My Strong Words to the Parents of Un-Vaccinated Kids

I have some strong words for the parents who choose to leave their children un-vaccinated....

Who Cares. What we really need is a vaccine against stupid, because that's our epidemic.

Why have I seen 25 articles this week about vaccines?  Because a few kids in a few states got measles?  See here's whats really happening.  Theres a lull in the news cycle right now, theres no Ferguson, MO right now, theres no Zimmerman, theres no missing plane, and theres no Joseph Kony to be caught.  But unfortunately, boutique media outlets (the buzzfeeds, mother joneses, and voxes of the world) still need to get paid.  So if there isnt any news they need to make news, as sensational as possible, hopefully concern trolling upon your fears.  Theyre going to make the only thing still manufactured in the USA - Outrage.  They have an appetite for clicks on their articles, and baby its time to eat.  Who can they entice with an emotional appeal to click their garbage articles?  Howabout you 22-35 year old mother?  An article about the dire risks your child faces on a daily basis due to the 5% of kids that are un-vaccinated?  Thats right, your mama-bear maternal instinct will not allow you to skip by this article... your babies need your saving.  Oh and whats that? You have VERY strong opinions about the parenting of others?  Thats right, you post that article and you tell the other mommies that they cant mommy as good as you mommy.  Make sure they click the article too, our advertisers need to see unique visitors!  But heres the thing....

See there's three types of people when it comes to this whole vaccine debate:

1 - 10% of people who believe that all vaccines are terrible and cannot be trusted.  These people are idiots.

2 - 10% of people who believe all vaccines must be mandatory for everyone because "social responsibility." These people are bigger idiots.

3 - 80% of people who wish these other two types of people would shut up already and mind their own business.


Today I saw one of these mommy articles and the momma-bear was ready to go bare knuckles brawl anyone who doesnt vaccinate their kids.  "I WANT TO KNOW WHO YOU ARE SO MY KIDS CAN AVOID YOUR KIDS."  I asked a simple question of her - If your kids are vaccinated, and you believe the vaccine is effective, then why do you care?  She didnt have a response, but some little man-child-thing on her page did.  He said that I am an "anti-vaxxer" and that I cannot be reasoned with, that I am an extreme fringe segment of society with no ability for rational thought.  I stated my official stance:

"Most common childhood vaccines are standardized and have stable supply and demand, their routine use surely proves that their benefits outweigh their minimal risks.  However, for vaccines that are manufactured under time constraints (flu) or for new diseases that are rushed to market (HPV) there have been adverse side effects, marginal efficacy, etc.  I believe its prudent to take into consideration your risk factors, the statistics regarding adverse reactions, and the severity of the illness, and make an informed decision with your doctor rather than facebook commenters."

For this seemingly moderate train of thought I was excoriated.  I was called an "anti-vaxxer", a radical, incompetent etc.  Why?  Because I didnt blindly support the federal government mandating a health decision for every person in our country.  Whats convenient for these people is that "the science is conclusive" so you cant question their opinion.  Apparently Mr. Facebook guy and Ms. Facebook mom are now the CDC authorities on vaccine science.  Nevermind the actual manufacturer of the vaccine itself stating known side effects or adverse reactions... this science is settled!  My use of the term "individual liberty" is even scoffed at.... Okay, seems logical.  You know what else puts others in danger every day? Driving a car, lets ban that, its pretty dangerous.  What killed more kids last year, motor vehicle accidents or measles?

When did we come to a point where our society is willing to, after a whimsical read of one article, make personal behaviors compulsory.  There should be a pretty high standard to meet before anything is made mandatory in our country, that used to be a proposal that was unheard of.  Lets get something straight mommy, your kid received the vaccine, they are impervious to the disease you fear, so mind your business.  Lets say your kid is in the less than one percent of kids who legitimately cannot receive a vaccine, and encounters one of the 5% of kids who also (voluntarily) wasnt vaccinated, who also happens to live near one of the dozens of possible cases of measles in the entire country of 315 million people.  Well then your kid might get sick, sorry.  But heres whats really going to happen, your kid is going to go to school, learn some stuff, come home eat a chicken nugget and go to bed.  Theyll repeat this for like 15 years in a row, and youll move on to blogging about your new advocare cleanse.  Maybe that other kid (who you dont even know) will get chicken pox when they didnt need to, well sucks for them and their dumb parent. 

