Who You Gonna Call?

     Spoiler alert, three-story-tall walking marshmallow men do not come to life when they are possessed by ghosts. In the spirit of Halloween, I'd like to talk about issues that are overlooked, but not as serious as they have been.
     Myths and superstitions. These are half the fun of Halloween. Telling scary stories while eating candy high in sugar and low in nutritional value is probably the best part of Halloween. But most stories end with, "And then the monster came back to haunt you!" But why do most of these stories end this way? Where did the superstitions arrive, and are they true? I'm going to go full Myth-Busters and see if I can debunk some of these paranormal and spooky things.
     I can't definitively say that all of the ghost stories you have heard are true. I can't say that ghosts are real. But what I can say is that ghost hunters have lied to you. The truth of the matter is that most ghost hunting shows are probably staged. I'm not alone in thinking this. Click, here, here, and here for different accounts of why portions (if not entire episodes) of these shows might be staged. I hope, for the sake of haunting people in the afterlife, that ghosts are real. I really do hope that. But, TV is about entertainment. Could you imagine having a ghost hunting show without ever seeing a ghost over the course of 20 episodes? That would not be very entertaining. People like to believe and want to believe in ghosts, it makes life a little more exciting. However, there are many skeptics of these TV shows. So my first Un-funfact is, your ghost hunting shows are probably staged.
     Lets move on to the second one. Bloody Mary. The legend of Bloody Mary has been told throughout many middle school sleep overs. Say Bloody Mary into the mirror three times, and something happens I guess. I'd like to let you all know that I have survived this. So maybe Mary has a different taste in men, maybe she didn't want to kill me, maybe she's shy! But I never saw her. But maybe that's because I did it wrong. Maybe I called her "Bloody Merry", enunciation is key in situations like this. However, she probably didn't show up because the modern Bloody Mary is actually different than how the legend originated. The original Bloody Mary ritual was done solely by woman to find out who they were going to marry. The women would walk up the stairs, backwards, in a pitch black house while holding a mirror in their hand. While they were doing that they were supposed to be able to see who they were going to marry in the future. But there was chance that they would see a skull (or the face of the grim reaper), indicating that they were going to die before they married.
     This seems like a very plausible legend that came to life and it took off due to the psychological effects of staring at yourself in a mirror for to long. Your face becomes distorted, so while looking staring into the mirror for that long is bound to cause you to perceive your face as someone else. Couple that with the low light and intense gazing into the mirror looking for something, and you have the birth of a Halloween superstition.
     But the best thing that I can tell you is that your children will not be receiving drugs this Halloween. And more good news, no one is putting razor blades in their candy! The myths of children dying from their candy being tampered stems from true events, however, they are unrelated to Halloween. There hasn't been a substantiated claim of candy tampering since the '70s. But why have these myths spread? In most cases of candy tampering it happened either by the children themselves, or immediate family members. In 1970, a 5-year-old boy died from eating Halloween candy. But that wasn't true. In fact, the child had eaten heroin from his uncle's stash. The family tried covering it up by saying someone laced his candy with it. Many of the tampered candy cases come from shitty family members trying to avoid being charged with a crime, or make a financial gain off the child's death.
     So I guess it's a good thing that not all of these Halloween myths are true. It'll help me sleep easier at night.

