02/9/12

Let’s get the terms of this debate correct


Aborton cartoonThere’s a recent story in the Winnipeg Free Press with the headlines that, “Liberals fear pro-lifers trying to take over weakened federal party.”

Gawd, I hate such inaccurate, slanted reporting. It’s bad enough when politicians engage in it, but the media should be more objective.

Let’s get the terms straight, shall we? Then we can try for objectivity.

To call one side “pro-life” is to give credibility to the implication that the other side is “anti-life.” That’s spinelessly accepting a one-sided spin on the debate. It appeals to the emotions, not the facts, and certainly not to logic.

Neither side is “anti-life” – unless that life happens to belong to one of your opponents’ abortion doctors. Then it seems to be okay to commit murder. It’s inappropriate to put a ‘pro-life’ label on someone who condones murdering doctors. “Pro-life-except-for-abortion-doctors” is a bit of a mouthful, but it’s honest.

The abortion issue is better described as “pro-choice” versus “anti-choice” – a debate over who has the right to choose: the pregnant woman or some third party, a person usually not associated with the woman by marriage or family ties, and usually whose religious beliefs are not shared by the woman in question.

I doubt that the religious people on the anti-choice side would take well to the notion of someone from a different faith making them follow their different rules. Would they, for example, accept a Taliban decree that all Christian women must wear the hijab? Unlikely. Yet they are quite comfortable making more important and life-altering decisions for people who do not share their particular brand of faith. That’s hypocrisy in my books. But I digress.

Pro-choice versus anti-choice is at least a more accurate label. But it’s also a bit hazy as a description, because some of the anti-abortion side would agree that abortion might be allowable under some conditions (such as the mother’s life being in danger, incest or rape). They may not be entirely anti-choice (although from what I’ve read, they still want an outsider with specific religious views to have the final say, not the woman). Calling them anti-pregnant-woman’s-choice-except-when-we-permit-it, however, is also a bit clumsy for a headline.

You can argue that it’s really “late-life” versus “early-life” supporters, because one of the key issues is when individual life actually takes effect – at conception, at some point in the womb, or at birth. That begins to sound a bit too intellectual and distant from the issue. You also learn when trying to pinpoint a time that there are not two clearly-defined sides on that question, but rather several shades of grey.

In the strictest terms, it is a pro-abortion versus anti-abortion debate, and should not be categorized by any of the emotionally-laden terms each group prefers to see itself as cloaked in. Let’s call it what it is, and not indulge anyone in their propaganda efforts to position their side on the moral high ground.

02/8/12

Collingwood’s population on the rise, faster than Canada’s


Census cartoonStatistics Canada has released some of the key data data from its 2011 Census. In the five years since our last census (2006), Canada has grown in population size almost 6% to 33,476,688. That’s ten times larger than we were in 1861. Once again, our growth rate was the highest among G8 countries.

According to the StatsCan analysis of the data, “every province and most territories saw its population increase between 2006 and 2011.” However, it notes that, “The rate of population growth increased in all provinces and territories between 2006 and 2011, except in Ontario, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut… The rate of Ontario’s population growth declined slightly in the past five years to 5.7%, its lowest level since the period between the 1981 and 1986 censuses.”

Meanwhile, as our planner, Mark Bryan, pointed out to council via email this morning, Collingwood’s population continues to grow. Last census the population figure was 17,290; in 2011 it was pegged at 19,241 people. Mark points out that’s an increase of 11.3% in five years, much higher than our growth during 2001-2006, when it was 7.8%. Mark noted:

The total number of dwellings in the town now stands at 10,695, of which 8,339 are occupied by usual residents. In other words 78% of the dwellings in town are occupied by permanent residents while 22% are occupied by ‘seasonal’ residents. This split remains unchanged from the 2006 census.

That means 2,356 dwellings belong to seasonal residents, one in five. That’s significant for our planning, strategic goals, and service delivery methodology.

