As a microbiologist, I've always questioned the mantra we constantly hear about hand washing and swine flu. CDC, etc. are constantly touting the benefits of handwashing in preventing swine flu. It is repeated so often and so decisively that I figured that there must be some overwhelming evidence that most flu is transmitted via hands to face. It turns out that this is not the case. How many things we see and hear every day are not based in fact?
Here's the article I read: http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/09/24/hand.washing.helpful/index.html . It turns out that the flu viruses don't survive as well on hands as they do in a fluid-filled droplet hanging in the air - expelled during a cough or sneeze. So handwashing is not the panacea our "medical" professionals have been touting.
That kind of pisses me off. I feel like the CDC, once again, has played the father-knows-best patriarch who settles down the hysterical masses with placating half-truths. As the article states and I long suspected, handwashing will likely do little for preventing swine flu - or any other flu for that matter.
That doesn't mean that handwashing is a bad idea. It is in fact a very good idea. There are all kinds of nasty things out there that find their way from hands to mouths, eyes, and noses. For example, E. coli, an evil little bacterium that can cause at the least intestinal distress and at the worst, death.
So, wash your hands, have your children wash their hands, etc. etc. etc. Just don't expect that it will protect you from the swine flu.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Monday, September 21, 2009
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
As attention is focused on "reforming" health care, it seems that the issue of the Wall St. implosion and governmental bail outs, along with discussion of reforms, has fallen to the wayside. I just read an article on CNN (http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2009/news/0904/gallery.biggest_ceo_paychecks/4.html) listing the top ten most highly paid CEOs at publicly held companies in 2008. Their compensation starts at $25.6 million a year and tops out at $104 million dollars. The salaries tended to be fairly "low" - around $1 million, the real cash was in the bonuses - often $30-$40 million, plus stock options.
CNN Money also shows median CEO compensation averaging about $8 million.
I just don't see how anyone is worth that much money. I think that if you are paid over one million a year, you had better have some type of superpower - a cloak of invisibility, an ability to fly, superhuman strength, the ability to see through walls, just something that makes you extra special.
It seems that all you really need is a good Ivy League education, connected parents, and oh - I almost forgot - A PAIR OF TESTICLES. Every single person in the top ten is a man. Mostly white, but I see a couple of Indians and one African American in the crop.
I calculated the odds of this occurring by chance alone are 1/1024. The same odds as a woman having 10 kids and all of them being boys (all other things being equal).
It seems that the odds of a woman winning the Nobel Prize are slightly better. Between 1903 (when the first prizes were awarded) and 2008, thirty-five women have been awarded the prizes, compared to 700 men (http://womens-history.suite101.com/article.cfm/women_science_nobel_prize_winners). That means that 4.8% of the nobel prizes have been awarded to women, versus a fair 50-50 split. If the playing field were equal, then there should have been 367 women awarded the prize. So, approximately 332 women have been robbed of the Nobel Prize.
I'm rather demoralized because, as a middle aged woman, I am seeing that the women of my generation have not been able to achieve what they should have. And further, it seems declasse to mention the failings of feminism in this regard. In fact, it is bad form to even use the word feminism. The term is uncool. But if there is no feminism, how are women going to get a fair shake? What mechanism will achieve it? I certainly don't know.
I do know one thing, however. We women are often our own worst enemies. We sabotage other women because we are jealous of their achievement. We play the corporate games so that we can become one of the lucky ones. We throw each other under the train so often that we hardly need a man's help to do in our fellow ovarians.
So let's start helping each other. It will not only open doors for future generations, it will scare the hell out of the old male dinosaurs, who have relied on women to once again do their work for them.
CNN Money also shows median CEO compensation averaging about $8 million.
I just don't see how anyone is worth that much money. I think that if you are paid over one million a year, you had better have some type of superpower - a cloak of invisibility, an ability to fly, superhuman strength, the ability to see through walls, just something that makes you extra special.
It seems that all you really need is a good Ivy League education, connected parents, and oh - I almost forgot - A PAIR OF TESTICLES. Every single person in the top ten is a man. Mostly white, but I see a couple of Indians and one African American in the crop.
I calculated the odds of this occurring by chance alone are 1/1024. The same odds as a woman having 10 kids and all of them being boys (all other things being equal).
It seems that the odds of a woman winning the Nobel Prize are slightly better. Between 1903 (when the first prizes were awarded) and 2008, thirty-five women have been awarded the prizes, compared to 700 men (http://womens-history.suite101.com/article.cfm/women_science_nobel_prize_winners). That means that 4.8% of the nobel prizes have been awarded to women, versus a fair 50-50 split. If the playing field were equal, then there should have been 367 women awarded the prize. So, approximately 332 women have been robbed of the Nobel Prize.
I'm rather demoralized because, as a middle aged woman, I am seeing that the women of my generation have not been able to achieve what they should have. And further, it seems declasse to mention the failings of feminism in this regard. In fact, it is bad form to even use the word feminism. The term is uncool. But if there is no feminism, how are women going to get a fair shake? What mechanism will achieve it? I certainly don't know.
