What's The Alternative?

It seems crimes affecting war Veterans is at an all-time high.

I don't remember a time where so many poppy donation boxes have been stolen, or so many memorials defaced.

Many people are looking at these crimes at face value. Suggesting people are stealing the donation boxes, so they can acquire their next 'fix' of heroin. Those that deface monuments, are out of control teens, pulling over-the-line pranks.

I disagree. I believe there is much more to it than that. I think it's society's way of speaking out against wars, Veterans, and soldiers in general.

For years, left-wing pundits have been attacking so-called war-mongers, saying war is unnecessary and that society should rebel against it. Tell their elected officials they want out of Afghanistan. (Iraq, Libya, pick your country) It was only a matter of time before stronger messages were sent by those that follow NPR and the Toronto Star.

So we get what we have seen in the last month. No less than 6 donation boxes stolen in a week - and at least one visible monument defaced. And while there are those that would want you to silence these people - I think that will make them only more vigilant in their cause.

There is a running joke among many parents out there, that if a child wants to call family and child services because you are being unfair, let them. The children don't know what to do. They know the gig is up, because the parent is letting them do something outrageous, when the kids know they have no case.

I suggest we do the same here. Let those that don't approve of war, or veterans or soldiers have their say. In fact, make it public; give them a forum of their own to speak out against war and the soldiers if they want. And if they should want a rally, let them have it.

Listen to them, politely - disagree if you must - but let them speak.

And only then, will they understand the freedom that has been earned by those who gave their lives for it.

How Much is Too Much?

I'm not a squeemish person.

That is, I used to be one, when I was much younger. But after watching my fair share of shock and awe horror flicks so popular during the 1980's and '90's, I'm 'better' now.

The sight of blood doesn't bother me, neither do gruesome deaths. Fake ones anyhow.

But after I left college something happened - I no longer wanted to see those movies. Call it maturation, or the fact I could no longer be shocked - I just didn't want to see it.

So fast forward a few years to this week.

It began with a youtube video of the late racecar driver Dan Wheldon crashing and dying on a race track in Las Vegas.

Followed by shocking and disturbing video of a chinese toddler being run over by a van. The child later died in hospital.

And it ended with the plethora of video of Moammar Gadhafi being captured and killed.

After watching what seemed like dozens of pictures of the dead dictator, and and least a handful of videos of his capture, I wanted to let you know this.

I'm done.

I don't care what you say about, 'if i don't like it, turn it off,' or 'they give warning's before they show that stuff.'

It doesn't change the rudimentary fact that media - and I count myself as one of them - are glorifying death and showing shocking video ad nauseum.

Never mind the political stance on Gadhafi (which I'll touch on some other time) I don't care to see the man, or any man for that matter, being dragged around a city and killed slowly.

I agree - it's my right to turn off the TV - or to ignore these things completely - which so many people already do.

But when it's being done by the media because it's good viz - and for no other reason - it needs to stop.

And why do we think that it's 'good viz' anyhow? Is it because there are dead, or nearly dead people being flashed up on the screen? Or is it because we like to see 'the bad guy' get what he deserves.

The phrase if it bleeds it leads is well known among anyone who knows anything about news or the media.

But at what cost?

I watched a Canadian Film called 'The Cube,' once - a film that was meant to question the technological imperative. If something can be made, or done - it will be - regardless of consequence.

Maybe we should start thinking about those consequences before we start showing live executions as a form of entertainment.

I'll tell you this much I know...

I'm glad I don't have cable.

What's Next?

With the death of popular NDP leader Jack Layton, one can't but wonder what will be next for the Loyal Opposition in the House of Commons.

With a gang of little known MP's riding around, it's hard to say what the new focus will be. Stay strong in Quebec? Strengthen ties out West? Try to make headway in vote-rich Ontario?

Whoa, slow down.

There's no reason for these folks to rush things. And they shouldn't.

Right now, the NDP without Jack Layton are a little like the NFL's Indianapolis Colts without Payton Manning. With him, they are perennial Superbowl contenders, but without him, they are merely a bunch of role players without common direction.