There were 1,379 new dwelling units added since 2006. I’d really like to know how many of those new units were affordable, and how many were bought by seasonal residents. The percentage of seasonal-to-permanent residents has fallen (78.55 to 77.97%) but not significantly.

Mark also noted that our municipal neighbours have wildly varying growth rates: Wasaga Beach (17,537 in 2011) is at the top, with a growth rate of 16.7%. Clearview (13,734) and The Town of the Blue Mountains (6,453) saw population decreases of 2.5% and 5.5%, respectively. He commented on the population decline in TOBM as “interesting since the actual number of dwellings increased from 5,619 to 6,200, an increase of about 10%… It is likely that the seasonal population is increasing with new and converted dwelling units adjacent to recreational opportunities. The permanent population, likely due to aging and out migration, appears to be decreasing.” So where are they going, one wonders.

Wasaga Beach’s split between permanent and seasonal residents is also quite different: 65% of dwellings are permanent, or one in three is seasonal, a modest increase in the percentage since 2006. The town saw 1,929 new homes since last census, roughly 50% more than Collingwood in that time. However, Collingwood has 33.46 sq. km with an average density of 575.1 people/sq. km. Wasaga Beach has 58.43 sq. km with a density of 300.1.

Simcoe County rose from 422,204 in 2006 to 446,063, a 5.7% increase.

More data will be released in May, 20102, including age and sex numbers. I’ll fill in some of the blanks when that is available.

For now, read some of the news stories on the census: National Post, Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, and of course the CBC.

02/7/12

Bad Lao Tzu meme adds to growing list of mis-identified quotes online


This bad meme is going the Internet rounds:

“If you want to awaken all of humanity, then awaken all of yourself, if you want to eliminate the suffering in the world, then eliminate all that is dark and negative in yourself. Truly, the greatest gift you have to give is that of your own self-transformation.” Lao Tzu

Well, although deep – if a bit saccharine – it’s not from the Tao Teh Ching, the only work that the Old Master (the literal translation of his name) ever produced.

The Tao Teh Ching is a notoriously difficult book to translate. Although it consists of a mere 5,000 Chinese characters, translations can vary wildly. Compare this one with the one linked above for example. One site compares three versions (Legge, Suzuki and Goddard). This site has 175 translations of the first verse alone, dating from the late 19th to early 21st centuries, which indicates the numerous, complex ways translators have approached this work and how many ways there are at trying to wrestle the meaning from it.

Hua Hu ChingThe quote actually comes from a translation of another Taoist work called the Hua Hu Ching (Huahujing), which although attributed to Lao Tzu, is actually a forgery. According to scholars, the Huahujing was actually written some 500 years after Lao Tzu lived, by Taoist Wang Fou, ca. 300 CE. Apparently he wrote it as an anti-Buddhist polemic after he was defeated in debate by the Chinese Buddhist monk Bo Yuan. The earliest text was only one section, but by the beginning of the eighth century it had been expanded into ten or eleven.

Historical Chinese records suggest it was first produced in the late third century CE. Some scholars give it a later date because the earliest reference to to the work is from the period of 420–477 CE. The oldest extant version is from a slightly later period. The content suggests it is much later than Lao Tzu because it contains references to all sorts of later Taoist practices such as herbal medicine, feng shui, tai chi and sex:

A person’s approach to sexuality is a sign of his level of evolution. Unevolved persons practice ordinary sexual intercourse. Placing all emphasis upon the sexual organs, they neglect the body’s other organs and systems. Whatever physical energy is accumulated is summarily discharged, and the subtle energies are similarly dissipated and disordered. It is a great backward leap. For those who aspire to the higher realms of living, there is angelic dual cultivation. Because every portion of the body, mind, and spirit yearns for the integration of yin and yang, angelic intercourse is led by the spirit rather than the sexual organs. Where ordinary intercourse is effortful, angelic cultivation is calm, relaxed, quiet, and natural. Where ordinary intercourse unites sex organs with sex organs, angelic cultivation unites spirit with spirit, mind with mind, and every cell of one body with every cell of the other body. Culminating not in dissolution but in integration, it is an opportunity for a man and woman to mutually transform and uplift each other into the realm of bliss and wholeness. The sacred ways of angelic intercourse are taught only by one who has himself achieved total energy integration, and taught only to students who follow the Integral Way with profound devotion, seeking to purify and pacify the entire world along with their own being. However, if your virtue is especially radiant, it can be possible to open a pathway to the subtle realm and receive these celestial teachings directly from the immortals.

