Subject Matter Experts: Everywhere

Thousands of Subject Matter Experts Speak out on Whitney Issues

It's true.  Just log onto Facebook or read the tweets.  Subject matter experts, never before seen are coming out of their shells to announce what really happened to Whitney, and to expound on what a tragedy it truly is.  It seems that whatever the current media hype is, there is a frequently tapped resource they use to propagate their stories, you.

Whether it be an anchor lady getting bit by a pit bull on her show, Whitney's death, or Tennessee's "Don't Say Gay" bill, there are subject matter experts in almost every household.  People, by the droves, are chiming in on what they believe, not the facts, not actual real life experience, just what they 'feel' should be the answer.  The question is, are you really qualified to open that stink maker and talk about an issue?

Of course you are! It's your first amendment right! Hell, I wouldn't be typing this now if I didn't have the right to.  Everyone has the right to speak out about anything.  Now we delve into the filmy and murky waters of, "If I have the ability to do something does that mean I should?" Well luckily our nation, so far, has been led by people able to withhold this impulse, because without it we would probably have started a nuclear world war.  Our nations leaders have had the ability to do some pretty scary stuff but we have been granted a reprieve, so far, in that they haven't fulfilled the impulse to "just nuke em'!"

Doing what you have the right to do and doing what you have the ability to do are two totally different mine fields.  Hell, I have an English Lit degree, have been published 3 times and I still feel inadequate to the task many days.  Sometimes the news is so sensationalized I wonder why it even rates as news.  The one limiting factor I have is this; today we write as though the words pour out onto the screen are digested by the masses and then we forget about what we put out there, much like we would toss an unwanted piece of trash.  Once we move beyond it, we forget it.  But like trash, our rants, hopes, status updates, and the like are there to stay. 

We are trashing up our timeline for the future historians.  It is one thing to see a well written, slightly biased or unbiased article addressing a subject, and a complete other matter to see "OMG Whitney died!! ZOMG it was the mother, I knew it all along!!"  Is this really the legacy we are happy leaving for future generations?  Technology will continue to expand exponentially, at least for a decade or two more.  By the time our infants are posting their own status updates they will be much more informed and able to handle the massive amounts of media we have to express ourselves.  Do we really want them to see us as the whole nation that devolved into Yellow Journalism?

We've even become experts already at dissecting news casts and laughing at obviously biased outlets.  What makes us feel anyone treats our views differently?  The only thing we can do is make sure we stick with the facts and allow our biases to be changed through reporting and research.  

So what's the BIG deal with BIG dogs?

Warning: Graphic images contained in this article.  Not for the easily deterred or the young.

So What's The BIG Deal with BIG dogs?

Aww look! They are checking the flavor!

The arguments abound but it seems each side has issues when it comes to dogs, especially big dogs, but more specifically Pit Bull Terriers and Rottweiler Breeds.  Why are these canines getting so much bad press?  I'll look at this from a logical stand point and then showcase it from the "How obvious does it have to be?" stand point. What it all boils down to is that dogs bite.  They bite just about anything they can.  They do it all of the time and we think it's 'cute' until the fateful day it happens to us, or worse our children.

The worst arguments can be found when it comes to pit bull owners claiming the innocence of their beloved breed.  The dark truth comes from the fact that many reports on the brutality of the pit bull come from FORMER pit bull owners after an attack.  Let's take a moment to look at the relative data and skip over the anecdotal evidence. 

The Merritt Clifton study of attacks from 1982 through 2006 tracks the occurrence of dog attacks and maimings. According to Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes were responsible for 65% of deaths and 68% of maimings that occurred during a period of 24 years in the USA. (Clifton, Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006)

Attacked by Pit Bull while on his bike.

Another good study is the "Breeds of dogs involved infatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998" released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2008.  This study has come under attack for not representing a wide enough range of cases via their collection methodology, I think what few people understand is that MORE reports of cases aren't going to make this number go down, the best it could do is sprinkle the statistics better over the full course of dog breeds, making the numbers even more staggering. Dog Bite Related Fatalities (DBRF) only account for 0.0002 percent of all incidents where people are bitten by a dog!

Attacked by a pit bull after hearing a yelp from a pup.  This lady was nowhere near the pups in question.

