Questions you want answered (P&C Edition)

I just heard from a Marine Corps buddy of mine that he's suffering from a version of Gulf War Illness that was caused by the anthrax vaccine that we began receiving in 2000. Due to the movement against tested and proven vaccines (as opposed to anthrax), research on the topic seems impossible to me as a layman. So, do I have anything to worry about or is he mistaken at best?

My main reason for being concerned is that when he was going over his symptoms, I had several "I have that" moments. But they could just be normal issues, unrelated to any anthrax vaccine complications.

First. Have him call us, or visit.

http://www.law.udmercy.edu/index.php...

Secondly, a trip to your local VAMC is probably in order.

And I also suggest that you give us a call.

From the Conservative War on Women thread:

How much is the internet echo chamber helping or hurting?

It's true that people with similar ideas can stick to certain places on the internet and support each others' terrible ideas. It's also true that the internet certainly has not stopped people from believing ridiculous things.

But is this really any different from what has happened all throughout history in small towns and societies, just that maybe we're more aware of it? McCarthyism, Salem Witch Trials, and all manner of irrational panics and intolerance happened long before the internet, and in fact general tolerance of things such as homosexuality has gone up a great deal.

The internet cannot change the general need of people for homogeneity. The nation is still one largely segregated religiously and racially. Neighborhoods and Townships are largely divided into ethnic regions.

I do not see why the internet would reflect something contrary. In a bygone era, the automobile and the airplane were to provide a chance for people to mix it up more. That was not really the effect.

I'm not sure how you can say that the automobile, airplane and internet haven't had that effect at all. Sure, it didn't solve the problem overnight, but overall things have been steadily getting better. A hundred years ago racial equality was a radical notion, thirty years ago homosexual equality was a radical notion. We haven't entirely gotten 100% of the population on board but we're probably closer than ever.

I think it is something that can cut both ways. The car let poor rural blacks move north, and let the whites living in Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee, New York move out to the suburbs. The hypersegregation in the major cities has not seen much decline. From a statistical standpoint, the biggest decline in segregation numbers was because the census changed the standards.

The thing is though, the US is still one of the more integrated nations in the world. There is not some 80-90 percent ruling ethnicity, or religion seen in other parts.

But still for all the advances, people just have more resources to stay in a bubble of their culture, their race, their religion. Mobility was used for years as ways to justify racist zoning laws, racist districting. If you do not like it, move! still is a valid legal argument.

Demyx wrote:

I'm not sure how you can say that the automobile, airplane and internet haven't had that effect at all. Sure, it didn't solve the problem overnight, but overall things have been steadily getting better. A hundred years ago racial equality was a radical notion, thirty years ago homosexual equality was a radical notion. We haven't entirely gotten 100% of the population on board but we're probably closer than ever.

I would say I seem to remember people's opinions changing around here when being exposed to online news articles that would have otherwise been outside of their reach. I dunno how much automobiles and airplanes can be compared to the internet with helping with the cause of gay rights... but who knows... maybe they can be measured as a slightly lower impact in correspondence with their lesser contributions to speeding up news traveling.

The automobile was instrumental in the civil rights movement. The automobile and the national highway system were integral in numerous lawsuits to takedown Jim Crow laws, and to the enactment of the Civil Rights Act. Travel across this nation as equals was argued as a fundamental right. And to discriminate against blacks, a violation of that right.

If I was unclear, I do not intend to state that the segregation in the US by habitat, by association is of itself some evil. I think it is simply human nature, to tend to homogeneity. The internet echo chamber operates on the same logos. It is also in a muddy water of chosen vs enforced segregation. African Americans, Latinos, Catholics, Jews seeking to live and associate in areas with other African Americans, Latinos, Catholics, Jews is different from an ordinance or Home Owner Assn provision barring Catholic families (even in round about ways, say no families larger than 5 members in a home-or the classic, 1950's nuclear family requirement-anti-Irish, anti-Jew, anti-Hispanic).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierce_...

But all the laws in the world cannot force people to live together, to go to worship together, or to seek out contrary influences. That is something special, that is extraordinary.

Those are the people who thought to use Dark Age technology to sail the world, discovering new lands. Those are the people who in under a decade invented new technologies, and successfully put a man on our moon. It is that rare individual willing to step out of her metaphorical cave in search of what lies past the horizon. It is that rare person who questions what we know about the world, only to discover that we are wrong about the sun circling the earth. There are people in the US, the UK, Australia happily believing that the earth is 5,000 years old(or at least modern man). They are unaware that peoples of India and Chine have written histories going back twice as far.

KingGorilla wrote:

The automobile was instrumental in the civil rights movement. The automobile and the national highway system were integral in numerous lawsuits to takedown Jim Crow laws, and to the enactment of the Civil Rights Act. Travel across this nation as equals was argued as a fundamental right. And to discriminate against blacks, a violation of that right.

