First of all, I find Family Guy to be hilarious. But at the same time, I find the success of Family Guy to be a paradox because the series rely almost exclusively on politically incorrect jokes in our politically correct world.
I missed the recent episode that stirred up political controversy, but I heard all about it after the fact. In case you missed it, the uproar was over how the show mocked Sarah Palin's actual handicapped 1 year old son through the portrayal of a fictitious mentally handicapped character in the episode. People at work said "it was clearly sarcasm, what was all the fuss about?" Without having seen the show, I couldn't comment.
But now I have seen the clip, as well as Palin's response to the episode. After seeing both, I must say that I didn't find the Family Guy scene to be particularly funny, and I sympathized with Palin. Occasionally choked-up, Palin said she couldn't believe how cruel people can be in making fun of a little child that already is going to grow up with a difficult life. To her, Trig is like every other child, happy and enjoying the world. In that moment, listening to her describe her parental perspective, all I saw was a mother defending her child from a vicious world.
No matter what one's political persuasion, I just couldn't believe how people could hate someone so much to think that such a low blow was in any way fair game. It just made me stop and think about how ugly things have become. It is as if blood has been tasted and the kill must be completed. Is this really what our mainstream culture and media is all about nowadays?
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Literally, you're dumb if you smoke
I read the following article (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,587241,00.html) on the FOX News website and found the conclusions to be controversial. This article describes a scientific study titled "Cognitive test scores in male adolescent cigarette smokers compared to non-smokers: a population-based study" that was published this month in the journal Addiction.
This study examined whether there was a correlation between smoking habits and the intelligence quotient (IQ) of over 20,000 Israeli military recruits. This paper reported that the average IQ of non-smokers was 101, but dropped to 94 for smokers. Furthermore, they claim that the drop in the IQ score correlated with the amount of cigarettes consumed by the individual. So, the average IQ was 98 for less than five cigarettes a day, and dropped to 90 if over a pack of cigarettes were smoked per day.
In conjunction with previously published reports, the authors of this scientific study conclude that a low IQ score is a risk factor for smoking addiction. Thus, they propose that anti-smoking campaigns should target youth with low IQ scores.
I don't know why, but I can't help feeling that the conclusions made by the authors of this study are biased by the age in which we live. For starters, tobacco was a major American agricultural crop because there was an insatiable European and global desire for this product for centuries. Smoking in some form, whether by cigarette, cigar or a pipe, was common among all strata of society. Now flash forward to modern day, a time where science has shown that smoking is an addiction known to cause death from lung cancer. Given our increased understanding of tobacco cigarettes as a carcinogen, I see the temptation to say in jest that choosing to smoke is stupid. But joking and attempting to prove such a sentiment are two completely different things.
Personally, my gut says the observed correlation between IQ and smoking may have a better scientific hypothesis. Nicotine, a compound that targets neurons and influences their activity, could have profound effects on the development and long-term function of an adolescent brain. Therefore, I'm curious to see whether studies in mice have examined whether nicotine exposure induces cognitive damage that could explain this study's observation that smokers have a lower IQ.
This study examined whether there was a correlation between smoking habits and the intelligence quotient (IQ) of over 20,000 Israeli military recruits. This paper reported that the average IQ of non-smokers was 101, but dropped to 94 for smokers. Furthermore, they claim that the drop in the IQ score correlated with the amount of cigarettes consumed by the individual. So, the average IQ was 98 for less than five cigarettes a day, and dropped to 90 if over a pack of cigarettes were smoked per day.
In conjunction with previously published reports, the authors of this scientific study conclude that a low IQ score is a risk factor for smoking addiction. Thus, they propose that anti-smoking campaigns should target youth with low IQ scores.
I don't know why, but I can't help feeling that the conclusions made by the authors of this study are biased by the age in which we live. For starters, tobacco was a major American agricultural crop because there was an insatiable European and global desire for this product for centuries. Smoking in some form, whether by cigarette, cigar or a pipe, was common among all strata of society. Now flash forward to modern day, a time where science has shown that smoking is an addiction known to cause death from lung cancer. Given our increased understanding of tobacco cigarettes as a carcinogen, I see the temptation to say in jest that choosing to smoke is stupid. But joking and attempting to prove such a sentiment are two completely different things.