There was a time were moms brought their kids to the house on the street with chicken pox to make them get the disease, that was their vaccination.  Lets not lose our heads here... we're not talking about smallpox and polio, this isnt 1800.  Every day a lot more kids die of starvation, cancer, abuse, etc wheres your strongly worded article post for them?  Oh right, thats not about you, so it doesnt exist.  If you dont want your kids exposed to diseases we eradicated, then stop letting kids infected with them cross the southern border daily.  

These articles have done exactly what they were intended to do.  Get two sides to take up arms against each-other and argue until theyre blue in the face.  Because, if we arent arguing, commenting, and sharing, then media outlets arent making money... and just once we might unite and turn on the messenger rather than the message.  Cant have that. 

Rotten to the Common Core: My Testimony to the State Assembly Minority

You guys!  I know this post is long, but to me it's important.  If you've chosen to take the time to read it I'd like to offer you my sincerest thanks and urge you to read it in full.  If there is information here to which you hadn't been exposed that is good, please share it with others.  At the end you'll find quick facts that are more convenient for reference.  Please take this seriously, unlike some of my satirical posts this is real... this is our future we're dealing with...

The following written testimony has been prepared in opposition of the implementation of the “Common Core” learning standards in the state of New York.  Delivered at the Assemblyman Minority's Common Core hearing at the Rochester Memorial Art Gallery, November 20, 2013.

I. The Development of Federal Standards
We are here to discuss the current status of public education which by its very name indicates it is to be controlled by the public with their benefit in mind, yet what we have seen over the course of the last few years is a very deliberate excision of the public’s ability to affect change in their own institutions.  At the root of this issue are the common core standards, developed as joint venture between the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), both of which receive significant funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (Pullman, 2013).  The assertions that Common Core was developed through a “state-led” process is misleading at best, the truth is that a “validation board” of several state governor’s and well networked private interests was selected.  The members on this board tightly controlled and obscured the development process of the standards (Pullman, 2013/ NGA.gov).  The validation committee of 29 had 5 dissenting members who refused to sign off on the standards as being “evidence based” and their commentary was omitted from the committee’s report approving the standards (Pullman, 2013).  This pattern of silencing critics will become evident throughout the entire implementation of Common Core.  To date, the Gates foundation has spent $163 million developing this curriculum and lobbying the department of education to implement its changes (Pullman, 2013: Strauss, 2013).  Case in point, in an Indiana state hearing considering a bill to withdraw Indiana from common core, 26 of the 32 speakers that testified against the state’s withdrawal were employed by organizations that receive grants from the Gates Foundation (Pullman, 2013). 

Google’s dictionary defines a philanthropist as “a person who seeks to promote the welfare of others, esp. by the generous donation of money to good causes.”  One could argue that the Gates Foundation’s complete control over common core stems from philanthropic motivations, however, the Gates didn’t simply donate money to good causes, they actively sought to steer and control the implementation of their agenda, financially backing the only studies cited as “evidence” to support the adoption of these standards (Greene, 2012:Pullman, 2013).  The fact that the Gates foundation acted vicariously through the NGA and CCSO to control the validation process of these standards and even omitted the dissenting opinions of those on the validation board who refused to sign off on the effectiveness of the standards should have sounded alarm bells to state education boards around the country.

II. The Co-Opting of the States
These “Common” federal standards would normally be rejected by many state leaders who are rightfully skeptical of federal control, which is why their development was so closely guarded.  In order to force states to adopt the standards, they were included in the federal stimulus bill of 2009, and states were forced to adopt the standards before they could be independently reviewed (Pullman, 2013).