If I was unclear, I do not intend to state that the segregation in the US by habitat, by association is of itself some evil. I think it is simply human nature, to tend to homogeneity. The internet echo chamber operates on the same logos. It is also in a muddy water of chosen vs enforced segregation. African Americans, Latinos, Catholics, Jews seeking to live and associate in areas with other African Americans, Latinos, Catholics, Jews is different from an ordinance or Home Owner Assn provision barring Catholic families (even in round about ways, say no families larger than 5 members in a home-or the classic, 1950's nuclear family requirement-anti-Irish, anti-Jew, anti-Hispanic).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierce_...

But all the laws in the world cannot force people to live together, to go to worship together, or to seek out contrary influences. That is something special, that is extraordinary.

I have always wanted to start a discussion on the value of having neighborhoods with character, which is almost always ethnically based, and segregation.

Jimmy Carter did and he got a lot of heat for that. But major metropolitan areas are often arranged along this way. New York City, Chicago, Milwaukee, Miami, Detroit often proudly have their ethnic neighborhoods. Chinatown, Little Italy (should be called Little Puerto Rico now though), Koreatown, Little Tokyo can be tourist attractions.

But Demyx was talking about the internet as a force to get more sharing of diverse ideas. In my mind, just as the car was an opportunity to either become more diverse or to be used to enforce the status quo, most people will always choose the status quo. Most people want confirmation, not information (was this a little too Don King?). The internet could be used to exchange ideas, but it also has become a haven for people to discuss racial bigotry, false science, sexual bigotry (I opine that Westboro Baptist Church gets its power from the web).

Like the car, it depends on how you choose to use it. It also might be on glass half full vs half empty. If the car made the nation 5% less segregated, and the internet 10% more, that is progress. I might just be choosing to focus on the other 90% that is still messed up, instead of the several fold improvement. Maybe Demyx is just a nicer person than I am...though you could say that of Stalin too.

KingGorilla wrote:

The internet cannot change the general need of people for homogeneity.

Citation needed. There certainly are people who crave homogeneity, but there are also people who crave diversity.

I'd say it can certainly help, by giving people who may be living in a homogenous place the ability to be among a diverse group of people. It'll probably take a while longer to tell whether it's helped or hindered acceptance.

And there are also many scholarly works, books and articles about how people often crave novelty and adventure.

The Internet definitely makes it easier for people who do crave and seek out alternate viewpoints and experiences, there's little doubt about that. So then the real question is how does it affect those who do not seek out new viewpoints and experiences? For those who don't seek that sort of thing out, but also do not actively avoid it, I think the internet is probably net positive. Unless you specifically stick only to sites that validate your worldview and ignore social media, comments threads, forums etc. you will be exposed to many different people.

For those who actively avoid anything new or challenging, I would suspect that the internet does not help, but those people would probably live in their own echo chamber anyway, internet or not. But there is a case to be made that the internet can help people with less popular viewpoints find each other, cling together and validate each other, breeding extremism.

There are numerous scholarly works, books, news articles on human tribalism, JFGI.

UCLA has a plethora of wonderful studies to bite into. The Civil Rights Project study into American school segregation is fascinating to read.

The demographic research into the distance that people move away from their parents is fascinating on this subject. The greatest variation on distance comes based on education level. The more education in a group (University, Graduate, PHD), the longer average distance between children and parents. Those rare, highly educated people, are those who strike of the farthest from home.

Right behind education as a factor was the age at which you left home (likely ran away with the pre-adult teens).

I am looking to move a law practice to Puerto Rick for god's sake.

JFGI is a pretty rude way to respond to someone's request for actual evidence of a claim.

SixteenBlue wrote:

JFGI is a pretty rude way to respond to someone's request for actual evidence of a claim.

He probably meant "JFGI, your honor."

SixteenBlue wrote:

JFGI is a pretty rude way to respond to someone's request for actual evidence of a claim.

Saying citation needed in casual discourse is a pretty rude way to go about discussion as well. Some days I want to be an educator, some days I appreciate happy and civil discourse. I am not claiming that the atmosphere is made up of blue cobalt vapor.

But in the name of politeness:

Human Tribalism

Distance from Home for Adults.

The talk about segregation, ethnic divisions, economic divisions, in schools and cities is not some rare conversation. It has been ongoing for years in Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee, New York, LA, Miami, Houston, Dallas, St. Louis, Toronto, etc. And the topics have been regular features in radio, TV, academic study, and reporting.

Asking for evidence to back up a claim in a discussion isn't rude. I could not disagree more.

KingGorilla wrote:

The internet cannot change the general need of people for homogeneity.

It probably could, but like most things, might require a bit of reverse psychology.

Them libruls want us to accept homogeneity!

Human tribalism is more of a cultural thing than an innate human need for sameness, which is what you suggested we all had.