The Tao Teh Ching has none of this material: it was added later to his teachings.

Hua Hu ChingThe Hua Hu Ching is a work of Taoist philosophy and practice also known as “the scripture of transforming the barbarians.” That’s because it’s recounts a fictional journey by Lao Tzu out to the “Western Regions” and into India, where, the legend goes, his teachings formed the basis of Buddhism. The work seeks to position Taoism as the supreme philosophy over other beliefs, especially Buddhism which at the time it was written was challenging Taoism for popularity among the Chinese populace:

The world is full of half-enlightened masters. Overly clever, too “sensitive” to live in the real world, they surround themselves with selfish pleasures and bestow their grandiose teachings upon the unwary. Prematurely publicizing themselves, intent upon reaching some spiritual climax, they constantly sacrifice the truth and deviate from the Tao.

Hardly objective: it’s a strong, often angry, political stance about the superiority of Taoist beliefs. The message is clear: there’s a fight over the hearts and minds of the populace here. To prove their superiority, Taoists had to portray Buddhism as a weakened, distorted version of Taoism.

The fault of attribution lies both with the people who repeat this quote online without checking its source, and the translator. This verse is from a translation by Brian Walker. The full verse (no. 75) reads:

Would you like to liberate yourself from the lower realms of life? Would you like to save the world from the degradation and destruction it seems destined for? Then step away from shallow mass movements and quietly go to work on your own self-awareness. If you want to awaken all of humanity, then awaken all of yourself. If you want to eliminate the suffering in the world, then eliminate all that is dark and negative in yourself. Truly, the greatest gift you have to give is that of your own self-transformation. So find a teacher who is an integral being, a beacon who extends his light and virtue with equal ease to those who appreciate him and those who don’t. Shape yourself in his mold, bathe in his nourishing radiance, and reflect it out to the rest of the world. You will come to understand an eternal truth: there is always a peaceful home for a virtuous being.

People have cherry-picked from the work, taking lines out of context. It’s actually an interesting, deep and complex work, well worth reading for its historical and political context. You can’t simply remove lines without losing some of the meaning. In this case the verse exhorts the reader to find a suitable teacher and submit to his/her discipline in order to achieve self-transformation. It also assumes the reader’s beliefs are in concert with Taoist and Chinese beliefs about “lower realms.” Similarly other verses refer to the “immortals.”

Walker attributes the work to Lao Tzu, which is a surprising statement given the easily available research on its origins. A lot of material is available in English to explain when and why the book was written. In his 1993 introduction, Walker wrote,

The Tao te Ching of Lao Tzu is … believed among Westerners to be Lao Tzu’s only book. Few are aware that a collection of his oral teachings on the subject of attaining enlightenment and mastery were also recorded in a book called the Hua Hu Ching (pronounced “wha hoo jing”). The teachings of the Hua Hu Ching are of enormous power and consequence, a literal road map to the divine realm for ordinary human beings. Perhaps predictably, the book was banned during a period of political discord in China, and all copies were ordered to be burned. Were it not for the Taoist tradition of oral transmission of sacred scriptures from master to student, they would have been lost forever. I am permanently indebted to Taoist Master Ni Hua-Ching for sharing his version of these teachings with the Western world after his emigration from China in 1976. My work here is largely based upon his teaching.

