way to become famous.
In any case, stop shooting people. Do yourself and let the rest of us live in peace.
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
E-Cigarettes: A Public Health Solution Beset By Politics And Vengeance
Cigarette smoking is a scourge. Over the last century millions of people have destroyed their lungs, wasted away to nothing, and died horrible deaths. Those who do not die of lung cancer or related diseases suffer from emphysema, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, loss of lung function, heart disease... the maladies are myriad and well known. I could raise the point that nobody could reasonably believe that inhaling burning plant matter could ever be good for you, and I may at a later time, but the simple fact is that lung cancer is almost exclusively a smoker's disease that causes people to die by the numbers. Anything that reduces the consumption of cigarettes is therefore a good thing.
Unfortunately for us, there is a groundswell of opposition to e-cigarettes. An e-cigarette in its simplest incarnation consists of a battery, an atomizer, and a fluid. The fluid is heated, reduced to a vapor, and the result is inhaled. There is no burning organic plant matter, no smoke is produced, no overtly offensive odors are created. So what's the problem?
The problems are threefold. The first issue is that the e-liquid typically contains nicotine, a highly addictive substance, and the one thing that smokers have the hardest time kicking. Second, the basic e-cigarette that you get from the corner mini-mart looks and functions like a traditional cigarette. Third, non-smokers hold the whip hand. After years of having to endure smokers acting like jerks, lighting up wherever they feel like it and causing their clothes, cars, and everything else to stink, the tables have turned. Now they get to exact revenge on their tormentors.
What they either don't realize, fail to realize, or don't care about is that e-cigarettes are clearly better for everybody involved. The smoker that switches to an e-cigarette no longer inhales 4000 different chemicals. They no longer exhale carcinogenic smoke. They can breathe easier, they don't suffer from smoker's cough, and they regain the ability to exercise for more than a few minutes without passing out from exhaustion due to reduced lung capacity. The ingredients in the e-liquid are vegetable glycerin, propylene glycol, nicotine, and flavoring. Aside from the nicotine, every ingredient is on the FDA's Generally Recognized As Safe list. In the end, what is exhaled is little more than water vapor, a far cry from the bad old days of carcinogenic secondhand smoke.
There are legitimate issues, to be sure. The biggest issue is the availability to children. E-cigarette and e-liquid manufacturers are being accused of marketing to children by creating flavors like Cotton Candy and the like. As I said in a previous blog entry, we put too much stock in doing things "for the children", but in this case it's a good idea. There is no need to create a new generation of drug addicts. This is easily remedied (though not so easily applied) by simply passing a law regulating e-cigarettes as devices for adults only. Second, while nicotine isn't a carcinogen it is still toxic at fairly modest levels, which means that it should be stored and handled with care. In the hands of adults that's not really a big deal.
Instead, we see blanket bans on usage that rival those of tobacco cigarettes. We see them classified as tobacco products, even though there is no tobacco and nothing is burning or emitting smoke. We hear complaints that the scents emitted are offensive, as if the perfume we smell and the car exhaust we breathe aren't just as offensive yet somehow more acceptable. Of course, bans will prevent people from switching, because the short-term effects of smoking aren't particularly dramatic, and so why switch when cigarettes are good enough? Worse yet is the inevitable taxation, which will undoubtedly be punitive in nature as befits a vice. God knows the government doesn't really want people to stop smoking, they're addicted to that sweet, sweet tax money raised on the backs of drug addicts.
We can save lives. We can do it today. If everybody switches tomorrow we can virtually end lung cancer in an instant. What a gift we have, right in our hands. This gift will be destroyed at the hands of politicians scrambling for money and overzealous prohibitionists smugly proving their control over you by having e-cigarettes banned. What a tragedy that will be. In the meantime, I will be enjoying the end of my second smoke-free year thanks to e-cigarettes. Were that everybody could enjoy the freedom from the devil weed as I do.
Unfortunately for us, there is a groundswell of opposition to e-cigarettes. An e-cigarette in its simplest incarnation consists of a battery, an atomizer, and a fluid. The fluid is heated, reduced to a vapor, and the result is inhaled. There is no burning organic plant matter, no smoke is produced, no overtly offensive odors are created. So what's the problem?
The problems are threefold. The first issue is that the e-liquid typically contains nicotine, a highly addictive substance, and the one thing that smokers have the hardest time kicking. Second, the basic e-cigarette that you get from the corner mini-mart looks and functions like a traditional cigarette. Third, non-smokers hold the whip hand. After years of having to endure smokers acting like jerks, lighting up wherever they feel like it and causing their clothes, cars, and everything else to stink, the tables have turned. Now they get to exact revenge on their tormentors.
What they either don't realize, fail to realize, or don't care about is that e-cigarettes are clearly better for everybody involved. The smoker that switches to an e-cigarette no longer inhales 4000 different chemicals. They no longer exhale carcinogenic smoke. They can breathe easier, they don't suffer from smoker's cough, and they regain the ability to exercise for more than a few minutes without passing out from exhaustion due to reduced lung capacity. The ingredients in the e-liquid are vegetable glycerin, propylene glycol, nicotine, and flavoring. Aside from the nicotine, every ingredient is on the FDA's Generally Recognized As Safe list. In the end, what is exhaled is little more than water vapor, a far cry from the bad old days of carcinogenic secondhand smoke.
