'One in six cancers worldwide are caused by infection'
Well, this makes sense since a tumor is the result of a glitch in the cellular mainframe. Another thing that causes such a glitch is UV light--skin cancer, primarily. Chemicals can cause the glitches and so does old age and bad luck (your cells are always making mistakes, but there are special molecules that are supposed to catch them--but nothing is perfect).
But as we've seen with the Whooping Cough epidemic that's still a 2012 concern, some parents are against vaccinating their children--heck, even one of my cousins is against it. I hope to God that she doesn't come to regret that decision, but how many children die because their parents think vaccinations are a bad thing? Granted, I'm not sure if I'm a fan of the Chicken Pox vaccine since I had a relatively great time with the disease, but I've been so happy that I haven't suffered through all the diseases that were covered by vaccines when I was a kid that I'm changing that opinion. Especially since a family friend got Shingles earlier this year and was miserable for six weeks.
'Course, I've decided not to get the HPV vaccine because I'm not sexually active and have no immediate plans to change that status. Maybe in the future I will change that decision. And no, I don't believe that getting the vaccine gives girls a reason to have sex--only an idiot would make that projection. Your daughters are going to have sex if and when they decide to--if they are or may be sexually active, get them vaccinated. If not, then it's a toss up since so far as I know there's no other way to get the virus. But, I'm against a government mandate on it. The only mandate I support is insurance.
How offensive is the word 'lunatic'?
Two senators want to remove the term from federal law. I say that our law code is too complicated as it is, though maybe this will be the start of a new movement.
Look, I know that Constitutionalists like to believe that the Constitution is the end all, be all for American laws, but that isn't the case--it's not practical and I know that the Constitutionalists will stand up and say the same thing. I highly doubt that they'd want to remove all laws about Prostitution and Child Pornography. So, how do we go about un-complicating our laws without jeopardizing the world that we've created with them? Language seems to be the biggest issue and this article does a great job illustrating that. What is a lunatic? How is it different from just being mentally ill?
Lawyers are paid to use the literal language of laws against them and, thus, it's Congresses job to write laws with as few loop holes as possible. We as average Americans complain about a thousand page health care law, but if it wasn't so (though only 500 pages have actual health implications) a kid fresh out of law school could tear it apart. Some would say that that's a good thing--and I agree with them, but for a different reason because I think that the way to make laws is to make them vague and close the loopholes as they present themselves--just like the Constitution. I also think that they should all expire within 30 to 50 years unless they are turned into a Constitutional Amendment. That way the country isn't cluttered with defunct laws and we aren't left wasting time trying to agree on how to modernize said defunct law, nor are our representatives forced to spend months trying to foresee every possible loophole (and then get crucified when some murderer walks free because of a neglected loophole).
And this brings me back to the lunatic question. We'll eventually need to modernize all American laws (you've seen on other websites about the crazy blue laws that prevent you from pogo-sticking down main street on Sunday, I'm sure) and I think that the easiest way is to do it one defunct word at a time. How? I'm reasonably certain that every US law on the book has been digitized. This means that it shouldn't be too difficult to search using the word, pull out every law that uses it and toss out whatever is redundant and outdated and to combine and revise whatever is still usful.
North Carolina approves constitutional ban on gay union
I saw this on the news Monday night and one of the women they interviewed was afraid that it would cause her and her partner's daughter to lose her health insurance. Wow. Good job Republicans--you just put another kid on the welfare you so love! And maybe even the women if they no longer have to claim to support each other.
Gah. As you may have read before, my biggest complaint against those opposed to Gay Marriages is that straight men and women can and do play the system for their own personal gain all the time--one friend's problem with poligamist families is that the women collect welfare even though they believe that they're married to their mutual husband. And there are how many single mothers living with their "baby-daddies" while collecting welfare? You'd think that the state would want to help people care for themselves and their family, but instead they've given insurance companies leverage to say that the child isn't eligible for coverage.
And what especially ticks me off is that for a small fortune in legal bills and six months of your time a gay couple can get almost every right that a straight couple can--except that the straight couple needs 20 bucks and 20 minutes in Vegas. But the gay couple can't give a stable home to an orphaned child in most states, while the drunken straight couple can neglect or beat their child to death and all the neighbors will get on the news and say "how did this happen?!?" They system is broken and yet the WASPs think that their ideals are the best.
