I love animals as much as the next person, but seriously folks

What's big in the news in Edmonton these days? The visit of celebrity former Price Is Right host Bob Barker! That's right, come on down...to protest the conditions the humble "Valley Zoo" offers for an ailing elephant? Representatives of the Valley Zoo, which has housed Lucy the Asian Elephant for 32 years, say that she is fine where she is, and that the stress of traveling to an elephant sanctuary in California poses a risk to her life due to a respiratory condition. Opponents say that the zoo does not offer a suitable habitat, and that she should be with other elephants in a more tolerable climate. The move would not cost the zoo anything - the approximately $200,000 bill for transportation and other costs would be covered by the sanctuary and other animal rights groups.

TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS to move ONE elephant so that she may live out her life in peace. Now I believe that as humans, we should respect and cherish animals, and treat them humanely as much as possible. But when I hear about animal rights groups who are willing to spend that kind of dough to move someone else's elephant without batting an eyelash, I get a little bit angry. The economy sucks, both Canada & the US are facing serious issues when it comes to healthcare, housing and employment, and these people think the best use of their money is moving an elephant?

What about people living in terrible conditions? Are there any celebrities coming up from the US with big money to protest the less than humane conditions that homeless humans endure in our harsh Canadian winters? I have a dog and I love him very much, but I have to say, I would not hesitate to throw him under a bus to save my child, someone else's child, or even my worst enemy. In my opinion, human life has infinitely higher value than the life of any animal.

Am I saying that I don't think that there is any value in putting money towards causes dedicating to the humane treatment of animals, or to the preservation of endangered species or natural habitats? No. What I am saying is that we have to use our uniquely human skill of logic to decide what is a reasonable allocation of resources when it comes to a desired outcome, and my mind is saying this doesn't add up. $200,000 for (best case) 30 years of peace for an elephant (who her current keepers say is fine where she is), with the chance that she could actually die in transit (worst case). Even if your main concern is animal rights and you're not all that concerned about alleviating human suffering in the world this seems like a risky bet. How many pets could $200,000 spade or neuter, therefore causing fewer unwanted puppies and kittens, and thus freeing up space in animal shelters? Wouldn't this be a better use of resources than moving one elephant?

I guess the faulty assumption on my part is that the animal rights movement as a whole is logical or based on reason. This is not to say that individuals who contribute to or work in areas that are dedicated to animals are all unreasonable or illogical, there are many worthy causes relating to the rescue and humane treatment of animals. But in general I would say that there is a lot of misinformation and emotion based tactics that are used to fuel the cause, and that legitimately worthwhile endeavours in this area are cheapened by the radicals. I won't get started on PETA in this post, but if you Google "pen and teller PETA", you will get an idea of where my feeling lie.

Things that will probably kill me before vaccines

1. NOT heart disease - I would like to say that despite suspicions raised by my brother Matt about my stress level, I actually have the blood pressure of an elite athlete - it's one of those weird phenomenon, like the lady who smokes a pack a day until she's 114 or that one 600 lb guy who doesn't have diabetes.

2. Something that I probably should have gotten vaccinated for.

3. Road rage. I read a book that talked about how we are bolder in cars and on the phone because we basically de-humanize people when we don't have to look at them when we're being rude. Guilty as charged. Despite a terrifying run in with a road raging maniac when I was 17 thanks to rude gestures made by my younger brothers, it doesn't take much for a rude or careless driver to get my heart racing and my horn honking. For my son's sake, I am working to overcome this before I tick off the wrong guy and it's headlights out for good.

4. The stove. I don't have OCD, but like most normal people (I think?) I do have the occasional fit of anxiety wondering about whether my house is going to burn down because I left the stove on, and I always knew that somehow my worrying was not in vain. Finally, I was right! I was watching the news the other day and there was a story about stoves that TURNED ON BY THEMSELVES, making their owners think they were crazy until after a couple of incidents, there was a recall. So a message to my stove: I am watching you.

5. Clothes. A closet the size of a small bedroom + 10 foot ceilings + a hatred of folding laundry = lethal mountains of garments and other random stuff. They'll never find my body and everyone will think my husband did it.

6. Spicy food. I'm not talking Tabasco sauce, dried chili flakes or the "hot" wings at your local bar. The fever inducing death sauce I'm working on is about 1/2 as potent as pepper spray, and every hit leaves me craving more liquid pain and the endorphins it pumps through my veins. If this is the way I go, it will be a slow and painful death, but I will die happy.

A few things I didn't know about vaccines

Recently a friend sent me an anti-vaccination pamphlet to consider. My first thought was "what a load of garbage - people who don't get their kids vaccinated are a menace to society", but remembering back to my last post about taking time to consider both sides of an issue before passing judgment, I took some time to do a little research on the subject, and was surprised at my findings.

