Same-sex marriage is immoral--philosophical and economical arguements

Same-sex marriage is a hot topic. I am opposed to it for philosophical, pragmatic, economical and religious reasons. While some regard religious reasons as irrational and pointless, they are the most powerful, but I'll save them for last.
Philosophically, if everyone in the entire world did some action and our world was a better place, that is a moral action. Conversely, if everyone did this action, and our world would be worse off, then that is immoral. If everyone in the entire world were homosexual, our world, our species, would be in bad shape. Therefore, why should I uphold what I philosophically oppose?
Pragmatically, religious and other semi-religious organizations (such as the Boy Scouts of America) oppose homosexuality, and they are being punished for doing so. The Catholic church in Massachusetts for a century placed orphans into loving homes. But because they religiously opposed putting orphans into homes of same-sex married couples, they lost their adoption license. Other religious organizations are being penalized in other ways. Pragmatically, our society depends on religious organizations to teach citizens to be morally upright. Society will not function if its citizens are immoral, only obeying the law out of fear of punishment. Societies need religions to do what government can't do: instill values into the citizenry. Don't punish religion because religion warns of (divine) punishments!
Economically, I oppose allowing same-sex couples to enjoy the tax benefits of marriage. A "byproduct" of marriage is another generation of tax payers. Same-sex couples physiologically do not make more tax payers.  Here me and my wife are, making another generation of tax payers (which is not the most easy job in the world), dumping money into the economy (or at least the disposable diaper sector, the child textile sector, etc), and instilling moral values into the future adult citizens of the nation. Why should same-sex couples get spousal tax benefits, spousal social security, etc. when between the spouses, they physiologically don't make tax payers to support them?
Religiously, I know that morality isn't relative; it is absolute. Science depends on absolute standards so that results can be compared between labs, generalized to other fields, and applied for the benefit of humanity. Can you imagine what science would be like if every scientist measured distance in their own footsteps? Religion and science have different ends, but similar means: they both convey (the discovery) of truth. Why should we allow science to have absolute standards, but deprive religious people of their claims of absolutes?  Homosexuality is immoral, and that is an absolute truth.

Healthcare in America

I once met a lady who had been a "frequent flier" of the healthcare system. At the time I met her, she was only slightly morbidly obese (pushing 300 lbs), but she had been up near 400 before a surgeon finally agreed to do a lipo-suction (despite her body being in horrible shape for anesthesia and the stress of surgery). Prior to that, she had bariatric surgery (or something like that) to shrink her stomach, she had had multiple surgeries on her knees since they were in a chronic state of pain (can you imagine how your legs would feel if they had to carry 4 times the weight they were meant for?), and she was also known as a 'doc shopper,' going from one doctor to the next since something they did erked her. This lady was pretty well informed about her healthcare, but she had near zero understanding of her health. She felt it was the doctors job to fix her up. And in a way it is, but there is a very tiny amount a doctor can do to help in comparison to what people can do to help themselves.
I don't know what I think about the new healthcare system in America that Pres Obama wants. On one hand, I am happy that more people will have access to better healthcare, but on the other hand, I am ashamed about any part of the legislation allowing easier abortions. Also on this hand, I think it will make our system more like other social medicine systems, s l o w. As if things aren't slow enough already...
I really hope that the new healthcare system gets people more interested in their health, rather than the attitude of the lady I met--focused solely on healthCARE and not on improving her own health. Maybe people will realize that they won't be able to get their health problems taken care of the day after a problem arises, so they will be more careful about their health. It is sad to see people in the hospital that made bad choices about their health and have basically given up a significant portion of their lives for it. And now they are hoping and praying that the healthcare system can undo what they did...
Moral of the blog is 1) don't smoke, 2) don't drink, and 3) if you think you maybe should do something about your health or well-being, just do it.

street vs book smarts

So I met a few folks from my Alma Mater earlier today, and was thinking back to the awesome time I had there. I also remember talking with a lecturer who was a self-made business owner and had made enough money to basically retire in his 40's but still taught business to keep busy. He heard I was going to a medical scientist training program, and he looked at me and said something to the effect of the following. "So, I've been thinking, and you know what could make you one of the richest men in the world? Find a cure for cancer. All the baby-boomers on the planet would spend their fortunes to save their lives."