Well, this makes sense since a tumor is the result of a glitch in the cellular mainframe. Another thing that causes such a glitch is UV light--skin cancer, primarily. Chemicals can cause the glitches and so does old age and bad luck (your cells are always making mistakes, but there are special molecules that are supposed to catch them--but nothing is perfect).
But as we've seen with the Whooping Cough epidemic that's still a 2012 concern, some parents are against vaccinating their children--heck, even one of my cousins is against it. I hope to God that she doesn't come to regret that decision, but how many children die because their parents think vaccinations are a bad thing? Granted, I'm not sure if I'm a fan of the Chicken Pox vaccine since I had a relatively great time with the disease, but I've been so happy that I haven't suffered through all the diseases that were covered by vaccines when I was a kid that I'm changing that opinion. Especially since a family friend got Shingles earlier this year and was miserable for six weeks.
'Course, I've decided not to get the HPV vaccine because I'm not sexually active and have no immediate plans to change that status. Maybe in the future I will change that decision. And no, I don't believe that getting the vaccine gives girls a reason to have sex--only an idiot would make that projection. Your daughters are going to have sex if and when they decide to--if they are or may be sexually active, get them vaccinated. If not, then it's a toss up since so far as I know there's no other way to get the virus. But, I'm against a government mandate on it. The only mandate I support is insurance.
How offensive is the word 'lunatic'?
Two senators want to remove the term from federal law. I say that our law code is too complicated as it is, though maybe this will be the start of a new movement.
Look, I know that Constitutionalists like to believe that the Constitution is the end all, be all for American laws, but that isn't the case--it's not practical and I know that the Constitutionalists will stand up and say the same thing. I highly doubt that they'd want to remove all laws about Prostitution and Child Pornography. So, how do we go about un-complicating our laws without jeopardizing the world that we've created with them? Language seems to be the biggest issue and this article does a great job illustrating that. What is a lunatic? How is it different from just being mentally ill?
Lawyers are paid to use the literal language of laws against them and, thus, it's Congresses job to write laws with as few loop holes as possible. We as average Americans complain about a thousand page health care law, but if it wasn't so (though only 500 pages have actual health implications) a kid fresh out of law school could tear it apart. Some would say that that's a good thing--and I agree with them, but for a different reason because I think that the way to make laws is to make them vague and close the loopholes as they present themselves--just like the Constitution. I also think that they should all expire within 30 to 50 years unless they are turned into a Constitutional Amendment. That way the country isn't cluttered with defunct laws and we aren't left wasting time trying to agree on how to modernize said defunct law, nor are our representatives forced to spend months trying to foresee every possible loophole (and then get crucified when some murderer walks free because of a neglected loophole).
And this brings me back to the lunatic question. We'll eventually need to modernize all American laws (you've seen on other websites about the crazy blue laws that prevent you from pogo-sticking down main street on Sunday, I'm sure) and I think that the easiest way is to do it one defunct word at a time. How? I'm reasonably certain that every US law on the book has been digitized. This means that it shouldn't be too difficult to search using the word, pull out every law that uses it and toss out whatever is redundant and outdated and to combine and revise whatever is still usful.
North Carolina approves constitutional ban on gay union
I saw this on the news Monday night and one of the women they interviewed was afraid that it would cause her and her partner's daughter to lose her health insurance. Wow. Good job Republicans--you just put another kid on the welfare you so love! And maybe even the women if they no longer have to claim to support each other.
Gah. As you may have read before, my biggest complaint against those opposed to Gay Marriages is that straight men and women can and do play the system for their own personal gain all the time--one friend's problem with poligamist families is that the women collect welfare even though they believe that they're married to their mutual husband. And there are how many single mothers living with their "baby-daddies" while collecting welfare? You'd think that the state would want to help people care for themselves and their family, but instead they've given insurance companies leverage to say that the child isn't eligible for coverage.
And what especially ticks me off is that for a small fortune in legal bills and six months of your time a gay couple can get almost every right that a straight couple can--except that the straight couple needs 20 bucks and 20 minutes in Vegas. But the gay couple can't give a stable home to an orphaned child in most states, while the drunken straight couple can neglect or beat their child to death and all the neighbors will get on the news and say "how did this happen?!?" They system is broken and yet the WASPs think that their ideals are the best.
1 comment:
Just wanted to say I was happy to see you around my blog! :)
Right now I am not following any new blogs, but just wanted to let you know I got your comment! :)
Post a Comment