My suggestion? Take a page from sports marketing guru's. When your favourite team isn't doing well, you market one player (someone who's under contract, and is palatable to consumers) and you sell the fans on their past glory.

The NDP should select a leader who is palatable to consumers, er voters, and sell them everything Jack said in the past.

Think that's preposterous, or morbid?

The NDP have been quoting Tommy Douglas ad nauseum for years. And he's been dead since 1986.

As far as who the leader should be, I don't really know. I mean, I couldn't pick Nycole Turmel out of a lineup if I tried. Thomas Mulcair is equally as qualified and easily as forgettable.

But don't get discouraged New Democrats, you have 3-and-a-half years to find someone who is as likeable and has as much clout as Jack Layton had.

Should be easy enough. Ask the Liberals.

Dire Straits (Money For Nothing-Literally This Time)

'A-Rod had it all wrong. Highstakes gambling is in the stock market.'

I read this on a friends' facebook page before the market opened Monday, and chuckled. That was before the market took a nose dive, and then it wasn't funny at all.

Millions of faces around the world looking on, as the earths' most stable economy (so we're told) crumbled. Their president telling them there is nothing to fear, quoting investors saying regardless of what some people say, they're still a AAA-rated country.

No, you're not. And investors proved it.

President Barack Obama told the world investors still believe America is worthy of investment. In response, the market shrunk below 11,000 points for the first time in 9 months. The S&P Index lost 6% on the one day.

You know who else lost 6% in one day? Stock markets in Greece. Yes, THAT Greece, the one that is taking bailouts from the international community in order to avoid defaulting on their loans.

Obama blamed partisan politics, saying the downgrade in credit rating only happened because the good folks in Washington took their sweet time.

Truth is, people in Washington HAD to take their sweet time. So do folks in Canada, Australia, Greece, England and around the globe.

In 2008, we came as close to a market crash as i've ever seen. Now, in 2011, some investors say we may be on the brink of another. It's time to rethink how business is done globally. This antiquated version of business hasn't changed significantly since people were trying to keep up with the Dow's and the Joneses.

How to fix it? I have no idea. But there are those out there with smarter business minds than mine, that do.

It's time the 'great' powers of this world paid attention to them. Before they can no longer be considered to be 'great' or 'powers.'

How Did We Get Here?

Less than a week ago, 76 Norwegians were killed after a man planned a car bomb in the government square of Norway and then dressed up as a police officer and shot and killed 68 kids at a youth camp close by.

I ask why.

Why did Anders Breivik decide on that July morning to get out of his beetle-infested home, take a whole bunch of drugs (allegedy) and kill 68 kids.

He would have you believe that it was his war against the Muslim invasion, something he admits Norway won't understand for 60 years. While his lawyers think he's likely insane.

I'm not sure believe either of those reasons, although I know a chunk of the population believes in the Muslim invasion theory. (I had a co-worker once who espoused 'white people will be the minority in Canada one day' to which I replied, 'aannnnd?')

But I would bet it would have more to do with how we see Islam in the first place.

Despite millions of messages of peace being spread by Imam's throughout the world, the majority of Western Civilization sees Islam as a hateful religion. Something that is unrelenting; unmoving; and just plain wrong.

I received an e-mail the other day from a friend which confirmed as much,

"I'm tired of being told that Islam is a "Religion of Peace," when every day I can read dozens of stories of Muslim men killing their sisters, wives and daughters for their family "honor"; of Muslims rioting over some slight offense; of Muslims murdering Christian and Jews because they aren't "believers"; of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims stoning teenage rape victims to death for "adultery"; of Muslims mutilating the genitals of little girls; all in the name of Allah, because the Qur'an and Shari'a law tells them to."

This friend is not considered a fundamentalist Christian, though she has Christian values.

The way we perceive Islam is the reason people fight against it. Even sometimes in extreme cases, like the case of Anders Breivik.

You think that's a stretch? Think most believe Islam is peaceful?

Who did the media and 'terror specialists' point their fingers at first when the bomb exploded in Oslo?