Walker’s work is skillful, poignant and poetic, but scholarly writing I’ve found contradicts his attribution to Lao Tzu. He suggests it only exists in oral form, however, a copy was found in 1997 in the Mogao Caves near Dunhuang, China, dating from around the late 4th or early 5th century CE. Walker seems to ignore the inconsistencies in the text or its evident political stance.

One of the problems that oral traditions face is that transmission from one generation to the next is seldom if ever entirely accurate. Memories fail, ideologies intrude to change the message, people can mishear a word. verses handed down orally for 1,500 or more years is bound to be corrupt when compared with a written version. Walker’s work has to be read with that in mind.

An alternate translation of the book, by Hua-Ching Ni, is much longer than Walker’s version, and retains the debate format so it reads as a series of question-and-answer dialogues between a young prince and a learned Taoist master. It, too, incorrectly attributes the authorship to Lao Tzu despite the very obvious references to later practices and beliefs that post-dated Lao Tzu.

Here’s another bad quote mis-attributed to Lao Tzu, this one from Facebook, mis-identified as coming from Lao Tzu:

“Love knows no limit to its endurance, no end to its trust, no fading of its hope; it can outlast anything. Love still stands when all else has fallen.”

This is actually from the New Testament (Corinthians), not Lao Tzu. Once again the problem is that lazy people don’t check sources to confirm the author, and simply attribute it to whomever they decide seems like a likely source. Never assume that what is posted online – especially anything posted on Facebook – is accurate. Always research the content before you spread another bad meme or urban myth.

02/5/12

Why Admiral Collingwood should go ahead


Juxtaposition.

That’s the issue Collingwood Council has to wrestle with, Monday: what effect will the juxtaposition of the proposed development’s size and height have on the existing, smaller buildings? Some people are afraid our existing heritage buildings will be diminished by this project.

Last week I was in Toronto. At the corner of York and Wellington Streets, I saw the Toronto Club; a beautifully preserved, late 19th-century red-brick, three-storey building. It’s in the, heart of financial district, surrounded by tall, modern skyscrapers, some 30 or more storeys high. What made this building stand out was the contrast with, not the similarity to, the buildings around it.

Art Gallery of OntarioI later walked along Dundas Street to the Art Gallery of Ontario. It is a big, modern building redesigned by architect Frank Gehry. At 21m, It is roughly the same height of the proposed Admiral building, but much longer. Across the street are typical three-storey, Toronto brick homes, many turned into galleries and businesses. Further west along Dundas Street, Chinatown is a mix of two to four-storey buildings.

The gallery dominates the visual landscape, but instead of diminishing the others, the contrast makes them stand out more.

JerusalemA few decades ago, I visited Jerusalem. The Old City has 2,500 years of history visible in its walls and narrow streets. What makes the Old City so spectacular is how it contrasts against the modern city just outside its walls. The beauty of the Old City shines in the juxtaposition.

Duke of York pubIn London, England, this fall, I walked through 13th century cathedrals, and 15th-century castles where Henry VIII lived. I had a beer in an 18th century pub in the heart of the city, a small building surrounded by much taller and more modern ones.

England has some very rigid laws about heritage buildings to make sure they are preserved and maintained. But when there is nothing to preserve, they allow builders and architects to be creative. There are some stunningly modern and exciting buildings in London within a stone’s throw of well-preserved 17th and 18th century heritage sites. The contrast between them makes London vibrant.

It is contrast and the mix that makes any city dynamic, not its homogeneity.

I love the old buildings, I love the preserved cultural heritage sites I’ve had the privilege to visit.

But heritage is a sentimental concept, a romanticizing of an ideal past; it is not a technical term. In fact, it’s difficult to get people to agree on what it means. The whole history of the architecture conservation movement is not much older than our own town.

Our heritage district is not a museum of empty buildings: it is a place where people live and work. We want our heritage buildings to look old from the outside, but not inside.