In New York State we should be alarmed to see that our board of regents and their fellows do not consist of elected officials and many of them have a close network of political affiliations funded by these national reformers (Winerip, 2011).  In 2010 the board of regents under Merryl Tisch established 13 research fellows to advise the state on the implementation of common core, these fellows receive up to $189,000 each which is largely funded by Tisch herself and a close to $900,000 dollar grant from none other than the Gates foundation (Winerip, 2011:Strauss, 2013).  Tisch is married to a billionaire investor and is reported to be close personal friends with other “philanthropists” such as Michael Bloomberg, who also provided $500,000 to fund the fellows (Winerip, 2011).  It becomes evident at this point that our state’s board of regents and its fellows are not free to make independent recommendations, but rather have become beholden to the influence of outside special interests.  In fact, several board of regents members who quickly identified this seizure of control issued a statement in the New York Times in 2011 that said “private people give money to support things they’re interested in,” and these fellow positions “come at a steep political price.”  This infusion of private capital brings with it the quid-pro-quo expectation that the board of regents and its fellows will expeditiously implement the agenda of their financiers.   

III. Selling Student Data: Crony Contracts

In NYS, bid-rigged contracts are the norm not the exception, especially in matters of accumulating private student data.  Enter InBloom, a once-defunct “cloud” storage interface used to accumulate data on students and store it in cyberspace.  InBloom was recently revived after $100 million in grants from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation (Singer, 2013).  Last week Jefferson County, the last school district in Colorado that contracted with InBloom (and received $5 million from the Gates foundation to do so) cancelled their contract citing parent concerns (Kamisar, 2013).  This leaves NYS as the only InBloom contract that operates on a state-wide level, as 8 other state partners have decided against contracting with InBloom citing concerns over the safety of the data storage.  On November 13, 12 parents filed a restraining order with the NYS Supreme Court in order to block their children’s personal data from being shared, a law suit they felt necessary because there is no opt-out clause (Kamisar, 2013).  Many districts across the state seem to share these concerns, and dozens of superintendents have withdrawn their districts from the Race To The Top (RTTT) program specifically citing student privacy as their reason for doing so.  In an era when districts face property tax caps, lowered state funding, and contentious public votes over education costs; it speaks volumes as to the infringements upon privacy of this program that superintendents would reject federal funds in order to distance themselves from such Orwellian data collection.  One of the main reasons that parents object is the fact that InBloom is “open-source,” meaning its coding is openly shared with developers who aim to create applications that they can sell to districts as a bundle with InBloom, and any open-source software is in danger of being hacked or infiltrated (Singer, 2013).

 NYS also offered a no-bid contract to “Wireless Generation” for $27 million, a data collection company overseen by former New York City chancellor Joel Klein, who happens to be a personal friend of the current chancellor Merryl Tisch (Winerip, 2011).  Several of the 13 fellows objected this contract but their objections were dismissed by Tisch, who they refer to as “the most controlling chancellor in history” (Winerip, 2011).  The contracts with InBloom and Wireless Generation were so suspect that they prompted a Freedom of Information Law (FIOL) request from a consortium of local Education Councils and PTA organizations as to the financial ties between the board of regents, Chancellor Tisch, and these private vendors, and questioned by the comptroller of the City of New York John Liu.  I find the obfuscation surrounding these relationships to be quite discomforting.

Lastly, Pearson education, the company that built and manages the website engageny should not be overlooked when dividing out pieces of the taxpayer pie.  Pearson is no stranger to questionable lobbying tactics and ethical dilemmas, with NYS being their finest example.  Dating as far back as 2008 Pearson identified lobbying state officials by offering them travel packages and “swag” bags as a selling strategy.  In 2011 the NYS Attorney General Eric Schneiderman issued subpoenas for funding trips of state education officials to Singapore, London, and Rio De Janeiro (Crotty, 2011).  Following one such trip, the former NYS Education Commissioner David Steiner offered Pearson a $1 million dollar testing service contract with the state department of education.  That contract ultimately led to a 5 year $32 million contract to administer the state regents and common core exams (Crotty, 2011).  Currently Pearson runs the state’s common core implementation site engageny which critics have demonstrated is rife with errors, omissions, and even missing pages.  This is not a local phenomenon, Pearson was intimately involved in the development of the standards with the NGA, and their lobbying investments peaked at over $1 million during the time that common core was developed (Opensecrets.org). 

