Mandatory Pertussis Vaccine in California

This post was inspired by and mostly taken from a thread that was started from a friend's FB status.  She wanted to know how others felt about the mandatory pertussis booster requirement to be in California public schools.  I know I'm a hippie, but I've always made myself very clear on the topic of vaccines in this blog and in other venues.  Indeed, I feel the need to educate others by any means necessary to get the message across that vaccines are vitally important.

I've come to the conclusion that most people grossly misunderstand vaccines.  They either think that it's not necessary because the illnesses prevented "aren't that big of a deal" or they think that it isn't necessary to expose their children to "toxins" because enough other people vaccinate their kids.  How do I feel on the mandatory pertussis vaccine requirement in public schools?  Come on, can't you guess?

I am strongly libertarian.  That is, I strongly believe in individual rights and would prefer to live with very little interference or so-called assistance from the government.  Certainly much less interference/assistance than is currently experienced in modern US society.

I chafe under many government-mandated requirements.  It seems that a day doesn't go by that I'm shaking my tiny fist of impotent rage at some dumb requirement that the government has determined is necessary.  Seatbelts, carseats, and helmets are but three examples of requirements that I think are ridiculous.  Understand that I'm not saying that I wouldn't use them if it weren't the law (actually, I wouldn't put a helmet on my son when he's on a bicycle if I had a choice), but I am irritated that the govt says you HAVE to use these safeguards. 

I'm further irritated when the government has safeguards in place to protect the individual, but not society at large.  Choosing not to vaccinate has far worse implications and can injure far more than just the one refusing the vaccine whereas choosing not to use a seatbelt (in the event of an accident) only can injure the one refusing to use it.  Yet, somehow, the government is more concerned about the health of the individual versus the health of society.  Does that make sense?

I think this analogy illustrates my thoughts on vaccines in general:  You certainly have the right to swing your fist to and fro.  However, your right to swing your fist ends at my face.  You have the right to willfully choose to do things that could be damaging to yourself or your children.  However, your right to do those things (or, more accurately, refuse those things), ends when it can be damaging to me or my children.  And, make no mistake, refusing vaccinations has the potential to impact more than just those who refuse.

Of course, it is only my opinion that vaccines should be mandatory for even enrolling in school.  We all know what they say about opinions, right?  An uninformed opinion is like a sapling, it bends in whichever direction the strongest wind is blowing, so I am going to offer up the actual reasons why I have an opinion that so wildly is at odds with my personal political philosophy.

* * *

Let's look briefly at how vaccines work.  First, it's important to realize and accept that there is no vaccine that has 100% efficacy rates.  That means that even one who has received all of their shots still has a chance (slim, but it's there) of getting the illness they were vaccinated against. Generally speaking, it's a much milder case, but the risk is still there.

Also, it's important to realize that vaccines work on the premise of herd immunity.  If everyone were vaccinated against an illness, it would cease to exist.  Think I'm just making that up?  The very last known case of smallpox was in 1977.  How did smallpox get wiped off the face of the Earth?  Through a massive world-wide vaccination campaign.  Smallpox was only eradicated by 100% herd immunity! 

The flip side to the awesomeness that is herd immunity is that once we get a certain percentage of people not vaccinated, watch out!

On vaccines in general, I kinda think they have worked altogether too well. No one remembers a time when people (often children) where stricken, disfigured, crippled, or killed from what are now pretty much entirely preventable diseases. Or a time when most families had at least one child who was injured or died from an illness that we have the ability to prevent today!

Even illnesses that aren't generally thought to be a big deal can absolutely be a big deal.  Take chicken pox.  I know someone who won't vax their child against chicken pox because "it's no big deal." I guess she's never known anyone who was left with a scarred up face from it or, worse, someone who has died from it/it's accompanying fever. On varicella (the virus that causes chicken pox), most people don't realize that you are NEVER totally free from the virus because it lives dormant in your nervous system. Ever heard of shingles? It's extremely painful and is what happens when varicella is somehow reactivated later in life. Naturally, my son received his varicella vaccination to spare him any suffering from an initial outbreak of chicken pox or the possibility of future pain from shingles in his later years.