Here was a guy with a lot of street smarts--he had used them successfully and made lots of money in the process. But his book smarts are a little rusty. There are literally thousands and thousands of scientists and doctors that have devoted their lives to curing cancer, some for altruistic reasons, some for monetary, many for both.

Anyways, it made me think which one I would rather have if I could only have one... Then it hit me "Duh! You DO only have one, and it's book smarts!" And that's that.

Car washes

It seems like whenever we get the car washed, it rains soon after--kinda like the act of washing the car is a modern-day rain dance. Not this time! I was about to get the car washed the day before yesterday, and I decided against it last minute, and so I'm not sad at all that it is cloudy today. Ha, take that, mother nature!

Expert or Just Rich and Famous?

Why are Jim Carrey (who dropped out of high school), Jenny McCarthy (a model and actress), and Robert F Kennedy (an attorney by training) qualified to influence people about vaccinations? Is it because they are experts in human biology and immunology? Or is it because they are rich and famous?

I get a little frustrated seeing people eat up what Jim Carrey said about how the one-size-fits-all mentality does not apply to vaccines. He is partially right--one size actually only fits about 99% of kids. There are an extremely few individuals with immunodeficiencies (but soon all 50 states will be testing all newborns like they do in Wisconsin) that leave them with lives like "the bubble-boys." But when it comes to vaccines, the genes that control our immune systems are over 99% identical regardless of where you live and who you are (no that is not including the hypervariable VDJ recombo regions in our lymphocytes, but if you know what I'm talking about then you probably aren't anti-vaccine).

And what makes me mad is that people take what Jenny McCarthy say she 'thinks' about vaccines as guidance over what scientists, doctors, statisticians, and the 400,000 participants in the most recent and biggest vaccine efficacy/safety study say. It all seems to me like beauty and emotion are winning more people than logic, evidence and experience.

And what is a lawyer by profession saying about too many vaccines being a problem for kids? Kids and adults are exposed to BILLIONS of microbes every day, so limiting the amount of microbial peptides in a vaccine is not going to make them any safer--it will just make them less effective.

People argue that the science behind vaccines is over 200 years old. It is older than that--it is as old as humankind!--scientist just came to understand it then and use it for good. Just like electricity--it's always been there, we just haven't been able to do anything with it. And like with electricity, our understanding is getting better, so that's why the list of bugs covered by vaccines is growing and that's why they started to add adjuvants like thermisol (which contains mercury) in the first place--to make them better. But even when thermisol was in vaccines (up until the early 2000's), there was still more mercury in a tuna sandwhich than any vaccine. And mercury poisoning and autism are 2 completely different beasts, so it goes to show that people claiming the vaccine and autism link haven't studied medicine.

I'm tired of actors and politicians misusing their power and making little kids sick when it could have been prevented!

So that was on my mind and it's off so I can study in peace for my immunology test.

Illusion of Independence

So I have been studying (read "cramming") for a psychiatry test, and I have repeatedly thought "If only people didn't have the idea that they were completely independent and could do things on their own, they wouldn't have this problem in the first place."

No one is independent these days--we all rely on farmers to make food for us, and even farmers who grow their own food rely on store people for fertilizer, tractors, etc.

The psych lecture I was listening to that got me thinking about this was about people (especially doctors) thinking they didn't need help for depression and then they let it get worse and they end up doing things they regret in their saddened state.

Then the next lecture was about child psychiatry, and how families don't want to admit they need help with kids, but then once a crisis happens and help is forced on them, the child improves dramatically.

Independence is not right mindset--interdependence is better!!! See Stephen Covey's "7 Habits" book for more on interdependence;)

Global Warming Solutions

First off, if you like Al Gore, stop reading this.

A few years ago, I got an email from my dad about Al Gore, and how at the time he made his film on global warming, his mansion was the ultimate sign of hypocrisy.

Yesterday, I just found out about how Al Gore in 1997 recommended limiting family sizes to help solve global warming (yes, I'm over 10 years behind in my news). He has 4 kids, so what about himself?

I just want to say if you want to persuade people, set an example; don't be a hypocrite.