One of the outrageous sounding claims on the pamphlet was that vaccines contain "human cells from aborted fetal tissue". Now, regardless of your stance on abortion, I have to think that the idea of aborting babies to make vaccines, or even using already aborted dead babies to make vaccines would make most people uncomfortable. One wouldn't make a claim that is so obviously controversial without having some kind of backup, and sure enough, my research (ok, my Googling) provided some interesting details. The vast majority of vaccines, and pretty much all of the ones that are on my baby's vaccination schedule do indeed contain "human diploid cells". In order to cultivate a virus for use in a vaccine, it has to have host cells, and the cells that are used in most vaccines in the US (and therefore Canada) can be traced back to three aborted fetuses from the 1960s. Cells were removed from the deceased infants (which were not aborted for scientific purposes), and have been cultured (grown) in labs and used for various medical and research purposes ever since. Now, I don't know about everyone else, but it is unsettling to me that this is something that is not common knowledge.

This was probably the most shocking of the items on the list. There were several more recognizable ingredients (a mercury derivative and formaldehyde for example), and a lot of menacing and inedible sounding ingredients. I looked around at the details for these, but the reality is, children are exposed to varying levels toxins in their environment every day through vehicle exhaust, second & third hand smoke, building materials, and possibly, food. There is strong anecdotal evidence that points to devastating and even deadly reactions in some individuals, but mortality rates from preventable diseases in countries with strong immunization rates provide convincing evidence that the benefits outweigh the risks posed by injections of small amounts of potentially toxic stabilizers and preservatives.

My biggest concern arising from this mini-research project was that as parents, we are really making the decision to vaccinate our children quite blindly. It is one thing to make an educated decision based on a solid grasp of individual and societal benefits and risks, but it is quite another to simply show up, read the limited materials provided, authorize injections of heaven knows what into our precious babies, and make the next appointment (exactly what I did for the first three immunization appointments for my son).

Am I saying that I am not going to continue with scheduled vaccinations? No (although this no is a lot more shaky than it would have previously been). I still believe (based on my somewhat limited knowledge) that on a societal level, the mass benefits of reduction and elimination of dangerous diseases outweighs the risks to the individual, however, I do feel that this topic warrants more research, and that my opinion on this topic is not nearly as black and white as it was before.

An exceptionlly long excuse as to why I don't blog more

I had high hopes for my blog. I envisioned myself writing witty and interesting things every day, and earning scads of loyal followers, publishing a book, my own talk show! But here I am, nearly 2 months later (I think, I don't even remember when I started this thing...) and I am only on my third post. The problem is not that I don't have things to say, it's that I have TOO much to say (how cliche, I know). But seriously, anyone who has met me for long enough to get past the pleasantries knows that I have an opinion on literally EVERYTHING. So why no posts you ask? Why no insane rants on every imaginable topic? The fear of being exposed for the prejudiced, opinionated jerk that I am inside has frozen me every time I have sat down with what I felt was a good blog topic. Without the warm and forgiving cloak of anonymity, I feel exposed, the imaginary wind of public judgment whipping at my soft underbelly. My fingers seize up on home row as I imagine my words coming back to haunt me just as I am about to receive the Nobel Peace Prize or take the oath of office (I don't know which one yet).

So my topic for today I guess would be, am I embarrassed about what I actually think, is what I think wrong, or is it just my Canadian politeness getting in the way of my success as a blogger? If we hold opinions that we don't want to share just because we don't want to rock the boat, maybe it's time to really evaluate those topics, and figure out if our stance is really a stance worth taking, or if we are simply echoing something that we heard or read once because it sounded good at the time.

In taking a closer look at my own views, I have reached the conclusion that perhaps it is not that my more controversial opinions are wrong, but that in general people don't like to be confronted with uncomfortable discussions, especially when it is something that relates to a choice they have made or a view that they strongly subscribe to. Our culture tells us that we are to be tolerant and that everyone has a right to their own opinion (which I totally agree with), but the reality is, when this is taken to a certain level, it becomes just a convenient way of avoiding confrontation that discourages discourse and does not really encourage people to think through their decisions and purported views (aka echos). Taken to the extreme, it weakens the ideas of right and wrong which are the core of the social contract that keeps our society from plunging into anarchy.

So what is the solution, I ask myself? Do I sit quiet with my opinions so that friends, relatives and strangers don't feel challenged or perhaps judged? Or do I blurt out what I think with no regard to the many sides of an issue? Or do I temper my opinions in a "you're ok, I'm ok, we're ok" kind of wishy-washy way? Is there an option that is going to please everyone, a way in which I can provoke safe dialogue on important issues without people I care about thinking less of me? And the sad answer is probably no. As humans, we don't like to be wrong. It elicits a whole range of uncomfortable emotions - embarassment, shame, and fear, and our gut reation is to try to avoid discomfort, so we generally avoid confronting issues that make us feel this way, or we respond in a way (usually anger) that helps us to cover those feelings of discomfort.

So in conclusion, I think I will blog, and I will probably say some things that make some people (or most people, or all people) uncomfortable or even angry, but please if you plan on reading my blog take what I have said above into consideration. I am not trying to exert myself or my morals or thoughts on others, I am simply putting thoughts out there in the hope that discourse will arise, and that through intellectual challenge, growth may occur.