The worst part of refusing vaccination is that herd immunity only works when the vast majority of the herd is vaccinated because it doesn't allow an illness to get a toehold in society.  And who is injured the most when the herd's immunity is diminished?  Who are the ones who suffer when a large enough percentage of people refuse vaccinations?  The most vulnerable members of society.  The sick, the old, and the very young; cancer patients, HIV/AIDS patients, those with any autoimmune diseases, grandparents (& some of our parents), newborns.  Remember that vaccines do not carry efficacy rates of 100% and these people are counting on the rest of us to get our vaccines!

* * *

I think the reason they are pushing pertussis in California right now is because of the amount of infants who were stricken and died last year. I remember reading that, although the number seemed small to me (of course, it wouldn't seem that way to me if it were my own infant who died), it was the highest number of whopping cough deaths in some number of years. If memory serves, they have to be at least two months old before even beginning their series on that one so they are completely vulnerable (less so if breastfeeding, but still vulnerable) until at least 2 months of age.  If you expect to be around any infants, do that child a favor and get your Pertussis booster to help protect the lil' one.

I'm guessing that the reason they are pushing it on school kids is because education is mandatory so there's less chance of falling through the cracks and avoiding it. But ideally we all would keep up on our vaccine boosters and we certainly should if we will be around any young infants.

* * *

I've read that I'm excessively verbose on this topic.  I guess it's because I read and hear so much faulty information that I think most people don't understand any of this.  I'm not trying to impose my will on anyone, but I'm trying to explain the "why" in a way that makes sense to those who don't want to do the research for themselves. 

And, yes, it should just be your choice. Unfortunately, parental choices as it relates to vaccines can threaten the general public.  Parental freedom is infringed upon all the time and this is one of the rare cases where I believe that the government needs to make a mandate.  Frankly, I wish they'd made the vaccines mandatory years ago so it would simply be second nature now, just like wearing seatbelts, because not vaccinating threatens a helluva lot more people than just yourself and you're the only one who suffers if you get in an accident while not wearing a seatbelt.

If a parent doesn't care that their own child might suffer due to a preventable illness because "it's no big deal" or they believe in a fraudulent study and discredited researcher linking vaccines to autism, that's their business.  But it is absolutely my business if my child may suffer due to your choices.  Remember the swinging fist analogy?  Choosing not to vaccinate your child can end with my child getting hit in the face by your decision and that is why I am so passionate on this topic.

Feel free to comment and debate on this, but do back it up with facts and not simply opinion or fears.  I do have strong opinions on the topic, but I'm not unreasonable and am willing to change my views in light of new facts.  But do note that anecdotes, while usually profoundly sad, are not facts.  And play nice with each other. . .none of us intentionally wants to harm their children so personal attacks aren't necessary or welcomed.

An Interesting Search

I check my blog stats every day to see which posts are read most frequently.  Among other things, I can find out which country readers reside in, what operating systems they use, and which search words readers use to find this blog.  That last bit is rather interesting at times and it certainly is this morning.

Some of you know that I felt forced to censor myself by destroying my old blog, my old blogger name, and making this new blog viewable by invitation only for a period of time.  I'm not going to rehash my reasons why because I didn't feel it was fair or right, but I suppose that someone dear to me felt they were good reasons.  Let's just say that although I was fully in the right and standing on the side of truth, it made my life easier to not have my every word, thought, and opinion dissected and perverted by certain readers who were offended by the plain truth and my personal opinions.

I find it interesting that someone found this blog yesterday by searching for my old blogger name.  Should I be concerned that those who clearly can't handle the truth might actually be exposed to it by reading this blog?  Should I ready myself for an attack?  Should I go through the nonsense to delete this blog and create yet another one?

No, I don't think I should do a damn thing.

I don't feel it's my problem if someone is so freakishly obsessed with me, my words, or my thoughts that they actually took the time to search for me after I took great pains to remain anonymous these last several months.  I guess I'm just not all that concerned if someone has actively sought me out because they were completely and totally cut from my life and my son's life as a result of their actions and perhaps this is a way to learn a little about what's going on with us.  I guess at some point everyone realizes that their hateful actions have very real consequences; their poison pen acted as a saw to effectively cut us away forever.  I can forgive their heinous words, but I will not forget them and I will never allow myself to be put in a position to be hurt by them again.

