Monday and no flu vaccine
Well, this is a sad state of affairs. The American company which produces flu vaccine (in Britain) calling back half its production because of contamination should not be a surprise. Last year there were plenty of articles- for those who wanted to know- about the potential for crisis because the vaccines are not profitable and therefore aren't heavily produced. It raises, once again, the question about letting the marketplace rule or having the public have some oversight. There are things 'we the people' need that aren't profitable to produce....
I have been feeling angry at the tendency in public dialogue to go for the simplistic. I recently heard a teenager I know laughingly talking about a peer's comment on the 'gay marriage' issue. The comment? "God didn't create Adam and Steve, he created Adam and Eve." Not new, not even particularly funny, and really not germane at all to the discussion. Admittedly this was a teen talking but the dialogue probably didn't start with a teenager. So, I find myself trying for an analogy that would help people understand why this isn't an acceptable approach.
If you asked someone how an alarm clock works, they might tell you which buttons and dials to push to 'operate it'. That's the surface answer. A more knowledgeable person might talk about the electronic circuitry and how it's translated into what we see when we use the clock. If the clock's not working right, which answer would be more useful in order to fix it? It's the same with public policy positions- we need answers that address why and how the clock works, not just surface observations about which button to push.
Rain. Early winter. Gotta get to making something of the day.
I have been feeling angry at the tendency in public dialogue to go for the simplistic. I recently heard a teenager I know laughingly talking about a peer's comment on the 'gay marriage' issue. The comment? "God didn't create Adam and Steve, he created Adam and Eve." Not new, not even particularly funny, and really not germane at all to the discussion. Admittedly this was a teen talking but the dialogue probably didn't start with a teenager. So, I find myself trying for an analogy that would help people understand why this isn't an acceptable approach.
If you asked someone how an alarm clock works, they might tell you which buttons and dials to push to 'operate it'. That's the surface answer. A more knowledgeable person might talk about the electronic circuitry and how it's translated into what we see when we use the clock. If the clock's not working right, which answer would be more useful in order to fix it? It's the same with public policy positions- we need answers that address why and how the clock works, not just surface observations about which button to push.
Rain. Early winter. Gotta get to making something of the day.
Comments
Kae