'Tis the Season

     Knocking on your door should not be an annoying interruption to your everyday life. However, this time of year, it sends me running to hide.
     The political season should not be the scariest thing about October, Halloween should hold that title. So why is it that every four years it is necessary to barricade your doors in preparation for what is the biggest zombie attack?
     First off, being an educated an in informed voter is necessary. Voting for president is a constitutional right that should be used. Voting and having a say is probably the number one appeal of America. You can actively campaign for people you believe in, even if it is directly against those who are in power. In most places that would get you shot.
     But the constant campaigning, it is maddening. The truth of the matter is that most people identify themselves by their own political standing, and no amount of campaigning will change their stance. Political campaigning is not about trying to convert Democrats into Republicans (or vice versa), it is about rallying the troops. And the main goal of the troops is to convert the independent and undecided voters.
     The main way they do this is by being loud. Political rallies turn into tailgating parties full of cliques. And the motto of these types of rallies is, "If you're not with us, you're against us."
     This political season has been different for me. For the first time, I am a registered voter. I am also an independent. So I'm screwed. Phone calls come regularly and predictably so thank God for the answering machine. But the phone calls are not the worst part of it all. No, the worst part is the door-to-door salesmen trying to convince you of why their politician is best.
     Look, I get it, you think your person is so great that you just need to tell everyone who will listen. That's cool. But go do it in a park like the rest of the crazies. Don't stop by my house and ask me who I'm voting for.
     My parents don't even know who I'm voting for, why would I tell you? And let's not pretend like it's an innocent wellness check. You guys aren't here to make sure I'm registered to vote. No, we know damn well that you pulled my voter data from the databases. You guys are here to make sure I'm registered to vote for your candidate.
     The un-funfact in this post is this, every person who comes to my door makes me die inside. And I'm not alone in this thinking. The political season is rough on everyone who is an independent or undecided voter. If you're aligned with a party they count on your support. They give you the one phone call and your free complimentary yard sign.
     As an independent voter I'm barraged with at least five calls a day. And once it gets closer to election day, two visits a day to my home won't be unusual.
     These people are fanatics. They're obnoxious. And most times they're just downright rude. You don't get to come to my house to tell me who I should vote for. I will vote for whoever I want. If I was smart I would vote for whoever annoyed me the least over the political cycle.
     Another un-funfact is that our democracy isn't a direct democracy. We are based off of the model of a epublic as well as a democracy. Our delegates of our state usually vote along the lines of our popular vote. But my vote as an individual does not always hold the consequences it should in this sort of system.
     And to top off all of the un-funness, even if I elect your politician there's a 99% chance he (or she) will not accomplish a quarter of the tasks they set out to do.
     Thanks to our series of checks and balances a Republican president won't be able to on push a Republican agenda. They have to go through Congress. And those same fanatics who come to your door and ask you to vote for their candidate, fail to mention that many of their candidate's ideas will never make it off the ground. Why are these people so willing to put all their energy on the line for a president, when he is only half of the decision making process?
     No one campaigns like fanatics for your local senator or congressman because they don't want the notoriety. Thanks to a lack of term limits and being able to vote for your own pay raise, the incumbents will usually sit quietly out of campaigning. The incumbent usually wins these type of elections. That's because we have no clue what is actually going on.
     Politicians promise us big things. We have become so desensitized to their promises that we praise them for doing the little things for us. Politicians could promise everyone in the U.S. a new car. Except that new car would be a matchbox car. An overwhelming majority of the people would have positive attitudes for that. We expected nothing and ended up with something.
     Maybe being an independent makes me unpatriotic. After all, it is the "us against them" mantra that keeps this political system we have firing. Maybe I'm un-American. I should be grateful for this because in other countries you don't have a say.
     But I'm not content with this. The political season sucks. I want better. We deserve better. How can we change it though? I have no clue. I'm not a political analyst, I'm just a college student with not enough time or money to ponder these sorts of questions. But until it changes, what is supposed to be a defining feature of our country, will be un-fun for me.

A live look at the campaigners at your door

Doctors Without Borders Might Kill Someone

     Pneumonia accounts for 15% of all deaths of children under 5 years old. And don't worry, this blog post gets worse. The organization Doctors Without Borders just refused a million free pneumonia vaccines. The pharmaceutical company Pfizer offered up a million free vaccines as a donation to Doctors Without Borders as a show of humanitarianism. The decline of the offer comes as a shock to many. After all, a million of lives could be saved. But the organization is not going to budge when it comes to this issue.

  The reason Doctors Without Borders is so set in their decision is because they believe that the pharmaceutical companies are price gouging and making profits off of life saving drugs in third world countries. The price of the vaccination that Pfizer is offering Doctors Without Borders carries from country to country. When Doctors Without Borders was able to purchase it they were paying 60 euros a dose. 

     Last year poor countries like Tunisia and Morocco were paying $63.70 and $67.30 respectively. France on the other hand was paying $58.40. And to make matters worse, 3-4 doses are required for an effective treatment. Why are poorer countries paying more for a vaccine that would have more impact on their quality of life? Pfizer is a multi billion dollar company. The pneumonia vaccine alone makes them $6.245 billion in revenue. Money and profit is not a limiting factor to Pfizer and neither is production cost. They sold the vaccine to Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization for only $9.15 for an entire treatment regiment. 

     Pfizer isn't the first company to put profits first though. Nestle is another company that has been in hot water over their "goodwill" missions. Nestle, in short, gave baby  formula to Africans in desperate need. The babies developed a dependence on this formula once their mothers were unable to produce milk. Then Nestle jacked up the price of formula to make a profit. Also in its quest to be humanitarian Nestle was quoted saying, "access to water is not a public right."

     Is Doctors without borders doing the right thing though? This protest is a costly decision to make. The protest potentially just allowed thousands of people to die. Is it worth it? Is setting a precedent going to make these vaccines become any cheaper? I think that Doctors Without Borders may have a point though.