IV. Impact Upon Students
Common core’s designers cite US test scores as the reason that common core is a necessity by comparing domestic scores to the scores of foreign students.  Discrepancies in this data may strike a chord with those who are passive observers to our educational system; however, the assertions made by reformers relying upon this data are patently false.  First, is it wise to compare our nation’s educational system - where each and every student has an opportunity to access a quality education - to our foreign competitors who track students from a young age and exclude low achievers from access?  Secondly, the achievement gap between high and low income students in the US is the smallest of any nation in the world (Rabinovitz, 2013).  In the past 20 years, our students from low socioeconomic households have shown marked improvements, while our highest achievers have shown a slight decline, do we aim to emulate our foreign competitors by widening that gap at the expense of low income students? (Rabinovitz, 2013).  If anything this should serve as an indictment of the one-size fits all movement of education reform.  To force all students to work at the same level and reach the same benchmarks can only logically result in a lowering of the common denominator.  While it is an admirable and righteous goal to raise the performance of our lowest achieving students, common sense and evidence alike dictate that individualizing the learning process through smaller class sizes and more direct instruction is the most effective way or raising student performance.  Purchased and prepackaged “Modules” that rely on a script and a timer are no way to individualize the learning experience, nor do they meet the needs of students with diverse learning foundations.  Our one-size fits all bureaucratic approach will fail to engage our low achievers, and stifle those students that are the most successful; most importantly it will disenfranchise an entire generation of learners who will form lifelong views that school is a meaningless practice in futility.  In the meantime, due to InBloom and Pearson we will have detailed analytic models that demonstrate to us that our students whose families don't value learning struggle to learn.  Education reform begins and ends with the family, period.

While the information presented in this testimony should be enough to make any taxpayer or privacy advocate cringe, the most damning aspect of the common core is its impact upon children.  The private interests behind common core have clearly demonstrated their capacity for stealth marketing, and nowhere is this more evident than in their sales pitch to parents.  Common core supporters cite that it will “raise the bar” for students and create “analytical and critical thinkers” because of its “increased rigor.”  As an educator who has been trained on common core, let me diffuse what these code-words mean.  “Raise the bar” and “increased rigor” are admirable goals that I would ardently support, however, there is little evidence that Common Core is successful in doing so.  Take for example the most recent state exam where our students were asked to diagnose the intents of a talking pineapple.  Students read a story akin to “the tortoise and the hare” in which a talking pineapple challenged a hare to a race and lost… at which point the animals present at the race ate the pineapple.  As if that story isn’t bizarre enough, it gets worse… Students were then asked questions such as “Why did the animals eat the talking fruit?” and “Which animal was the wisest?”  I, myself, would struggle to answer such questions.  How can we expect an eighth grader to diagnose the intents of a fictional talking pineapple?  Is that objective measurement?  Is that rigorous or nonsensical?  This is a simple case of Pearson (the test developer) enhancing their revenue stream.  They design tests so difficult and ambiguous that students show poor results, and then market test prep materials to the customer (state or district) at additional cost.

I have also seen an element present in many of the common core aligned materials that discourage and disincentive individual thought.  Close reading strategies and “technical texts” encourage students to read short technical passages, or in some instances manuals, rather than literature.  Furthermore, students are discouraged from applying their own criticisms or prior knowledge to the texts, all questions revolve around “what does the author say” or “find evidence in the reading.”  I believe this is the most dangerous practice in our “shift” to common core, in which students are forbidden from applying their independent criticism to texts and are learning to blindly accept anything presented to them as a factual model to which they must subscribe.  In this capacity “analytical thinking” is only encouraged if a student’s analysis is directly congruent with the Pearson answer key…any conclusion or answer provided that hasn’t been reached in the manner that Pearson’s key approves is marked as incorrect.  Imagine the apathy created in students when their correct answer is discredited because they did not reach their end by the same means as the faceless creator of a grading rubric.  While proponents of common core will correctly cite that these strategies are only encouraged, not mandated by common core, the financial backers of the materials will see to it that this curriculum is not separated from the standards themselves.