If you thought it was a radical anti-Islam 'Crusader,' you'd be the only one.

Kai, We Hardly Knew You

Kai Nagata.

Put up your hand if you heard of this reporters name 24 hours ago.

For those of you who don't know, Mr. Nagata is the 24-year-old wunderkind who quit his job at CTV in Quebec City, after the realization mainstream media was more interested in Will and Kate, than they were in injustices being carried out in Basrata, Athens, and "the rest of the world."

He also suggested the mainstream media believed television viewers would rather watch reporters who looked like Ken and Barbie, than regular Canadian folk.

True, on both counts, Kai, but you're yelling into a hurricane.

Truth be told, there are thousands of people in North America who, at one time or another, have tried the journalism game, only to find it isn't what they thought it was.

They recieved top marks in their classes, went on to work for CNN, NBC or CBC here in Canada, and found out not only is media not about telling important stories, it was about how you looked, what segment of the demographic you appeal to.

Journalism professors rarely teach us that part in school. In the midst of following important international stories, like the government killing civilians in Damascus, or Moammar Gadhafi using his own people as human shields against NATO attacks, professors and instructors forget to tell you about the fluff.

But every now and again, you get to write a real story. Cover something important, and make a difference. I've had the honour of working in a newsroom that won awards for coverage of a province-wide forest fire, as well as the G-20 riots in Toronto.

I've also made phone calls on finding out why Selena Gomez is in Stratford, and what she ate at a family diner.

The point is, all journalists who have worked longer than a couple of years understand there is a balance between the stories that should be covered, and stories that people want us to cover. And you balance them both with the tenacity that you, as a journalist owe to the story.

In the 50's and 60's journalists made a name for themselves by doing the 'right' story. We watched them based on the fact they knew what was best for us. It was the 'News we Needed to Know.'

Now, we have all kinds of information at our fingertips, and can access it all easily. If we don't find what we like, or what we want, we change the dial. Being in-tune with our audience as a journalist isn't just a 'good idea,' it's essential to our careers.

Kai Nagata, in all likelihood, will soon become a name forgotten by those who barely knew him, and a nostalgic trip back in time for those who did. A soul older than his age would suggest, and a man unwilling to succumb to the pressures put on today's media.

Good on you.

But there's just one more thing, Kai.

If you really were all about 'proper' news being reported, why did you submit to an interview with CBC. Certainly, given your journalistic integrity, you wouldn't think a retiring journalist would be newsworthy.

Would you?

Why The Parade?

A friend of mine died in the line of duty.

It wasn't this week, or a few months ago. Tom Fulton, friend and mentor, died on December 9th, 2002, when he left the radio station on a break before returning for post-morning show meetings.

He walked out the front door for a coffee break, and as he stepped out the front steps, he suffered a major heart attack, and likely died before he hit the ground.

He was in his late 50's, but still as vibrant and youthful a man as you might ever meet.

Tom was well known in the community; he worked in the media since the early 60's. Worked at all the major radio stations in the city, and was well loved.

Yet there was no parade where people from all columns of media came to say goodbye. Merely a solemn service, and a tearful goodbye from some of his closest friends and family.

But there is no doubt he died in the line of duty. He was working when it happened. So why no parade?

That's what happened Tuesday near Toronto. A local police officer died, doing his job last week when a minivan rolled over his body, pinning him underneath. A parade was held in his honour. Thousands of police officers, fire fighters, emergency services personnel and military servicemen and women turned out for the procession.

Which led me to pose the question, why do we honour people for doing their job?

Police Officers, fire fighters, emergency service personnel and military servicemen and women all know the dangers of the job. They are often reminded of it in oaths they swear when they join the force. Some police officers are reminded on a daily basis of the dangers of their job.

In fact, ask some members why they got involved in the police force, and they'll tell you its the intense rush of adrenaline that comes with facing death on a nearly daily basis.

So it may stand to reason police officers don't need the pomp and circumstance. It is what they signed up to do. Willingly.

Some have argued that officers give their lives for you and me. They're fighting for a greater cause.