No one wants outdoor privies and gas lanterns, no one wants to get water from a well or keep groceries in a cold cellar. We want all the modern conveniences the original owners never had: electricity, refrigeration, insulation, modern plumbing and air conditioning. Our heritage is skin deep: it’s just the façade that matters.

The definition of what is heritage changes with every generation. Many of the buildings in Collingwood’s heritage district would have been new in my grandfather’s youth. Some would have been new when my father was a teenager, a generation later. Both men would have thought of these buildings as modern, not as heritage sites.

banks in the heritage districtA generation or two from now, our children and grandchildren may see the Admiral development as heritage, something they want to protect and preserve. They may also want to preserve the blocky modern buildings like several downtown banks, the former bingo hall and former drugstore, even the town hall annex – because they will be heritage sites in the future.

is this future heritage?Today many here would like nothing more than to have those buildings torn down and something that looks more 19th-century erected in their place. Even though these and other modern buildings are within the heritage district, does anyone care if this proposed development diminishes those modern buildings? Of course not.

Admiral Collingwood developmentProtecting our heritage doesn’t mean we can only erect fakes that externally conform to our current sentimental ideal. We can allow contrast, we can allow change without in any way diminishing the value or appearance of our existing heritage buildings or district.

We have a duty to the community as a whole, not just to one segment. The economic wellbeing of our downtown is at stake, not merely its look.

Let’s stop agonizing over this and let it go forward.

02/4/12

Mayor Ford’s troubles a lesson for all Canadian mayors


Toronto Mayor Rob FordOn days like this, Toronto Mayor Rob Ford must be banging his head against the wall. This week he – and indeed every Canadian mayor – was reminded that a mayor’s powers are limited to a single vote.

That point was driven home when Councillor Joe Mihevc asked for a legal opinion on Ford’s unilateral decision to kill the Transit City plan, in December 2010, without consulting council. Mihevc also claimed Ford did not have the authority to sign a memorandum of understanding with the province to spend money from the Transit City project to put the proposed Eglinton LRT entirely underground.

The legal opinion suggested Ford did, indeed, overstep his authority. The province, too, has indicated that any agreement must be approved by the “governing body,” not just the mayor. The mayor is not an autocrat, no matter what he thinks his role is.

Unlike mayors in the USA, in Canada mayors have no additional power, and certainly no veto, that are not granted to any other member of council. Much of their authority is assumed by position or given by respect, rather than granted through legislation. They may act as chair, set the agenda, and control their own office budget, but can do little else outside the context of the democratic process. Unilateral decisions are not permitted.

In Canada, municipalities are children of their respective province, a role descended from the original British North America Act and as out of touch with current times as the BNA would be today. Cities, even our largest, have no independence as many American and European cities have. In every province, legislation defines what power, what authority and what responsibility municipalities enjoy. This antiquated – almost medieval – hierarchy puts our major cities on the same legislative level as any hamlet or village. And it puts every mayor on the same level as any other member of council: one vote, no veto.

Whether this is good or bad governance is a debate that provincial municipal organizations should be pressing on the provinces. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities should be demanding the federal government examine necessary changes to federal laws to facilitate provincial changes.

Author Gord Hume discussed this and related issues in his recent book, Taking Back Our Cities. Unfortunately for municipal politicians in Canada, Hume is a lone voice; provincial and federal municipal associations are unaccountably silent on the changes needed (and long overdue) in the provincial-municipal relationship. In fact, there seems to be a slightly too-cozy relationship between the provinces and their respective provincial associations. Association executives exhibit a tad too much reluctance to ‘rock the boat’ and upset that relationship.

The fight with Ford is not about transit dollars. It’s about authority and governance. I can sympathize: in the previous Collingwood council, I argued similarly against what I perceived as overstepping mayoral authority. It’s somewhat understandable that mayors assume they have more significance than their fellow council members because they are elected at large and, at least in Ford’s case, with a larger vote count that councillors get. But that significance is not defined in any legislation. They cannot act alone.