The facts remain, a dog is not and CANNOT rationalize like a human, and yet we try to place our own idea of what a dog is "thinking" into our schema of how they should react. Dogs are animals.  Dogs are animals that have not evolved higher levels of reasoning.  If you doubt this please feel free to have your dog go to the store purchase a can of dog food, open it, and feed themselves.  We push our emotions onto our perceptions of our animals.  And why wouldn't we?  We've been doing it since the beginning of domestication, when we first reached out our hands and enlisted the help of the wolf for domestic energy needs.  But did domestication work?  Not really, what we call a domestic animal still relies heavily on their animal instincts and impulses.  A truly domesticated animal wouldn't bite, fight, or claw at an owner unless provoked by a similar action.  These dogs, however, are not biting, clawing, and rending flesh over a survival instinct but rather a territorial one.  The first and most important thing to remember about 'domesticated' animals is that they live extremely egocentric lives. 

Erin Dickenson after being mauled by two pit bulls on the way home from school.

Lets get back to debunking the popular arguments in favor of keeping dogs under loose regulation:

• About 40 children per year die from drowning in water filled pails.  A person in their lifetime is 16 times more likely to die in a water pail then be killed by a pit bull. - what this doesn't account for is that if pit bulls were as prolific as water pails you would be MORE likely to be killed by a pit bull.

• Approximately 50 children are killed every year in their cribs.  That's 25 times the number of children killed by pit bulls. - (a.k.a. 2 kids) Again if pit bulls were 25 times more present in homes with children you would find that number to be at odds with your beliefs.

• A child is 800 times more likely to be killed by a caretaker than a pit bull.  - I just can't say this enough, if pit bulls were everywhere a child's care taker is then there wouldn't be a population issue.

The issue isn't getting better either.  Political stymie and emotional endeavors hold dog regulations in check and this is the REAL issue.  Our population is expanding quicker then ever before.  Our predominantly rural society has changed into an urban upswing and it doesn't look like it is going to change any time soon.  If you can pull anything away from this please pay attention here.  Our population is expanding but we are not as exclusive as we were many years ago.  Dog attacks are going up each and every year because we are packing ourselves and our dogs into ever tighter spaces.  For us this is just something we process into our lives but for dogs this is not in their make-up.  They are able to encounter more people and in less space day-to-day now than they ever would have 100 years ago.  They are also more likely to be dissatisfied with less room to move.  We are advancing beyond what we can reasonably expect evolution to account for in dogs.

Exactly what triggers an attack is still unclear.  In this case it was handing out peaches.

As you've read this far you've likely noticed that I've left out dog owners in this article.  I'll address that now.  It is hard to hold only the dog owner responsible for a dog when the wide majority of dog owners have very little idea of how a dog actually thinks or to hold them responsible for a reaction that can happen within a millisecond.  It is easy for us to hold owners responsible because to us it makes sense.  We hold a driver responsible for the accident they cause, we hold a gun wielder responsible for the damage their bullets make, but we neglect to see that a dog, unlike a gun or automobile react and move under their own authority.  Hell we even spend hundreds of dollars taking our dogs to schools to hope that they can learn to not react they way their genes tell them to.

Any dog trained to attack or otherwise, if under the perception that it is being treated harshly (especially by a child) may bite a person.  Any dog can be turned into a dangerous dog, be it by the owner, the environment, or a misperception of actual events. All dogs have the potentiality to attack, we even encourage this behavior in our cuddly pups, playing tug-o-war with a rope is drawing on their natural reaction of rending and tearing flesh from a carcass... but damn it is cute!

So, what triggers dogs to attack?  Simple answer we don't really know.  Obvious aggression or threatening behavior can be a trigger but so can selling peaches from a stand, slipping on ice while walking your dog, and even sneezing. It all lies within the perception of the dog, so as people cohabiting with dogs we are asked to monitor the possible perception of any dog we come in contact with to ensure it doesn't attack us... and then it still may attack depending on the unforeseen. A biased but clear case for pit bull triggers can be found at DogsBite.org - Triggers: What Prompts a Pit Bull to Attack?

One cannot look at an individual dog, state its breed, and then state whether or not it is liable to attack.  So why all of the pit bull hate?  Simple, pit bulls are the most likely dog to attack anyone.  Normally, dogs tend to stick with the hierarchical and  admittedly smart process of not messing with other animals bigger than themselves, this is actually why more attacks on children are reported.  However, the pit bull does not have this limiting factor in it's personality.  Pit bulls are just as likely to maul an adult as they are anyone else, they spread the love evenly and at a greater rate than most dogs attack just children.