Is an architect designing hospitals, government buildings and housing not working for you and me? If a construction worker dies on site, does that not mean they gave their lives to a greater cause than their own?

Tom didn't sign up to have a heart attack that day at work. He didn't think a major coronary would happen while getting ready to dissect the latest ratings.

Maybe he deserves the parade just as much (if not more) than those who risk their lives in the line of duty of their own accord.

Ford's Show Where Their PRIDE Is.

It's well documented that Toronto mayors have, since the city's amalgamation, attended the major Pride parade at the end of June every year.

Even Mel Lastman, who was convinced he shouldn't go eventually did (with the encouragement from a young John Tory).

Lastman found that with 1 million Torontonians (and tourists) coming out to support the parade, it was his duty to give the city what it wanted.

Rob Ford, to put it lightly, doesn't feel that way.

The mayor from the word go, told people he was looking at restricting or cutting off funding to the event that brings $136 Million over the week. He said if a group called 'Queers Against Israeli Apartheid' participated, he would cut funding. The group didn't want him to have the easy out, so they bailed.

Then when asked whether he would attend the city's biggest celebration, he said no; he'd be at the cottage with his family. A tradition in the Ford family.

I have no problems with family traditions; I have my own. But there are certain jobs in this world that you have to put up with being a public servant; meaning if the public needs to be served, you have to put up with it.

He teased the press, told us he wouldn't commit to any one event, but that he'd take it day by day. To the point where people wondered if he may actually get off his high horse in Huntsville, and hop on down to the parade.

That didn't happen.

And now, Ford's unofficial spokesman - brother (and city councillor) Doug Ford, said he wondered why more people didn't celebrate Canada Day with the same fervour they did with Pride, suggesting perhaps a Canada Day Parade could be held the same weekend.

First - What do you care about Canada Day celebrations in Toronto, it wasn't as if you would cancel family tradition for a parade (your words, not mine).

And secondly - you clearly do not understand what Pride is about.

Not Toronto Pride, but world wide Pride.

Pride wasn't set during the final week of June so boys in short shorts and tank tops could squirt the crowd with water guns. On June 28th, 1969, the Gay community at the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village, New York, fought back against police officers who were persecuting them because they were Gay.

Pride is what Canada, and Toronto should be all about.

Equality for ALL residents, no matter what colour, race, gender and sexual orientation. It's about the little guy trying to make it big. It's about celebrating those who fought for Gay rights, when they were actually beaten and persecuted because of them.

In this writers opinion, Rob Ford refusing to show up to Pride would be like a big city mayor refusing to show up for Martin Luther King celebrations stateside.

Brother Doug said he'd like to see both a Canada Day Parade and a Pride Parade held on the same weekend. Next year, July 1st comes on the Sunday.

Can't wait for Pride 2012.

56 Days with Sheen

This was written sometime in the future, after my 8 week internship with Charlie Sheen actual job here

Day One: Meet Charlie. Seems to be a stand up guy. Besides walking around with porn stars. This might take getting used to. Welcomes me on to Team Winning. We have a discussion about how to properly pronounce winning. "It's 'Winning'"..."no no..it's 'WINNING'".."oh, so WINNING".."no...this goes on for five hours.

Day Two: Charlie wakes me up with a 5 o clock phone call. Something about sleeping is for losers and Chuck Lorre. I get into the office, and he forces me to drink Tigers Blood and take a shot of Adonis DNA. Feel sick..

Day Three: Meet the kids. All of them. Not just the five on paper. Takes all day. Go out and get vasectomy.

Day Four: Charlie has me go over to the Warner Bros lot in LA and shout at the gates. Says I can't be a rock star from Mars if I have a smooth voice.

Day Five Thru Ten: Call Chuck Lorre, Denise Richards and Brooke Mueller 5 times daily and hang up.

Day Eleven: Machete Lessons

Day Twelve: Charlie wants me to call him Carlos. he doesn't answer to Charlie anymore.

Day Thirteen: Pee in a cup. Charlie asks if I've had any drugs in the last 24 hours. Weird.