In conclusion, children are not common, free thinking productive individuals are not common, we should seek to inspire individuals to be uncommon.  To impose meaningless constraints upon expression, thought, and analysis, and force problem solving and intellectual exploration into a centrally planned grading key is an absurd proposition.  To create a system behind closed doors that is in diametric contrast to the recommendations of educational professionals and child psychologists is irresponsible, and to usher its implementation by purchasing favor with unelected officials is antithetic to our democratic process.  There are real benefits to the concentrated private interests behind common core to ensure that large cohorts of graduates are able to follow an instructions manual, but not have the capacity to innovate, become an entrepreneur, or question information.  Common core is intended to produce “career and college ready” students, but we must first produce vibrant, articulate and well-rounded individuals that will have the capacity to determine for themselves the goals and outcomes of their post high school endeavors.  Our constitution, the governing document of this nation, even goes so far as to caution us about allowing the federal government to influence education for this purpose.  The common core is not about rigor, it is about compliance, and to anybody reading this I urge you to contact your friends, family, and community, and make it clear to a select few private interests that we are not common, and we will not comply.  

Works Cited and Supporting Reference

"Common Core State Standards Initiative Validation Committee Announced." Common Core State Standards Initiative Validation Committee Announced. N.p., 24 Sept. 2009. Web. 18 Nov. 2013.

Crotty, James M. "No Educator Left Behind: Pearson, Leading Scorer of Standardized Tests, Subpoenaed." Forbes. N.p., 21 Dec. 2011. Web. 

"Forty-Nine States and Territories Join Common Core Standards Initiative." Forty-Nine States and Territories Join Common Core Standards Initiative. N.p., 1 June 2009. Web. 19 Nov. 2013. 

Greene, Jay P. "Jay P. Greene's Blog." Jay P Greenes Blog. N.p., 7 Jan. 2012. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.

Kamisar, Ben. "Lawsuit Filed in New York to Halt InBloom Program." Education Week. N.p., 13 Nov. 2013. Web. 19 Nov. 2013. 

"Pearson Education." Opensecrets RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Nov. 2013. 

Pullman, Joy. "Five People Wrote 'State-Led' Common Core." Heartlander. Heartland.org, 7 June 2013. Web. 

Pullman, Joy. "'State-Led' Common Core Pushed by Federally Funded Nonprofit." Heartlander Magazine. N.p., 24 Apr. 2013. Web. 18 Nov. 2013. 

Rabinovitz, Jonathan. “Poor ranking on international test misleading about U.S. student performance, Stanford researcher finds.” Stanford News. The Stanford University Report. 15 Jan. 2013.

Singer, Alan. "Pearson Rakes in the Profit." Huff Post Business. The Huffington Post, 19 Mar. 2013. Web. 

Singer, Natasha. "Deciding Who Sees Student's Data." The New York Times. N.p., 5 Oct. 2013. Web.

Strauss, Valerie. "Gates Gives $150 Million in Grants for Common Core Standards." The Washington Post. N.p., 12 May 2013. Web. 

Strauss, Valerie. "How New York's Education Commissioner Blew It Big Time." The Washington Post 13 Oct. 2013: n. pag. Print. 

Winerip, Michael. "Regents Pay a Policital Price for Their Free Advisers, Dissenters Warn." The New York Times. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Aug. 2011.

Quick Facts

Common Core:
- Created in private by two organizations (National Governors Association, Council of Chief State School Officers) with no local input and $163 million dollars of grants from Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

- Only 29 individuals on the validation board, 5 of which would not approve standards, their dissent was removed from the official record

- All supporting “evidence” comes from Gate’s funded non-profits, third party organizations are critical of the standard’s developmental appropriateness

- 2009 Stimulus funds coerced states into adoption prior to independent vetting

NYS Board of Regents:
- Chancellor Merryl Tisch is a billionaire personally aligned with corporate reformer special interests

- Boards special fellows appointed to implement common core are funded by Tisch ($1 million), Gates foundation (nearly $1 million)

- Dissenting member’s input disregarded when criticizing adoption of Common Core

Special Interests:
- $27 Million NYS no-bid contract to “Wireless Generation,” senior company official Joel Klein has personal ties to Tisch