In the Globe and Mail, Patrick White writes,

The controversy has sparked a debate about whether he did or didn’t overstep his authority under the City of Toronto Act and, subsequently, whether it is Mr. Ford or the legislation that needs to change.

The Act may well need revision, but until such time as the province agrees to do so – and the province is very reluctant to relinquish any of its authority to municipalities, regardless of any election promises or claims to partnerships – Ford is the one who has to change.

Do some or all Canadian mayors need powers comparable to what their American counterparts enjoy? That would be a big debate, a fascinating and probably contentious one. It’s not likely to happen under the current Ontario government. None of the parties have expressed more than bland platitudes about the municipal-provincial relationship; their leaders usually smugly calling us “partners” without offering us a seat at the table for any decision that affects municipalities. In the province’s eyes, that partnership is a subservient role and municipalities have to tug their virtual forelocks in obedience.

As for the federal government, it won’t act until the provinces pressure it to do so. That day will come only when our municipal organizations show the spine to fight for a renewed, revised relationship. That will not happen, I suspect, until Hell freezes over.

02/3/12

The colour of the herd


I felt not so much like I was in a city full of undertakers, but rather in a city that was in casual but widespread mourning. A sombre, solemn city where everyone dressed in black in recognition of some great death, but one of which visitors were unaware.

Standing at an intersection, the light would change and a wall of dark would approach, like a funeral procession that had just disbanded and was now going about its daily business in all seriousness.

Okay, to be truthful, not everyone was in black. There were other dark shades among the herd: deep greys and navy blues mottled its appearance, but black dominated. Now and then a tiny flash of resistance sparkled: a turquoise scarf, red mittens, a green hat. A few light greys showed as accents, like some Darwinian random mutation. Sometimes the white earplug wires of an iPod stood out in jarring contrast against all the darkness. But mostly it was monochrome: subtle shades of black.

Black hat, black gloves, black scarf, black coat, black pants and black shoes. It’s like everyone saw The Matrix and decided collectively to emulate Mr. Smith. Yes, even to the black shades worn on overcast days and into the evening.

I stood out like a crazed flamingo in a conservative wildebeest herd in my yellow-and-almond winter jacket. Now and then I’d spot another rebel against the herd instinct: a bright splash of colour like a beacon in the swirling sea of dark. If our paths intersected, and out eyes met, we’d share a secret smile, two rebels sloughing off the herd instinct, fellow travellers in the underground of colour.

There’s an old joke about New Yorkers wearing black until something darker comes along. It seems Toronto has adopted the black-as-fashion statement. I like black. I wear it a lot. Black can be forceful, mysterious, sexy, confrontational, challenging, expressive and strong. But it’s not so much fashion as anti-fashion, if everyone is wearing it. Is everyone in black mysterious and sexy, or just hopeful they are?

Fashionable means rubbing against the grain of the herd: wearing the opposite, wearing the things that make heads turn, being visible. If you accept the notion that doing the opposite of the herd is the front line of fashion, in Toronto this week, I was – for perhaps the only time anyone will ever accuse me of it – exquisitely fashionable.

At the very least I was un-black, which may be close to the same thing.

02/1/12

The return of measles a threat to us all


Measles: The InquisitorHere’s a scary fact: measles seems to be returning to the West. There has been a rise in the number of outbreaks in the last few years, including in Canada: Quebec and recently in London, Ontario. According to the Middlesex-London Health Unit, there have been recent outbreaks of both measles and mumps in many countries, including, “US states (including New York), United Kingdom, New Zealand, Spain, Switzerland, Italy, France, Serbia, Macedonia, Turkey, Peru, Guatemala, Congo, Zambia, Bangladesh and India.”

So why are these diseases coming back?

It seems it’s not because science has failed us. It’s not because the diseases are evolving resistance and spreading beyond the reach of our immunizations. Immunization programs have been proven to work to prevent their spread.