Day Fourteen: Charlie invites me up to his place for an 'Epic' party. we'll see about that.

Day 56: I have a sleeve tattoo, and porn stars beside me. Charlie welcomes me to his 'terrestrial realm' I hop on the next bus out of L.A.

Israel has Most to Lose in Egypt

Israel is deathly afraid of what could happen if the Muslim Brotherhood, the largest opposition group in Egypt, takes control after President Hosni Mubarak steps down.

And they should be.

While we are still waiting to find out exactly when he will resign, and what that will look like, the change seems to be inevitable. Mohamed El Baradei, the self imposed opposition leader, asked for more than a million protestors to come out Tuesday, and whether that happens is immaterial.

World leaders have called Mubarak, and are encouraging him to stand aside, to facilitate a transfer of power.

Mubarak, so far isn't budging, shutting down internet, phone, TV stations, train service, all in an attempt to stop protestors from gathering. But it hasn't worked.

The youth in Egypt have had enough of Mubarak rule, and want change. As good as Mubarak was to the West, he didn't represent his own people very well. His rule led to poverty in the streets, over priced goods, and, being the only Arab nation that supported the US for years, has alienated the rest of the region as well.

Mubarak, despite efforts to change his party, firing his cabinet, and appointing brand new ministers, still can't gain any traction.

People don't want Mubarak anymore. And they're ready for change, no matter what that might look like.

And it could look creepy, especially if you're Israel.

Egypt is the only ally Israel have in the Arab world it's located in. And up until now, that support has been at a diplomatic level. Politicians backed Israel, because the US backed Israel. The main opposition party in Egypt, which may be in the best position to take over without bloodletting in the streets, is the Muslim Brotherhood.

The same Muslim Brotherhood that some say were the home of several Al Qaida members. Glenn Beck reported that some of the 9/11 masterminds started out with the Brotherhood, and that Hamas was birthed from it.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has voiced his concern, saying he worries about his country if Egypt follows down its current path.

The US, being Israel's closest ally must be worried as well. No?

Officials in the US, including President Obama, have spoken on record, calling for a peaceful transfer of power, all but demanding Mubarak step down.

It speaks to the power Egypt holds in the region, and how important it is to keep it in, for lack of a better word, Western hands.

So much so, that the US seems willing to put aside its relationship with Israel.

So yes Israel, be afraid.

Drug Cartels Run Rampant in Mexico

It's true.

All you have to do is look at the numbers. Mexican officials released details on homicides relating to the drug trade since President Calderon's first year in office.

According to government officials, 34,000 people have been killed in the country's drug wars since 2006.

34,000!

That's far more than the number of fans who attend Tampa Bay Ray home games. It's the population of small towns, and it's the number of people killed in Mexican Drug wars in the last 4 years.

One of the main culprits, is Joaquin 'Shorty' Guzman; the head of the Sinaloan drug cartel. For those who don't know, 'Shorty' broke out of a Mexican prison in 2001, and has been on the run since, fighting for territory, and killing anyone who gets in his way.

Despite a Mexican-US multi-billion dollar campaign to stamp out the drug trade, Guzman has expanded his empire from Colombia to China, has 52 operations running world wide, and has an estimated worth of more than 1 Billion dollars.

Two-thirds of his business runs through the US, and more should start flowing soon..as the Sinaloans just took over the town of Tijuana, a well know gateway to the US for drug trafficking.

But the Mexican authorities don't care how much is going out; it cares about how it's being done.

The fact that Guzman has been on the run for a decade now, means corruption at high levels still exist, and bribery of officials still happens regularly. And there are still those that think this whole war on drugs thing is a bad idea. It's rumoured maybe Calderon himself is wary of the problem it might cause.

In the Sinaloan capital of Culican, custom car dealerships, and high priced retailers are afraid if the drug cartels are brought down, it would have an immediate and negative economic fallout.

It could spell disaster for many parts of that country IF the war on drugs is successful.

I know many of you are reading this, with ideas of going to Mexico for vacation in the near future..saying, 'at least it's not Colombia.'

You're right.