It's debatable whether or not they're missing out on anything important by not being allowed a relationship with me, but they absolutely are missing out on quite a lot by not being allowed contact with my son.  He's a spectacular little boy and I'm actually thankful that he no longer asks about seeing those people because I found it very difficult to hold my tongue and simply say that we won't be seeing them again.  I guess that's something they should have thought about before attacking this child's mother who absolutely did nothing to provoke such a venomous letter. 

Lest you think I'm being petty and using my son as a weapon, it was their own stated wish that we remain out of their lives.  I'm sure they had their own dark and bitter reasons, but thinking such hateful language was spewed forth because they are emotionally wounded almost makes me feel sorry for them.  Almost. . .

How is Your Sex-Esteem?

A million thanks goes to my very good friend, who shall remain nameless (unless she chooses to reveal her identity), for coining the term "sex-esteem."

We all have heard of self-esteem and we know how we value self, but how do we value sex and our relationship with the act?  How do you truly feel about your sex life?  Is it good, bad, or indifferent?  Rockin' awesome or just adequate?  Have you ever considered your sex-esteem?

I'm far from being a sexpert and I don't usually think sex is all that difficult, but it really is a complicated thing, isn't it?  I mean, really, it is the most intimate expression possible between humans.  The physical joining of separate people can be deeply moving, to the point that tears of joy are shed over the wondrous experience.  Or it can be profoundly disappointing to the point that you don't even see the point.  I can say that I've experienced both situations and, even though crying during or after sex is generally discouraged, the former is far preferred over the latter! 

Sex is odd, right?  It can be an expression of the highest and purest form of love, freely giving everything you can offer to someone else. . .so wonderful and so touching.  Yet it can also be a base and animalistic response, completely detached from our higher thinking and any sense of reason. . .so wonderful and so hedonistic.

Sexual compatibility is important in a relationship.  I think so anyway.  That's not to say that I think simultaneous orgasms are necessary to have compatibility.  It's very nice, of course, but certainly not necessary.  I think it's more important to clearly communicate desires and reach an understanding of sexual expectations. 

I'm sure this shocks no one reading this, but I like to do it a lot.  And, if that's not happening, I have no problem taking matters into my own hands - if you catch my meaning.  But I damn sure would have a problem if my husband wasn't willing to at least try to accommodate me or be respectful of my desires.  It would hurt my sex-esteem! 

I'd begin to feel unloved, unwanted, and undesirable if my partner's actions (or, more accurately, lack of action) were injuring my sex-esteem.  Even more detrimental to the relationship, I'd begin to feel judged.  Nothing kills the glorious blossom of true intimacy more completely than harshly judging your partner's desires.  Nothing!

You know, I basically just described how I felt throughout my first marriage and that was a sad, sad chapter in my life.  My self-esteem was wounded and, more painfully, my sex-esteem was battered.  His rejection and ambivalence damn near did me in.  Just when I was dejectedly sprawled out at the brink, the smoldering rebellion that never was fully snuffed out somehow reached full flame and I burned that marriage, that entire relationship, to the ground.

I walked away and never looked back.  In doing so, I rediscovered who I am and I found that I really like myself.  I am a bit of a horn-dog, but that's okay.  I'd wager that my husband thinks that's more than just okay - ha!  I learned a lot from that dark time, most notably that a person is a complex tapestry of feelings, moods, and emotions.  And that self-esteem and sex-esteem are often fully intertwined. 

As I relearned to value myself, I learned to value my pleasure.  I realized that my sex drive is as much a part of me as my kindness, loyalty, or generosity.  All of those things are good and so is knowing who I am from a sexual standpoint.  My sex-esteem was built up and restored through my relationship with my husband and my self-esteem naturally rose with my joy and personal satisfaction.

Have you ever considered your sex-esteem?  Is your partner respectful of your desires?  Are you happy with your relationship from a sexual standpoint?  If you've answered "no" to the immediately previous two questions, you really should have a heart to heart talk with your partner. 

Are you shying away from having that potentially dangerous conversation?  I can understand that it may be uncomfortable and possibly lead to an argument or even a dissolution of the relationship.  But please realize that honesty is always the best foundation for any relationship.  It's like faking orgasms - you should never do it because then you are always compelled to fake it.  And, at some point, we always will tire of faking it and we'll want to feel something genuine.