The conclusion is somewhat obvious, dogs are animals.  All dogs have been shown to kill, maim, claw, rend, and hurt us.  The truth then is that big dogs hurt more effectively than smaller breeds, and the more we grow the more this will happen.  So this isn't so much a case of "Why is everyone picking on my <enter name of big dog breed here>?" , but rather a case of "Why aren't we making uniform policy against all dogs?"

Why are YOU Still Smoking? Really.

Sort of an addendum to my last article...

Why are YOU still smoking? Really.

You GO, Boy!

It's not because there isn't a better way to get nicotine.  I've found a better way, in fact tens of thousands of prior smokers have found the better way, vaping.  It is true that technology makes our lives better.  We see it everyday, so why is it we're so quick to cling to a tradition rooted in tribal communities.  Smoking today is the equivalent to burning leaves and twigs in a tent to get your trip on.

Using a personal vaporizer (an electronic cigarette) allows you all of the physical naughtiness of smoking without actually introducing 4,000+ chemicals into yourself and those around you.  All you get is pure unadulterated nicotine.  

An e-cigarette in use.  Oh how different it looks!

Lets address that too, many people are still under the assumption that nicotine is the ingredient in tobacco that kills you.  If you believe this you are wrong.  The side effects of nicotine on the average person are comparable to those of caffeine.  It is the result of the combustion on tobacco that provides the majority of the 4000+ chemicals that are attributed to smoking aliments resulting in death. SMOKE kills, firemen and women know this, our politicians know this, our healthcare providers know this, why don't you?

Caffeine and Nicotine - CNS effects

But wait, maybe I'm jumping the gun here.  Maybe you do know smoking kills.  You've been using it as an age old argument against marijuana use for decades--even though it has been used in edible form for 100's of years.  Well, now vaporizers for marijuana use are prevalent everywhere and users are healthier than ever.  Users have naturally begun switching to vaporizers, not due to any societal stigma, but rather because it's the healthier choice.  Given a choice and with cheap enough technology people opt for the healthier choice.  Who wants the choice that sends them into the ground earlier?

Marijuana Vaporizer

Plus, both nicotine and marijuana are largely recreational routines.  Shouldn't our recreational activities be more rewarding?  The benefits of vapor over smoke are staggering in terms of enjoyment.  Taste, no comparison, vaporized nicotine/marijuana can be almost any flavor you can imagine.  Odor, again no comparison, vaporized nicotine/marijuana can smell like any of your favorite treats.  Plus you won't smell like cigarette smoke.  Did we mention the health benefits?

• Increased lung capacity (easier breathing)
• Increased lung function
• Increased blood flow
• Stabilized blood pressure

... this list could go on for a long time.

Chances are you've heard of electronic cigarettes if you are a current smoker. Hell, I heard about electronic cigarettes over 4 years ago and I wasn't even looking.  So if you are still a current smoker, why the reluctance to change?  Is it just the change, because I can assure you from my own and thousands of others experience there is nothing to fear.  The experience is so much more enjoyable and rewarding. 

Homework research - Information on the effects of vaporization:

American Association of Public Health Physicians

Health New Zealand Ltd. study

Journal of Public Health Policy 

Electronic cigarette Wiki

 

Marijuana Is STILL Illegal: Now You're Just Being Silly America

Marijuana Is STILL Illegal: Now You're Just Being Silly America

Isn't There a Better Alternative?

There is just no way around it.  Marijuana is illegal and alcohol isn't.  How can a society be so blind to the truth that we make deadly decisions and die, while better alternatives exist? The facts are the real crux to this argument.  We know that alcohol is toxic, so much so that we've gone to great lengths to make laws that protect us from ourselves while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage. We see each night the death toll rise from alcohol-related incidents via our nightly news broadcast.  We read about our neighbors, celebrities, associates, and even (heart-breakingly) our friends and family dying of alcohol consumption.  We hear the anecdotal evidence, and yet we continue to condone the use of alcohol.  I have to believe, I MUST believe that this is only a case of misinformation, because there is no logical argument, barring social engineering, that makes sense of a world where we promote a drug that kills tens of thousands each year while keeping a completely non-toxic alternative illegal.