There are legitimate issues, to be sure. The biggest issue is the availability to children. E-cigarette and e-liquid manufacturers are being accused of marketing to children by creating flavors like Cotton Candy and the like. As I said in a previous blog entry, we put too much stock in doing things "for the children", but in this case it's a good idea. There is no need to create a new generation of drug addicts. This is easily remedied (though not so easily applied) by simply passing a law regulating e-cigarettes as devices for adults only. Second, while nicotine isn't a carcinogen it is still toxic at fairly modest levels, which means that it should be stored and handled with care. In the hands of adults that's not really a big deal.
Instead, we see blanket bans on usage that rival those of tobacco cigarettes. We see them classified as tobacco products, even though there is no tobacco and nothing is burning or emitting smoke. We hear complaints that the scents emitted are offensive, as if the perfume we smell and the car exhaust we breathe aren't just as offensive yet somehow more acceptable. Of course, bans will prevent people from switching, because the short-term effects of smoking aren't particularly dramatic, and so why switch when cigarettes are good enough? Worse yet is the inevitable taxation, which will undoubtedly be punitive in nature as befits a vice. God knows the government doesn't really want people to stop smoking, they're addicted to that sweet, sweet tax money raised on the backs of drug addicts.
We can save lives. We can do it today. If everybody switches tomorrow we can virtually end lung cancer in an instant. What a gift we have, right in our hands. This gift will be destroyed at the hands of politicians scrambling for money and overzealous prohibitionists smugly proving their control over you by having e-cigarettes banned. What a tragedy that will be. In the meantime, I will be enjoying the end of my second smoke-free year thanks to e-cigarettes. Were that everybody could enjoy the freedom from the devil weed as I do.
Monday, May 19, 2014
The Quandary Of Politics
Tomorrow is Pennsylvania's Democratic primary to select a candidate to face Tom Corbett in the upcoming Gubernatorial election. There have been numerous debates, the money has been spent, the ads have been run, all that is left is to determine who it will be. The overwhelming favorite is Tom Wolf, a prominent businessman and former PA Revenue Secretary. With Governor Corbett having a truly miserable first term he is perhaps the most vulnerable Governor up for re-election this year, so the choice is not merely one of who to throw to the wolves. The winner tomorrow will have the rare opportunity to unseat an incumbent.
The candidates, however, have not exactly covered themselves with glory. There is little to distinguish one from another. Inevitably, with nothing to disagree on, they have turned on each other. Mr. Wolf has "loaned" himself $6 million for his campaign, which in politics is red meat. He has been accused of trying to buy the office, an accusation that on the face of it seems to be true but for the fact that all of the other candidates have been trying to do the same. As money is the mother's milk of politics, the winner typically ends up being the biggest spender, and if the other candidates had the means to toss that kind of money around they would certainly be doing so.
The other big accusation thrown out came courtesy of Rob McCord, current Pennsylvania Treasurer. He accused Wolf of supporting Charlie Robertson, disgraced former mayor of York. Several years ago Robertson was chased from office when his role in the York race riot of 1969 was exposed. He incited people to riot with chants of "White Power!" and told police officers to "kill all the n_____ you can!", something made even more egregious by the fact that he was a police officer himself. He was later arraigned for the murder of Lillie Belle Allen and ultimately acquitted. As a result of these revelations he did not stand for re-election. Wolf claimed that he counseled Robertson not to stand for re-election and to leave quietly. That this would come out during the Democratic primary isn't surprising, because Democrats, being the party that champions minorities and minority issues, are absurdly sensitive to any accusation of racism. Mr. Wolf surely lost some votes on that issue.
The last accusation is a minor one, again against Mr. Wolf. U.S. Representative Allyson Schwartz has asserted that she has the experience in government and that he is unqualified to be Governor because he lacks her level of expertise. I suppose we could look at the current Congressional approval ratings to gain insight into her experience and ability to get things done, but ultimately this is a somewhat petty complaint. Surely Rep. Schwartz wasn't the expert she now claims to be when she was first elected, and rather than condemning Wolf it actually undermines her own campaign as she is being dominated by a political neophyte.
You will note that each of these accusations were hurled at the front-runner. I suppose it makes sense that it would be this way, as the only way to win is to knock the top dog off his perch, and picking on backmarkers like Katie McGinty won't accomplish anything. Still, the nature of the accusations go a long way to demonstrating something I have long observed, as follows:
The candidates that we are given to choose from are self-selecting. Nobody is compelled to run for office, every one of them run of their own accord. Virtually all of them come from money and/or successful careers, most have professional degrees, and most of them are outwardly nice people. Yet they think they know what we need and are willing to spend untold millions in their quest for elected office. They put their families through the wringer, they expose their children to criticism, their every action is put out for everyone to see.