     Price gouging and trying to profit off of life saving drugs does not only happen overseas, but it happens right here in our own back yard. The average cost of the pneumonia vaccine for the U.S. citizen is $136. Remember that 3-4 doses are needed for a successful treatment. Another situation that comes to mind is about EpiPens. The cost was $100 and as of late the cost is now more than $600. Six, hundred, dollars. For the only thing that can save some of these people. If the EpiPens are not available to these people, they will die. Period.

     Let's be real, this is bullshit. People need EpiPens to live. People need pneumonia vaccines to live. Why is the first goal of these companies to make a profit? Why isn't it to save people? These companies are lucky that there's no Hippocratic oath that they need to take when they first start their businesses. They would be banned for life if there was.

    So is Doctors Without Borders protest worth the danger that they present to all of these people who desperately need these vaccines? If the pharmaceutical companies decide to ignore their pleas, it will not have been worth it, and people will have died in vain. Only time will tell if this protest was successful or not.

Location of where Doctors Without Borders Operates 

Was Montreal right to enact a pit bull ban?

     Last week, Montreal put a law into effect stating that all pit bull (or pit bull looking dogs) in shelters were to be euthanized, and all others were to be spayed or neutered, and in a muzzle at all times. Wide spread euthanasia is not a solution in my mind. However, pit bulls have received a bad rap in recent years.

     In 2015 there were 34 dog bite related fatalities, and pit bulls accounted for 28 of them. That statistic alone is enough to make people feel uncomfortable around that breed of dog. But is it the dog's fault, or are these dogs status symbols for a world of violence?

     Pit bulls are a strong dog and seem to have a tendency towards aggression but they may not be the most violent dog. However, they are the dog that gets reported the most.
    Think of aggressive dogs you have met in your life. The dogs that I've met that tend to be most aggressive are the smaller breed of dogs such a chihuahuas, terriers, and miniature pinschers.
     It may be shocking to believe but most dogs have a bite pressure of around 200 PSI. This includes the smaller dogs like chihuahuas. A pit bulls' bite pressure is believed to be around 235 pounds per square inch. A pit bulls' bite is more devastating because of their large head size. A chihuahua is less devastating because it has a small head and a smaller mouth.  The problem with trying to measure bite strength this way is dogs have a mechanism that allows them to throttle their bite strength in normal situations so the readings are not always accurate. So while a pit bull on paper may have the strongest bite it is unknown which dog has the strongest when they are going all out.

     Was Montreal right to establish their pit bull ban? Probably not. The reason it is now indefinitely suspended was because the original law basically stated any dog with a big head would be treated as a pit bull. There are so many things wrong with that broadbrush approach that they took. While many mutts and other dogs may fall under the "bully" breed of dog (dogs with big heads, wide front stances, and a lot of other characteristics of pit bulls), they are not all the same. Pit bulls, bull terriers, mutts, they are all different dogs and should be treated as such. 

     In 2016 there have been around 43 incidents involving pit bulls reported in the Canadian news. While this information came from an anti pit bull website, many of the articles came from legitimate news organizations. 

     So is Canada facing a problem? Are pit bulls really predisposed to violence? I think that pit bulls are strong and intelligent dogs. A lot of people will buy pit bulls for guard dogs, or watch dogs, or any other sort of protection. Pit bulls are small enough to be kept in apartments and other small areas and in theory can provide a safety to their owners if need be. But because they are intelligent dogs they need to be trained and kept entertained.

     If you were to look at the list of "most aggressive" dogs, you would see that it is the more intelligent dogs who top the list. The collie breeds and other types of herding dogs always seem to make up the majority of the list. 

     These dogs are highly intelligent and need to be trained to prevent them from falling back on their instincts. When things get out of line, these dogs will bite to reinstate order again. These dogs like to be in control and be the leader of the pack. When these dogs are not trained, their owners are not seen as the leader, therefore, they will bite to keeps others in line.

     These dogs generally have some of the strongest bites and are the most likely to follow their nature of herding. Many of these dogs are purebred and can trace generations down from many of their ancestors who were used not only for companionship, but also for herding.

     I find it hard to blame the dogs in this situation. Irresponsibility of the owners who think that owning a dog will be all fun and games have another thing coming. They are a lot of work. A lot of training is necessary to prevent good dogs from going bad. 

     While I see why the law was put into effect, I do not agree with it. Dogs are not predisposed to violence. Dogs are ancestors of a wild animal and act solely on animal instinct. They don't know any better. Euthanizing all the dogs that scare us will not make the world a safer place. But it will be a sadder one.

Me and my very "aggressive" herding dog, Willow.