In Colombia, the homicides attributed to drug wars has been cut in half since 2002. In Mexico, they continue to rise with no end in site.

Maybe I'll just go to Antigua instead...

Last Rights

Human Rights.

Most people in Western Civilization are very aware of them. We're taught to respect them, to understand them, but most of all to appreciate them.

We've been told they've come at a great cost. How many lives were shortened unfairly by tyrannical dictators? How many people died, never knowing what equality with their fellow man (or woman) could feel like.

So when some man, or woman or group tries to ensure those rights are held up they should be commended, right?

Well, put me on record as getting off the human rights bandwagon.

It's not that I don't believe we need them. Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms will stand as one of the most important documents ever signed by Canadian Parliamentarians. The same can be said for those American patriots who signed the Constitution.

But Western Civilization has lost all meaning of what human rights are. For the most part, we are not challenged with where we will eat, where we will sleep, or where we can go. Our rights tell us, we can do (more or less) whatever we want. Pursue a life better than our own. To borrow from a tired phrase, 'be all that we can be.'

For the most part, nothing stands in our way but ourselves.

And, people who decide to abuse those rights for their own personal gain.

Two examples hit close to home this week. First, when Jean-Claude Duvalier, better known as dictator 'Baby Doc,' returned to Haiti from exile in France, his lawyer told media it was his right as a Haitian to return home.

The second case occured in Toronto, when a man showed up to a police funeral with a sign saying 'NO POLICE STATE' on one side, and "Soldiers Die, Electricians Die and People Die,' on the other. Eric Brazau was arrested, and not charged in the matter. However, he did go on with media for the better part of 2 days, explaining how his rights had been violated.

To both of you, you're right. You have the right to live in Haiti, should you so choose, or protest the funeral of a police officer killed in the line of duty. I have the right to call you out in this blog, and call you self serving sycophants, that couldn't wait to have their 15 minutes of fame.

But it doesn't mean you or I should. Brazau, you say it's not a matter of taste. I disagree. It could be argued that racial or homophobic slurs are a matter of taste in some cases. See Dire Straits - Money for Nothing as an example. In fact it could be argued ALL human rights are a matter of taste. What Western Civilization can stomach before we've gone too far.

Baby Doc Duvalier, what happened to all those glorious rights you trampled on while pilfering money from the sick and needy into your own accounts while you left on a self imposed exile to France for 25 years.

When people like these come forward (and these are just the latest examples) it waters down what human rights mean for those who actually need them. The sick, the poor, those living in developing nations like Sudan, Ethiopia, or Myanmar.

I'm all for rights, and believe they are an integral part of what makes us human. But next time you want to play the rights card, count me out.

It's my right.

Haiti Needs More...

Being a journalist working in Toronto, I could have easily written this blog on the tragedy that befell Toronto Police Sergeant Ryan Russell who was killed when a man stole a snow plow, and ran him over.

Being a journalist in Canada, I could have easily written this blog about how those young Mounties killed in Mayerthorpe, Alberta were not as green as we were lead to believe.

But Haiti has been forgotten long enough. And I don't mean for just the last 365 days.

It's been one year since a devastating earthquake hit the Caribbean nation, killing thousands, many more injured, and even more still killed after a cholera epidemic.

Many people, watching their high-definition TV's during the past week, have been reminded of the catastrophe, and wonder, why isn't everything fixed? We donated billions of dollars! Surely that small country should be back on its feet by now.'

So what is the answer?

Some people believe political corruption is to blame, others would tell you the country sustained more damage than it could fix in one year.

But the answer lies deeper.

The truth is, Haiti has been a 'charity case,' long before January 12th, 2010.

Donations have poured into that country, as the nation's poor have long been left in the cold by the government. Money in the country has been used to keep those in power in power. Keeping their eyes closed to the poor, and letting gangs run free, the country has been in trouble for a long time.

They haven't been able to keep young people in the country to improve their lot either.

75% of those who are educated in Haiti leave for the bright lights of the US, or elsewhere. The ones who are left, remain uneducated and poor; usually living in squalors that aren't much better than the tent city's they live in now.