- $32 Million NYS contract to Pearson education for testing materials following subpoena from NYS Attorney General for unethical lobbying

- Pearson ramped up lobbying efforts from $100,00 in 2006 to $1.2 Million in 2010 in order to push Common Core in the states

- NYS is the only state that contracts with InBloom ($100 million in funding from Gates Foundation) for student data, against the wishes of many districts

Testing:
- Independent research shows learning gap between high and low resource students is lowest in the US

- Independent research shows common standards lower high achieving student performance

Supernatural Media Bias.... The "Horrors" of Inequity

(Disclaimer: This post is purely satirical and intended to be read for entertainment purposes.  No other interpretations are intended, please read as such.)

This is my first post in over a year, which should speak to it’s importance.  I have noticed what I believe to be a disturbing trend in the American media that has dire consequences for all of us common folk.  Yes…as you may have suspected, I’m talking about pro-Vampire/anti-Zombie media bias.  The title of “Horrors of Inequity” has a double meaning in this instance.  We are all aware of the liberal media bias, President Obama is on the cover of every publication and newspaper touted as a hero while any disagreement with him (even factually based) is immediately labeled “racist.” Yet this vampire vs. zombie rift if far more insidious in nature and flies under the radar for most of us.  Following some brief introductory facts, this post will be grouped into three main categories, media portrayal of vampires, media portrayal of zombies, and finally, the political and social consequences of bias.

Introductory Facts:
From an objective standpoint what do we know about these two creatures?  Perhaps the following chart can help us draw some parallels:

	Vampires	Zombies
Walking Dead	Yes	Yes
Feed on Human Beings	Yes	Yes
Convert Victims From Bites	Yes	Yes

On paper, zombies and vampires are no different.  In fact some may find Zombies to be superior because they don’t suffer from the sunlight and garlic allergies that afflict vampires, and don’t need an invitation to enter your home and eat your brains.  Also, vampires drink blood which is not very intelligent.  Blood carries all types of disease, including HIV/AIDS and hepatitis.  Meanwhile, zombies eat brains (some argue the sexiest part of a person), sounds pretty smart to me!  Of course the media would have you believe that makes zombies thugs that will break into your house, while vampires are too polite and intelligent.  (We will delve into zombie/vampire test scores and crime rates in depth later in the post)  First we must look at how the media shapes our perceptions of these creatures by analyzing how they are portrayed.


Team Edward (Media Portrayal of Vampirism):
Turn on the television or look at the movies playing in the theater and you will see productions that romanticize vampires as dark, lustful, brooding characters of great passion and intrigue.  Has a vampire ever been portrayed as dim-witted or unsuccessful?  Are we to believe there aren’t some black sheep vampires out there?  This indoctrination of a populous with half-truths used to be known as “propaganda,” where I come from.

Look at our vampire leading men and women, we have Edward Cullen, a cultured vampire from a philanthropic family who believes in chivalry to the highest degree.   There is Colin Ferrel who brings masculine sexuality to the screen in "fright night", and even as an alcoholic womanizing vampire he is celebrated.  Then there is interview with the vampire (Brad Pitt) and “True Blood” on HBO, which are both essentially vampire pornography thinly veiled as drama.  On the female side we see Kate Beckinsale in a tight leather suit (leaves nothing to the imagination) making pouty faces as she annihilates werewolves with extreme prejudice.  I remember a quote from the band “Bush” in the 90’s that stated “there’s no sex in your violence.”  Apparently we don’t hold vampires to such a standard!  In addition, our vampire heroes always reside in large sprawling mansions, collect fine art, and drive the nicest sport’s cars money can buy (more on systematic income disparity later).

Team Jacob-stein (Media Portrayal of Zombification):
In the same light, when we look at how the media portrays zombies we see the opposite.  Dysfunctional, poorly educated, terrible hygiene, nomadic… any malady that you can attribute to a person is transferred upon these poor zombies.  The counterpart to “True Blood” is “The Walking Dead,” where hoards of zombies are shot or bludgeoned to death with no questions asked, and usually for minding their own business.  In the movies, zombies are butchered en-mass for comedic effect while they clumsily walk around oblivious to their plight.  The stars in these movies are the ones killing the zombies, which is in contrast to the vampires who play the role of the anti-hero.