These are not actions of normal people. These are actions of people with massive egos that need to be fed. They attack each other, they claim that they have the answers, and by the way, won't you please vote for me? If I came to you and told you that you are doing everything wrong and that you should not only give me a hearing but obey my wishes you'd look at me like I was crazy. Yet isn't that exactly what politicians do? These are people you wouldn't willingly invite into your home under any other circumstances, but you would seat them into positions of power and allow them to influence your lives.
Additionally, we decry money in politics, yet were I to run for office the only votes I would get are my own and (maybe) my wife's. We measure suitability by success, and we measure success by money. We can't understand why rich people with no understanding of our plight are the only people that run for office. The simple fact is that the average person wishes to live a modest, quiet life, wanting for little more than security and perhaps a modest amount of comfort. They have no desire to expose themselves to endless humiliation. The rich have no such aversion, simply because if it all goes wrong they're still rich. They have less to lose. They are shameless.
Remember when you vote that the person you're voting for doesn't know you, doesn't care about you, and would sell you out if it would net them two other voters. What do you matter? You won't vote for them anyway! Yet you vote, because the other party's candidate would really stick it to you if you didn't. So you vote for the lesser of the two evils because there's simply no other choice.
What a quandary we find ourselves in.
The candidates, however, have not exactly covered themselves with glory. There is little to distinguish one from another. Inevitably, with nothing to disagree on, they have turned on each other. Mr. Wolf has "loaned" himself $6 million for his campaign, which in politics is red meat. He has been accused of trying to buy the office, an accusation that on the face of it seems to be true but for the fact that all of the other candidates have been trying to do the same. As money is the mother's milk of politics, the winner typically ends up being the biggest spender, and if the other candidates had the means to toss that kind of money around they would certainly be doing so.
The other big accusation thrown out came courtesy of Rob McCord, current Pennsylvania Treasurer. He accused Wolf of supporting Charlie Robertson, disgraced former mayor of York. Several years ago Robertson was chased from office when his role in the York race riot of 1969 was exposed. He incited people to riot with chants of "White Power!" and told police officers to "kill all the n_____ you can!", something made even more egregious by the fact that he was a police officer himself. He was later arraigned for the murder of Lillie Belle Allen and ultimately acquitted. As a result of these revelations he did not stand for re-election. Wolf claimed that he counseled Robertson not to stand for re-election and to leave quietly. That this would come out during the Democratic primary isn't surprising, because Democrats, being the party that champions minorities and minority issues, are absurdly sensitive to any accusation of racism. Mr. Wolf surely lost some votes on that issue.
The last accusation is a minor one, again against Mr. Wolf. U.S. Representative Allyson Schwartz has asserted that she has the experience in government and that he is unqualified to be Governor because he lacks her level of expertise. I suppose we could look at the current Congressional approval ratings to gain insight into her experience and ability to get things done, but ultimately this is a somewhat petty complaint. Surely Rep. Schwartz wasn't the expert she now claims to be when she was first elected, and rather than condemning Wolf it actually undermines her own campaign as she is being dominated by a political neophyte.
You will note that each of these accusations were hurled at the front-runner. I suppose it makes sense that it would be this way, as the only way to win is to knock the top dog off his perch, and picking on backmarkers like Katie McGinty won't accomplish anything. Still, the nature of the accusations go a long way to demonstrating something I have long observed, as follows:
The candidates that we are given to choose from are self-selecting. Nobody is compelled to run for office, every one of them run of their own accord. Virtually all of them come from money and/or successful careers, most have professional degrees, and most of them are outwardly nice people. Yet they think they know what we need and are willing to spend untold millions in their quest for elected office. They put their families through the wringer, they expose their children to criticism, their every action is put out for everyone to see.
These are not actions of normal people. These are actions of people with massive egos that need to be fed. They attack each other, they claim that they have the answers, and by the way, won't you please vote for me? If I came to you and told you that you are doing everything wrong and that you should not only give me a hearing but obey my wishes you'd look at me like I was crazy. Yet isn't that exactly what politicians do? These are people you wouldn't willingly invite into your home under any other circumstances, but you would seat them into positions of power and allow them to influence your lives.
Additionally, we decry money in politics, yet were I to run for office the only votes I would get are my own and (maybe) my wife's. We measure suitability by success, and we measure success by money. We can't understand why rich people with no understanding of our plight are the only people that run for office. The simple fact is that the average person wishes to live a modest, quiet life, wanting for little more than security and perhaps a modest amount of comfort. They have no desire to expose themselves to endless humiliation. The rich have no such aversion, simply because if it all goes wrong they're still rich. They have less to lose. They are shameless.
Remember when you vote that the person you're voting for doesn't know you, doesn't care about you, and would sell you out if it would net them two other voters. What do you matter? You won't vote for them anyway! Yet you vote, because the other party's candidate would really stick it to you if you didn't. So you vote for the lesser of the two evils because there's simply no other choice.
What a quandary we find ourselves in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)