Personally, my gut says the observed correlation between IQ and smoking may have a better scientific hypothesis. Nicotine, a compound that targets neurons and influences their activity, could have profound effects on the development and long-term function of an adolescent brain. Therefore, I'm curious to see whether studies in mice have examined whether nicotine exposure induces cognitive damage that could explain this study's observation that smokers have a lower IQ.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Are hotdogs the new Camel Joe?
Until reading the linked FOX News article, I was not aware that hotdogs currently have a choking hazard warning label on their packaging. But apparently, this already over-the-top safety measure isn't enough.
Tragically, a 4-year old died from choking on hotdog pieces. Now, this child's mother, backed by The American Academy of Pediatrics, is pushing for more warnings to be implemented regarding the danger of hotdogs. In addition, she is calling for changes in advertising of this classic American treat so that the ads are not targeted at children.
Obviously, choking is a serious issue and losing a child is devastating. But, am I alone in feeling like this reaction is extreme? I mean hotdogs aren't a pack of Camel cigarettes, whose manufacturer was accused of enticing children to begin a fatal addiction through the use of the Camel Joe cartoon image. My feeling is that every food could potentially cause a child to choke. So, where do we draw the line between predatory corporate advertising and personal accountability?
Tragically, a 4-year old died from choking on hotdog pieces. Now, this child's mother, backed by The American Academy of Pediatrics, is pushing for more warnings to be implemented regarding the danger of hotdogs. In addition, she is calling for changes in advertising of this classic American treat so that the ads are not targeted at children.
Obviously, choking is a serious issue and losing a child is devastating. But, am I alone in feeling like this reaction is extreme? I mean hotdogs aren't a pack of Camel cigarettes, whose manufacturer was accused of enticing children to begin a fatal addiction through the use of the Camel Joe cartoon image. My feeling is that every food could potentially cause a child to choke. So, where do we draw the line between predatory corporate advertising and personal accountability?
Sunday, February 21, 2010
When we die...
During one episode of The O'Riley Factor last week, I saw O'Riley interview Dr. Jeffrey Long. Long is a medical oncologist who recently wrote a book titled "Evidence of the Afterlife: The Science of Near-Death Experiences." This book is a summary of approximately 1300 international questionnaires and personal accounts of near death experiences (NDEs).
Most of the book is anecdotal with little to no concrete evidence. Therefore, the argument of an afterlife requires the reader to take a leap of faith and trust that these NDE accounts have not been falsified. But, as someone deeply curious about the philosophical and religious question of what happens when we die, I found myself intrigued by Dr. Long's book.
People that have had NDEs, called NDErs, remember experiencing very lucid visions of coming out of their body. Often, they see their own dead corpse below them during these out-of-body experiences (OBEs). Furthermore, NDErs witness conversations even some distance from their body, and these conversations are often corroborated once they are resuscitated. During an NDE, people frequently encounter known or unknown dead relatives who guide them through this journey. Interestingly, words are often not needed because telepathy is used to communicate to the NDErs. Frequently, NDEs include a life review in which the person sees forgotten actions and judges whether they were kind or good during their lifetime. Finally, the person reaches a barrier in which they ultimately can not pass before they are commanded back to their earthly body. These experiences are so powerful that NDErs are often transformed for the rest of their life.
Like many people, I've heard of out-of-body experiences (OBEs), people seeing white lights as well as past memories. I've also heard the medical establishment's perspective that these lights must be due to the death of optical neurons, that the replaying of past life events are because of dying memory neurons, or that these people are dreaming and not really dead. However, Dr. Long points out that NDEs occur in people who are clinically dead with no heart or brain activity, and thus, who have no ability to produce dreams, visions or conscious thought. Therefore, clearly the current medical explanation is incomplete.