I seem to remember learning about a word to describe an entire race or ethnicity being killed for no reason other than their appearance….what was that word?… oh yes, GENOCIDE.  If you think that killing large groups of zombies for sport is funny, you must have gotten a real kick out of the holocaust as well.  This all brings me to my last point…the unintended political and social consequences of media bias.


Mothers Don’t Let Your Sons Grow up to be Zombies (Consequences of Bias):
We know that the statistics don’t lie folks, Zombies are statistically more likely to be convicted of violent crime.  Vampires SAT and standardized tests scores are significantly higher than those of their zombie counterparts.  But I ask you, how can we blame a zombie for being a product of his or her environment.  Vampires have a plethora of systematic advantages over zombies that lead to these large disparities.  These negative aspects of zombie life are more a result of their socio-economic status than their craving for brains.

Vampires have more economic resources than zombies, their family trees are largely rooted in royalty, such is the case with Count Dracula. The first vampires had great wealth which they shared with their converts, this dates all the way back to the feudal system.  Vampirism began in the ranks of the elite in a deal with the devil for their soul, hence how they become immortal .  Now many of us are familiar with the time value of money, or the principal of compounding interest.  These vampires have been investing their wealth since the 1400’s, do you have any idea what the compounding interest of 600 years can add up to?  Couple this with an inequitable tax code on capital gains, and the rich only get richer.

In contrast, due to people’s perceptions of zombies, many competent and skilled zombie workers are victims of prejudice in hiring.  It is perceived that they are lazy and transient, and won’t be reliable workers.  The high unemployment rate of zombies is a direct result of the media’s constant attack on their accountability!  This inability to find steady work only widens the income gap between zombies and vampires.  Also, many zombies grow up in single parent homes (because their parent(s) were victims of zombie hate crime) which means less parent contact and less discipline.  Human on zombie hate crime is at an all time high, and it only re-enforces the negative cycle of violence in the young zombie mind.  When looking for a role model...which one of these would you choose?

My question is this… If zombies were given positive role models and a fair chance at social mobility, don’t you think we would see more successful zombie youth?  I would like to hear a young zombie say “someday, I want to be president,” or “someday I’m going to discover a vaccine to rid me of this virus that causes my insatiable craving for human flesh.”  As a person with a zombie family member, I have seen the detrimental impact our media has on a zombie’s psyche and self-esteem.  So I urge you to contact your elected officials and urge them to stop anti-zombie bias in the media.  Let’s start to make a difference in a young zombie’s life.  United we stand, divided we fall!

The Boys of Fall.... How we feel... and why?

Here we are, the first weekend of September... and with it comes the start of football season.  This time of year is so bittersweet for people like me, filled with excitement, anticipation, and unfortunately, longing.  Ironically my first real post on this blog will be about the only aspect of my life in which I allow emotion to trump logic.  If you were to tell me that I could make a deal with the devil to play another four years of college football, I would sign on the dotted line without an afterthought.  I don't really think I would even consider the price or penalty of such a decision, nor would it impact my response.  I know (or at least think) that many of my past teammates or members of the "Fisher Football Family" feel the same way.  This will be a long one...please bear with me.

A recent conversation with my friend Jeff lent perfect perspective to the feeling of.....post football traumatic stress syndrome.  This is Jeff's first year A.F. (after football).  I feel like there should be a support group for us, I know exactly how he feels watching his old team from the sidelines for the first time.  I assured him that he would learn how to handle the feeling better, but it would never go away.  As I suspected he knew exactly what I was talking about.  As Jeff put it, "I feel inadequate."  There it was. We agreed. I have a professional career, Jeff will be attending a law school, we look like we are successful people.  Yet inside, we feel like we have no purpose, like we are not doing what we are clearly designed and intended to do, what we have known for years.

So lets do the analysis gig on this... Why is this?