We were all meant to live a real life and it's my hope that you're living yours to the fullest.  Leave pretending to actors and be real in every aspect of your life!

The Panty Post

I was going to write a post about a d-bag who I'll never have to see again, but a friend's Facebook status totally hijacked my thought process.  I give you this instead:  The Panty Post.


My friend was curious about panty preferences.  Specifically thong or booty shorts.  As you would expect, I weighed in with my opinion.  I always thought I was pretty mainstream in the underpants department, but I guess not.

I hate booty shorts.  Hate, hate, hate them.  My friend, being a smart mouth, said that they figured I'd love booty shorts.  Yeah, yeah, I have a big ass.  My friend has known me since high school and can attest that I have always had a big butt.  An unfair fact is that I sported an uncommonly small waist, no boobs, and a ginormous ass.  Funny side story, I had another friend from high school who used to swear that I was the inspiration for Sir Mix-a-Lot's Baby Got Back. 

I think my large posterior is the reason why I don't like booty shorts.  See, all that extra material on my buttcheeks inevitably travels when I walk or sit.  This results in a huge wad of fabric up my crack.  My butt is big, but my buttcrack is normal sized (I think???) so all that material is really uncomfortable and I end up picking my seat all the time if I wear this type of underpants.

I prefer thongs, bikinis, the occasional pair of granny panties, and going commando.  None of these seem all that out of the norm, but my granny panty admission stimulated quite a bit of conversation.  I thought that every chick wears granny panties at some point, but I guess I'm the Lone Ranger.  Except, perhaps, for actual Grannies.  I mean, I don't wear them every day or anything, but I don't see anything wrong with wearing them at certain times.  You know, like at that time of the month.

I actually figured that my commando admission would have been more scandalous.  My mother was definitely scandalized by it when we were talking about panties several years ago.  I told her that it wasn't bad because I never go bare when wearing pants.  Her jaw dropped and she said it was way worse to go out sans panties when wearing a dress or skirt.  I guess I hadn't thought of it in an easy-access sort of way.  It's not like I do it all the time or anything, but I kinda think the airflow downstairs is refreshing.  To each her own, right?

Thongs & bikinis are so mainstream that they really don't need any explanation.  I will say one thing, though.  I think that fat chick thongs suck.  And I say this as a fat chick.  Seriously, it becomes a looong thong.  Think of the sex scene in the movie Shallow Hal and you'll know exactly what I mean.

I don't imagine that anyone will give their opinions on underpants, but I thought I'd toss out this post anyway.  Let's face it, ladies, our men don't generally give a crap about what panties we're wearing. . .they just want what's underneath.  Feel sexy and act sexy and you'll be sexy - no matter what you're wearing.  ;-)

If You Can't Say Something Nice. . .

I was reading one of my favorite websites today and I stumbled upon a couple threads that made my head explode. After spending a few hours reflecting on what I had read, I came to a couple of conclusions.

1. The Internet is serious business.
2. Some people have so little going on in their lives that they are compelled to get up in everyone's business.

One thread had a huge fight over how parents choose to corral their children. There were very few participants in the middle. Some people stringently argued against using those child harness/leashes. They went so far as to say that parents who rely upon such devices are lazy and negligent parents. Some even indicated that it was wrong to use slings, strollers, and playpens. The other camp was people who basically said to STFU and mind your own business.

The other thread had a huge fight over breastfeeding. A few very vocal people were totally disgusted by nursing and, it kinda sounded like, children in general. These are the type of people who refer to your offspring by revolting terms like crotchfruit or crotch dropping. A few very vocal people were who I tend to refer to as the "militant breastfeeders." These are the women who will whip out their entire breast and take their sweet time before latching on baby. Oddly enough, they tend to get pissed when men stare at their exposed tits. Everyone else was somewhere in the middle because, let's face it, there is nothing wrong with breastfeeding and most women don't act like total attention whores while feeding their children.

I never weighed in with my opinions because both of these threads devolved into personal attacks from all sides. Ah, Internet denizens, you can be so childish and predictable.