Which brings us back to the present. Where has the money gone? Is it being stolen by local gangs? Are the Red Cross and United Nations dragging their collective feet? Are the politicians using the money to keep themselves and their allies rich?

I don't have the answer, but I can tell you this.

They lie much deeper than the rubble in the streets of Port au Prince.

No Link Between Vaccine and Autism.

For years now there has been a theory, backed by a study in the British medical journal that pointed to so called evidence that the Measles Mumps and Rubella (MMR) vaccine can lead to autism in some children.
The study, written by more than 10 authors, proved, in great detail that there are some chemicals in the MMR shot which in turn can make those toddlers autistic.
National and international autistic organizations used this study to try to get money from governments for research, and to get the vaccines chemically changed. Actors Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey even took to the cause with a ‘Green our Vaccines,’ campaign.
Thousands of people gave to the cause; absolutely floored the government would set forth a vaccination program that could affect the world’s most vulnerable population.
But the study that was published in the British Medical Journal, the highest authority on the subject, turned out to be bunk. The lead researcher, Andrew Wakefield lied. He falsified data, drew inaccurate conclusions, and manipulated information to link the MMR vaccination to autism and bowel disease.
That’s not me making that statement. That’s from the editors of the Journal.
The original study was published in 1998, and was finally retracted in February of 2010. During that time, a 13 year old boy died from Measles, the first fatal case of the disease in Britain in 14 years. Measles was declared endemic status in 2008, the first time that happened in a decade.
But to let Wakefield off with the embarrassment of having his study called a fraud seems criminal.
Essentially, his studies lead to the death of a 13 year old boy. He convinced people, thousands of people that getting a Measles vaccination could be detrimental to overall health.
And all the while Wakefield still denies that his study is fraudulent. He wrote an autobiography entitled Callous Disregard. In it, the former doctor argues he has been unfairly treated by the medical and scientific establishment.
I think it’s time Wakefield read over the Hippocratic Oath, maybe behind solid steel bars.

Banning the N-word

The N-Word.
How is it any different from saying the actual word? Comedian Louis C.K says (I’m paraphrasing) that using the expression ‘N-word’ is cowardly, because instead of actually avoiding use of the actual word; the writer has put it into your head.
So, essentially it doesn’t eliminate the word at all, it just puts the guilt onto the reader.
The latest edition of Huckleberry Finn aims to get rid of every mention of the N-word. 219 times Mark Twain wrote the racial epithet. Now the book was written in 1884. The slur itself was an accepted practice back then, I’m sure. Twain, a celebrated and classical author, wasn’t criticized until the political correctness Nazi’s got a hold of the novel, I’m sure.
Wait, that’s not true you say?
In fact, when the novel was published for American audiences, many libraries refused to carry it. The public library in Concord, Massachusetts decided against cataloguing the book, saying its humour, as limited as it was, was crude, and ‘more suitable to slums than to intelligent, respectable people.’ The Brooklyn Public Library in New York banned the book in 1905, calling it obscene.
The book itself was criticized by literary giants Louisa May Alcott, Ron Powers and Ernest Hemingway. It should be noted these authors believed the novel was generally well written, until the end of it, when Jim is freed by Huck Finn.
As a side note, you’ll notice I didn’t say ‘N-word’ Jim. He’s never called that in the book. Not once. Read it yourself.
The fact that the story itself, as I interpret it, is an attack on racism is generally glossed over. A fact that most scholars are aware of, but most policy makers and ‘nanny-state’ legislators don’t see. The see the N-word. 219 times.
It’s not the only book to use the slur. To Kill a Mockingbird, written in the 1960’s by Harper Lee also makes use of the N-word. But the use is almost exaggerated. And it’s used blatantly as a tool to point out how wrong racism is. That being said, Lee has come under criticism for the use of the word as well.
The publishers of the 2011 version have replaced the N-word with the term ‘slave.’ I can’t help but wonder if this will make it any different. I mean, it’s like Louis C.K said, now it’s all in your head, isn’t it?