I've heard it a thousand times, football is just a game.  No.  Billiards is a game.  Football is more than that, I consider it a state of being... you have to give yourself to it and you'll never get that piece back.  I don't respond by saying that, I just say "yea I guess."  Because the bottom line is, someone who hasn't lived it is incapable of understanding the feeling.  I guess that makes this entire post irrelevant, oh well you got this far might as well read on.  I think a quote I once heard says it best:
"From the outside looking in, you can't understand it; From the inside looking out, you can't explain it."
I think we feel this way because football meets all of our sociological needs.  A sense of belonging, accountability to a group, a bundle of rituals and order, and a challenge and reward for your efforts.  We'll look at these one by one.

Sense Belonging/Accountability:
There is no other sport where trust and accountability play such a vital role.  Look at basketball or hockey, one great player can carry a team on his/her shoulders.  In football its 11 players, and if even one of them doesn't trust someone else to do their job, the whole group suffers.  Some people play a sport for themselves, but you play football for everyone else.  I've coached and seen football teams where people play for themselves... their seasons are over quickly and abruptly.

I look at summer lacrosse leagues I play in, or attempt to.  There are dozens of guys (current college players) that register for these leagues, yet by the end of summer they are canceled for lack of attendance.  Why?  Because bro, when you're a laxer, you just show up and roll, bro.  Drink some brewskis and chill man, its all good.... Well, unless you want me to work out in the off-season or skip my kan-jam session to be at a game, "that's whack bro."  I feel as if there was a group of college football players running an off-season passing league, they would be there for the commitment, and if someone wasn't he would hear about it from the rest of the group.  Football is amazing in policing its-self in that aspect.  Maybe that is why such a small percentage of players who begin a college career end it, it takes immense dedication, and some sacrifice.... not everyone is willing to pay that price.

Rituals and Order:
Sure there are the large rituals.  Tuesday is full contact day, Thursday is 2 minute drill, Friday walk-through. I used to hate practice, it sucks.  Don't get me wrong, it always sucked, yet I began to embrace it, its necessary, it creates....improvement.  Then there's pre-game meals, meetings, warm-ups, all of these big rituals promote order.  Yet, what I think of is the little things, the ...gulp.... emotional things.  It's about the feeling of 67 degrees, the fall breeze blowing leaves over the field, it just feels like football, love, excitement, thrilling uncertainty.  Trying to catch my breath while I look for hand signals, every 20 seconds, its tough to do, it happens so fast - lights flashing, colors blazing in front of you.  You try to take it all in, experience it and become one with it in just 20 seconds.  Then its over, get the call, line up, collect yourself.... its happening again.

Its also about eating the same exact thing 3 hours before the game, putting each pad in your pants in the same order, taping, strapping, tying... everything has to be just right.  Then you wake up one day and you have no taping to do, no strapping, no warm ups, no meetings, no rush.... what do I do now?

Challenge and Reward:
This is the most impressive part of the sport in my opinion.  You spend 4/5 years of your life, 2 hours a day, workouts, spring/summer/fall, films.  Yet you only get 40 chances, if you're lucky, to enjoy the fruits of your labor.  In each of those contests, you really will only play for 15 minutes of true exertion.  Think about that, a year's worth of full-time commitment for what is really a couple hours of reward.  Maybe that is why I can't remember what I learned in XYZ class, or even what I ate for breakfast yesterday, but I vividly remember even the most subtle minutia of every second on that field.  We learn techniques so specific that one little missed read step or one split second of indecision can lose a game, and a lost game can cost a season. Pierre Garcon reminds of me of that rather frequently when I watch him on Sundays.

So there it is... I apologize for the rambling.  But I think this explains why people like me can deal with major catastrophes in life rather well, yet tear up when college game day comes on, or they hear the speech in "Rudy" or "Any Given Sunday."  And it is why we prominently display our team colors in a picture on the wall, because:

This place to most people is bricks and turf and bleachers.  But to us, its our birthplace, our workplace, and maybe figuratively our resting place (for a piece of us at least).  What comes next is up to us....We will go on and have careers, and families, and many successes and failures, but we will never forget what shaped who we are and will always be a part of us.