Facts

• Deaths caused per year:

                        Alcohol induced - 23,199 (source:http://www.drugwarfacts.org)

                        Marijuana - 0

• Toxic deaths per year (deaths only from the direct consumption of a substance):

                  Alcohol - 331 (source: http://www.cdc.gov)

                  Marijuana - 0

• Ratio of a fatal dose to an effective dose (how much does it take to get drunk vs. how much it takes to die):

                        Alcohol - 10 (source: http://www.saferchoice.org)

                        Marijuana - unable to determine

"The acute toxicity of cannabinoids is very low. There are no confirmed published cases worldwide of human deaths from cannabis poisoning." (source: http://www.ukcia.org/research/AdverseEffectsOfCannabis.pdf)

           

• Number of patients admitted per year for dependence to:

                       Alcohol -73,000 (source: http://www.mercurynews.com)

                       Marijuana - less than 200

• Percent of rape and sexual assault attributed to:

                        Alcohol - 26.8% (Source: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov)

                        Marijuana - 0%

The Argument

There is no reason to keep marijuana illegal while we promote alcohol as the correct course of action for recreational use.  It is still amazing that given the choice, using marijuana or drinking a shot of alcohol, that alcohol pans out as the socially acceptable choice.  It's as obvious as a Jim Crow Law how wrong it is, but as with Jim Crow Laws people were willing to accept the ignorance of the law to adhere to the status-quo.

Unfounded opinion is what created the Jim Crow Laws just as unfounded opinion is what created our current (federal) marijuana policy.  It is hard in the argument, at this point, not to delve into a historical discussion of how marijuana became illegal, the best course then is to put the source on your screen and hope you feel the need to self-educate by clicking the link (Marijuana History)

Societal Pressure and Child Rearing

Even the wording used in the propaganda to enact our earliest Marijuana Laws sounds like it came right out of Jim Crow's memoir,

"... 'Marijuana Madness' is the belief to which the use of marijuana by colored people is said to cause excessive sex and violence, and threatens the safety of white women and children." (Source: marijuanatoday.com)

Other Notable Arguments that helped enact our CURRENT marijuana laws:

o       1920s: “Makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.” —H.J. Anslinger, Bureau of Narcotics

o       1930: “Marihuana is responsible for the raping of white women by crazed negroes.” —Hearst Newspapers Nationwide

o       1932: “Hasheesh goads users to blood lust.” —Hearst Newspapers

o       1935: “Marihuana influenced negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on white men’s shadows, and look at a white woman twice.” —Hearst Newspapers

o       1937: “Marihuana is the most violent drug in the history of mankind.” —Congressional Testimony, H.J. Anslinger, FBN

... and this is a truncated list.

Why do we promote our freedom and open-mindedness when we obviously have an issue making (or unmaking) the right choice?  If you had a gun that could kill 23 thousand people a year... well you would have a pretty good argument for that gun, but if you have a car that holds the same statistic, isn't it then obvious that you shouldn't buy that car?  Isn't it even more obvious when someone offers you an alternative that knocks that number down to 0 (or even nearer to 0)?

We were able to abolish the Jim Crow Laws because we knew they were wrong, we heard others echo our feelings, we saw the injustice, and we read the results of our inaction.  We continued to reform our laws and allow for minorities an equal measure to enjoy life and pursue liberty and happiness, so why did we stop before we addressed marijuana? It's just silly.

Oh, Homer *sigh*

Conclusion

This was a hard article to write.  It seems almost any approach  taken sounds widely biased.  I'm not particularly biased on the issue but the more I research our choice of recreational chemical I realize there are so many glaring double standards. It is often said, "We are not a society of critical thinkers" and every drunk-driver report on the nightly news reinforces this assumption.   

So why even bother? Why write an article that will clearly task society to use critical thought when most don't even know HOW to critically think?  It must be gumption, presumptuousness, and an inherent belief that critical thinking and solution-based problem solving are rooted in the human genome.  I believe... I have to believe, that America has had the wool pulled over its eyes.  If we, as a society, don't have the blinders on then we are lost.   

Critical thinking is not just some ghostly notion, or some novel approach to looking at issues. Critical thinking is the way we have survived and prospered throughout history.  Without this educational tool we will falter in the coming years, as our technology expands and our ability to communicate with other sides of the globe becomes as difficult as talking to someone in the room. At that point in time, is it really justifiable to cling to a social system that promotes a deadly poison as a recreational activity and keeps marijuana illegal?

Just changing your perspective to a informed perspective is enough.  This isn't a call to action, just a call for critical thinking. Just being knowledgeable is enough. At this point in time, in this day and age, ignorance is not an argument it is the promotion of a disease.