They’re coming back because some dim-witted parents and religious groups have decided that vaccinations aren’t necessary or are dangerous. And these muddle-headed, wrong-thinking people are endangering everyone else. They are violating the herd protection defence that vaccination had raised.

Why? In part, I blame the gullibility of people to believe anything they read online, but there are other suggestions as to why people chose such a disastrous, self-destructive and antisocial path. As The Pediatric Insider notes,

Along with clean food and water, vaccinations are generally accepted as one of the greatest public health triumphs of the modern world. We are safe from diseases like polio and measles, which once ravaged millions. We no longer, really, have to worry about most kinds of bacterial meningitis, and we’re able to even prevent some kinds of cancer. Newer vaccines in development include protection against HIV and malaria. At the same time, immunizations are very safe, compared to just about any other medicine or medical intervention. Yet despite their incredible effectiveness and well-documented safety, suspicions remain. Many families choose to skip some or all vaccinations.
[snip]
There should be no doubt that vaccines are very effective at preventing diseases, and are still necessary to prevent serious illnesses. Just one recent example: a study published in May, 2009 showed that unvaccinated kids were 23 times more likely to contract whooping cough than children who were fully vaccinated. Do not doubt that the diseases that are prevented by vaccines are themselves quite serious and sometimes deadly.

The author writes further that the main reasons people choose not to vaccinate their children is that they distrust the government, science, pharmaceutical corporations or all three. That generally puts vaccination-refusers (aka vaccination-dodgers) on the same intellectual level as those who believe the 9/11 attacks were done by the US government, that NASA was hiding a face on Mars, and that angels protect us.

He also blames “Dr. Google” and “natural” or “alternative” remedy practitioners. These two have helped perpetuate many myths and misconceptions about science and medicine, including offering ineffective alternative preventions and cures. A lot of what goes unchallenged on the Net is simply bunk: but some of what passes off as “medicine” is downright dangerous, not to mention stupid. pseudoscience and superstition haves proliferated on the Web. It’s frustrating that so many people will take the word of an astrologer or self-described “psychic” before they take that of a researcher, doctor or scientist.

Some parents still cling stubbornly to the now-debunked hypothetical link between vaccinations and autism. It must be a government conspiracy because no matter how many times this link is disproven, there seems to be someone willing to revile the debunker (like Canadian actor Jim Carey did -it’s a sad state we’ve fallen to when people will heed the words of an ill-informed actor or a media idol over a scientist who spent years on the research). These myths are memes, not science.

I read one wild, unsubstantiated claim online that, “All vaccines are biological weapons that weaken or destroy the human immune system. They often fail to protect against diseases they’re designed to prevent and often cause them. The H1N1 vaccine is experimental, untested, toxic, extremely dangerous, and essential to avoid even if mandated.” What claptrap. Yet because there is nothing on the site to indicate this is an uninformed opinion, readers who lack critical thinking skills have no way to identify it as nonsense.

According the this article on The Inquisitr.com,

The World Health Organization reports that as of October, there have been 26,000 measles cases, and nine deaths, in Europe in 2011. That is three times as many cases during the same time period in 2007.

The United States – where vaccines are mandatory – had 205 cases of measles in 2011, more than any it reported in the previous decade. Normally the USA reports about 50 cases a year. The rest appear linked to visits to or visitors from overseas. Last May, health officials warned travellers to get vaccinated before flying overseas. As one doctor commented, “Air travel has extended the range of diseases from countries where people aren’t immunized. We’re no more than one airplane ride from being exposed to many diseases.”

As the Ontario Ministry of Health says,

The vaccine protects about 99 per cent of those who get both needles against measles. It protects 95 per cent of people against mumps and about 98 per cent of people against rubella. Protection from measles, mumps and rubella after getting the vaccine is probably life-long. Vaccination also makes these diseases milder for those who may catch them.

Here’s a list of common myths about vaccinations. Give it a read. And please, if you’re one of the vaccine-deniers, do some research and read the science, not just the superstition and pseudoscience.