So here are my thoughts on both issues:

I. Don't. Care.

Seriously, I don't care how you choose to raise your own children. I have enough to worry about while raising my own child and I just don't have the time or inclination to sweat what someone else does with their own child. I do voice a lot of opinions here, but I don't use this blog as a passive-aggressive way to slam parenting choices that differ from my opinions on childrearing. There is one notable exception, but I think I was very forthright in stating my thoughts on the matter.

When I give my opinion, I'm basically saying that this is the way I think is best. This is what works for my family. That doesn't mean that it will work for your family and it doesn't mean that I think you're doing a poor job as a parent.

All that said, I'm happy to give my opinion if asked. Otherwise, I try my best to hold my tongue because, at best, I'll sound like a know-it-all. At worst, I'll sound like I'm criticizing.

I didn't always feel this way. I was very much a believer in it being my way or the highway. But as I've grown, I've come to appreciate the advice given by Thumper's mother.

My Favorite Guitarists

I was going to write a serious post tonight about pubic hair (bet you didn't know pubic hair was serious business, huh?), but I thought a lighthearted post would be easier to finish at this late hour. I chose to write about my favorite guitarists because it is a topic that I discuss often with my husband. Over the last seven years, we have discussed my favorite guitarists at least 1,007 times. I don't know why I keep bringing it up since our conversation is almost always exactly the same each time. I know what they say about opinions, but here you go:

1. Eric Clapton - Love, love, love him. He's so talented, so prolific, so handsome. "Let it Grow" is my favorite song of his, followed closely by "Running on Faith." I prefer traditional names, but I seriously wanted to name my son Clapton. My hubby, assuming our son might grow up to become a judge or doctor or something, said F-no!

2. Eddie Van Halen - Very original, very talented, and so cute back in the day. Everyone knows the Frankenstrat on sight and he blew everyone's mind when he played on Michael Jackson's "Beat It."

3. Joe Walsh - So talented, but so tortured. I suspect that most people only know him for his work with The Eagles, but he was legitimately famous before joining one of my favorite bands. Of course, if you're picking a favorite Joe Walsh tune, you have to pick "Life in the Fast Lane." He didn't just have a hand in writing that song, he freaking lived it.

4. Jimi Hendrix - I'm not really a Hendrix fan, but I am aware that he fundamentally changed music. Plus, he knew how to dress for attention and he rocked that 'fro. Of course, he literally followed the youthful advice to live fast, die young, and leave a good looking corpse, so we can only guess what he might have accomplished had he not bought it at age 27. I know he didn't write it, Bob Dylan did, but my favorite Hendrix song is "All Along the Watchtower."

5. I always have trouble picking #5. I want to say Prince, but I recognize that he's not a particularly awesome guitarist - he is a fantastically awesome lyricist though. Any suggestions?

It is My Blog, Therefore It Contains My Opinions

I wrote two posts last night and I really didn't want to write one tonight. However, I received a poison pen letter last night and I felt the need to set a few things straight.

I'm not a journalist. I'm not a reporter. I'm not a researcher. I'm not unbiased. I do have definite opinions and I freely state them in this blog.

No one is being forced to read this blog. No one can be punished for not reading this blog. There is no reason to view this blog unless you are interested in reading my thoughts on a wide range of topics.

This blog only has eight followers, so it really can't be considered an internet sensation. Even if it were, I have taken great pains to protect the identities of several individuals. Indeed, I have not even indicated the gender of certain individuals because I believe that even the guilty deserve some measure of protection.

Again, if you read my blog, be prepared to read my opinions. If my opinions offend your delicate sensibilities, I would suggest that you either toughen up or avoid reading my blog ever again. I am under no obligation to see to it that you are not offended by my words.

Know this, my poison-penned friend, I have always written the truth here. I haven't made up details or embellished anecdotes because I feel that I write well enough without relying on such common tricks. If the truth offends you, well, then you have far greater problems than your personal feelings about me. If you are able to identify an individual based on what I've written, it only serves to prove that I have been completely honest.

You can claim anything you want about my personal character, but I will be vindicated in the end. I am honorable, faithful, and true. I am spotless and above reproach. Based on the hate and vitriol you sent, I think it's clear that you cannot claim the same.

I know you are reading this. . .there is no need to respond. My life is full and busy enough without this ridiculous drama.


If you have no idea what I'm talking about, it's a sure sign that this is not directed toward you.