Personally, some of the more compelling "evidence" discussed in this book pertained to people who have been blind since birth. These individuals have NDEs that are identical to people that are not blind. Meaning, people blind since birth have very vivid visual experiences during their NDE. To me, there is no medical explanation for a blind person having residual visual neural circuitry that could be randomly firing during the death of these neurons.
One of the last points of this book, was that there appears to be universalilty to the NDE experience. By comparing NDE accounts from around the world, Dr. Long reports that the same elements are present in NDEs regardless of the culture or religion in which the individual is associated. This is suggestive of a common human bond in life and death.
In conclusion, I found this book thought-provoking. However, I would like to see more data, which reminded me of a news article I read a while ago that can be found at the following website:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1842627,00.html
This article describes an ongoing scientific study called AWARE (AWAreness during REsuscitation). The AWARE study is an international effort by 25 European, Canadian and American medical centers where cardiac arrests occur. In order to scientifically study the NDE, this study employed the strategic placement of visual elements or cues in locations within an emergency room that can be seen only from the ceiling. The hypothesis is that patients who report out-of-body experiences should be able to describe these visual cues if they were able to hover by the ceiling while looking down at their body. Unfortunately, this study is still ongoing and therefore these data have not yet been reported. But, I am anxious to see the results from this study!
Most of the book is anecdotal with little to no concrete evidence. Therefore, the argument of an afterlife requires the reader to take a leap of faith and trust that these NDE accounts have not been falsified. But, as someone deeply curious about the philosophical and religious question of what happens when we die, I found myself intrigued by Dr. Long's book.
People that have had NDEs, called NDErs, remember experiencing very lucid visions of coming out of their body. Often, they see their own dead corpse below them during these out-of-body experiences (OBEs). Furthermore, NDErs witness conversations even some distance from their body, and these conversations are often corroborated once they are resuscitated. During an NDE, people frequently encounter known or unknown dead relatives who guide them through this journey. Interestingly, words are often not needed because telepathy is used to communicate to the NDErs. Frequently, NDEs include a life review in which the person sees forgotten actions and judges whether they were kind or good during their lifetime. Finally, the person reaches a barrier in which they ultimately can not pass before they are commanded back to their earthly body. These experiences are so powerful that NDErs are often transformed for the rest of their life.
Like many people, I've heard of out-of-body experiences (OBEs), people seeing white lights as well as past memories. I've also heard the medical establishment's perspective that these lights must be due to the death of optical neurons, that the replaying of past life events are because of dying memory neurons, or that these people are dreaming and not really dead. However, Dr. Long points out that NDEs occur in people who are clinically dead with no heart or brain activity, and thus, who have no ability to produce dreams, visions or conscious thought. Therefore, clearly the current medical explanation is incomplete.
Personally, some of the more compelling "evidence" discussed in this book pertained to people who have been blind since birth. These individuals have NDEs that are identical to people that are not blind. Meaning, people blind since birth have very vivid visual experiences during their NDE. To me, there is no medical explanation for a blind person having residual visual neural circuitry that could be randomly firing during the death of these neurons.
One of the last points of this book, was that there appears to be universalilty to the NDE experience. By comparing NDE accounts from around the world, Dr. Long reports that the same elements are present in NDEs regardless of the culture or religion in which the individual is associated. This is suggestive of a common human bond in life and death.
In conclusion, I found this book thought-provoking. However, I would like to see more data, which reminded me of a news article I read a while ago that can be found at the following website:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1842627,00.html
This article describes an ongoing scientific study called AWARE (AWAreness during REsuscitation). The AWARE study is an international effort by 25 European, Canadian and American medical centers where cardiac arrests occur. In order to scientifically study the NDE, this study employed the strategic placement of visual elements or cues in locations within an emergency room that can be seen only from the ceiling. The hypothesis is that patients who report out-of-body experiences should be able to describe these visual cues if they were able to hover by the ceiling while looking down at their body. Unfortunately, this study is still ongoing and therefore these data have not yet been reported. But, I am anxious to see the results from this study!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