While "citation needed" may not be the absolute, most polite way of asking for sources to a claim, it's certainly more polite than "citation f-ing needed".

Stengah wrote:

Human tribalism is more of a cultural thing than an innate human need for sameness, which is what you suggested we all had

Neither my personal experience nor the studies I've read back this up; tribalism seems to be innate to our species. Even groups known to wander are typically highly tribal.

I suppose if we can't even agree on whether or not humans are innately isolationist and prone to reject unfamiliar ideas, though, having a discussion about whether that innate tribalism extends to the Internet is moot.

For the record, I think the Internet has fallen in line with other historical opportunities for cultural diaspora, which is to say that with a tiny amount of notable exceptions, the vehicle has reinforced our tendency to create echo chambers. There are far more hobbits than Frodos, so to speak.

Seth wrote:
Stengah wrote:

Human tribalism is more of a cultural thing than an innate human need for sameness, which is what you suggested we all had

Neither my personal experience nor the studies I've read back this up; tribalism seems to be innate to our species. Even groups known to wander are typically highly tribal.

"Human tribalism in the modern world is more of a cultural thing" was more of what I was going for. White babies aren't born prejudiced against black faces. It's far more a question of familiarity than of similarity.

I see what you're saying Stengah but I think there's a nuance we have to tease out of this.

I consider modern tribalism to be innate. That is, our species is genetically programmed to desire a socially homogenous group.

That said, you're right that modern tribalism certainly focuses on cultural specifics -familiarity vs physical similarity, as you say.

So maybe the Internet takes this a step further by removing physical attributes during communication. However instead of bringing us all closer together, it just allows us to choose our echo chamber more accurately.

....says the guy posting on a video game forum.

Stengah wrote:

White babies aren't born prejudiced against black faces. It's far more a question of familiarity than of similarity.

No, but if they've never seen a black person for the first year or more of their life, the first time they do will freak them the f*** out.

KingGorilla wrote:

First. Have him call us, or visit.

http://www.law.udmercy.edu/index.php...

Secondly, a trip to your local VAMC is probably in order.

And I also suggest that you give us a call.

He's out west and is already in the claim process and much to my surprise he lawyered up from the get go. He said that he had heard to many VA horror stories about denied vaccine claims.

As for a VAMC appointment, coincidentally I have one next week. After being without insurance for a few years I had a "duh" moment and filed the VA benefits forms and next week will be my first appointment. I was mainly wondering whether it was true that the 2000 and later anthrax vaccines can cause permanent issues. And googling is a lesson in frustration due to all the BS spewed by both sides.

I will give Project Salute a call/email though, thanks for the info.

Well that is good, not much we can do otherwise. But because this is federal, we do represent people nationally. I am working with a lady outside of Columbus right now.

I wanted to mention, though the focus is on poor, indigent, homeless veterans, we can provide advice and assistance to just about any veteran.

My non-advice that cannot be construed as legal advice under any circumstances.

As pertaining to Anthrax, Agent Orange, Mustard Gas, etc. A lot of that is in statute, and not in medical texts. I know more about Agent Orange and Gulf War syndromes, as most of my clients are that era. But the statutes lay out pretty simply that if you were in combat, boots on the ground in Vietnam, or parts of Iraq or Kuwait, you are presumed to have been exposed to any number of things regardless of if you were never exposed in fact. I know less about the 2000's operations in Iraq and Afghanistan though. IE if you were a Marine who was in combat in Nam, you are presumed to have been exposed to Agent Orange by law. And any number of diseases are then attributed to that like pancreatic cancer or heart disease.

Two questions re income tax:

Why is the government defined minimum tax bracket well below the government recognized poverty level?

government wrote:

We acknowledge you're among the working poor but we're still going to take %x of your income.

Is the above true other places or just here?

That is true in the US too.

The only time I got away with claiming no tax was in college and I worked an average of less than 13 hours a week. And I still got a bit of a refund because of college tuition credits.

Why is sexism the one topic we can't seem to discuss without the thread eventually getting closed down? :l It's incredibly frustrating to want to share news stories, etc. regarding feminist issues when it's like "Okay, what thread is the right place to share this now, or do we even have one?"

Try talking about economics sometime.

(I don't think sexism is alone in that regard. It does seem to be on the short list of topics which get the most heated though. Frankly I'm happy we can feel that invested in it. Economical pun aside.)

Hypatian wrote:

Why is sexism the one topic we can't seem to discuss without the thread eventually getting closed down? :l It's incredibly frustrating to want to share news stories, etc. regarding feminist issues when it's like "Okay, what thread is the right place to share this now, or do we even have one?"

Too many accusing voices too eager to paint other people the wrong color and shoot them in the head. The conversation often turns from "That action is sexist," which is productive into "You're sexist," which is not. There's also a lot of "I'm right, you're wrong, end of story."

At least, that's how I perceive things going.