I do know one thing, however. We women are often our own worst enemies. We sabotage other women because we are jealous of their achievement. We play the corporate games so that we can become one of the lucky ones. We throw each other under the train so often that we hardly need a man's help to do in our fellow ovarians.
So let's start helping each other. It will not only open doors for future generations, it will scare the hell out of the old male dinosaurs, who have relied on women to once again do their work for them.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Workplace Bullies
I am saddened by the murder of Annie Le at Yale University. Facts in the case are still being determined and I know nothing other than what I see on the news and read in the paper. Even then, this crime makes me feel nauseated. Not for the reasons you might assume - creme de la creme taken down in their prime, talented woman's life and career cut short, all those things you hear when an innocent person of merit is cut down.
Again, I don't know what happened. But it seems to me that this is another case of workplace violence, caused by a man, with the victim being a woman. It seems like the alleged perpetrator was a control freak who enjoyed telling the professors and their grad students what was what. It looks to me like he was a bully. And given how he reacted to Ms. Le, he probably wasn't the charming, eccentric type of bully. He was/is dangerous.
What scares me is that I'll bet that all the signs were there. Academics is filled with "odd" people, and there is a wide tolerance of behavior outside the norm. However, there is also the ability to look askance at real, dysfunctional behavior. The fact that he was allowed to run roughshod points to a lack of enlightened supervision.
That's what scares me. This situation exists all over the world, and is rampant in the US.
Many dinosaurs (and baby dinosaurs) are out there that expect their will to be done, and their ego protected, because that's how it was 30 years ago. And since they are often in positions of authority, they can use their bully nature to make it so.
I'm sure there are plenty of women bullies out there. But I'll bet they are outnumbered 10-1 by male bullies in positions of authority who have no compunctions about using their bullying habits to get what they want, whether or not it is in the best interests of the entity they are representing. Here we had a baby dinosaur.
More later. Thanks for reading.
Again, I don't know what happened. But it seems to me that this is another case of workplace violence, caused by a man, with the victim being a woman. It seems like the alleged perpetrator was a control freak who enjoyed telling the professors and their grad students what was what. It looks to me like he was a bully. And given how he reacted to Ms. Le, he probably wasn't the charming, eccentric type of bully. He was/is dangerous.
What scares me is that I'll bet that all the signs were there. Academics is filled with "odd" people, and there is a wide tolerance of behavior outside the norm. However, there is also the ability to look askance at real, dysfunctional behavior. The fact that he was allowed to run roughshod points to a lack of enlightened supervision.
That's what scares me. This situation exists all over the world, and is rampant in the US.
Many dinosaurs (and baby dinosaurs) are out there that expect their will to be done, and their ego protected, because that's how it was 30 years ago. And since they are often in positions of authority, they can use their bully nature to make it so.
I'm sure there are plenty of women bullies out there. But I'll bet they are outnumbered 10-1 by male bullies in positions of authority who have no compunctions about using their bullying habits to get what they want, whether or not it is in the best interests of the entity they are representing. Here we had a baby dinosaur.
More later. Thanks for reading.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Health Care Again
I hate to see the public option go in health care reform. It's clear to me that insurance providers need some fierce competition before they'll clean up their act.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
IN PRAISE OF SLOWNESS
What I'm thinking about today - IN PRAISE OF SLOWNESS: I spent labor day gardening. And while gardening I listened to the radio. Skipped around a bit, and eventually ended up at public radio. Cambridge Forums had an author talking about his book (from 2005) For Labor Day: September 4 IN PRAISE OF SLOWNESS: Challenging the Cult of Speed (Recorded in 2005).
"London-based journalist Carl Honoré examines the challenges to the cult of speed in our age of multi-tasking, 24/7 work lives and overscheduled children. Has speed made us happier and more productive? Or is the pace of life spinning out of control? Can we slow down without turning back the clock? Or is the slow movement only for the affluent?"
I really enjoyed this program because I have been struggling with slowness. OK, I'll say it. I'm naturally kind of slow. I like to approach things obliquely and work my way around the edges until I feel ready to pounce. I don't like to do several things at once, although I can if I must. This temperament of mine gets me in trouble at work, frustrates other people, and frustrates me also. I find that while I generally finish projects on time, I approach them so differently that I am seen as a fish out of water. I am very methodical and it's hard to rush me. I guess my process can be difficult for the go go go people to watch.
I think we are all being rushed constantly. Some enjoy it and thrive on it, but some don't. I'm part of the don't. I think people like me are kind of beaten up for that character trait in the US, where it's go go go go go all the time. Damn the torpedos - full speed ahead. I like to go slow if possible, get it right the first time, and set myself up for success and efficiency when repeating said process. Comments?
"London-based journalist Carl Honoré examines the challenges to the cult of speed in our age of multi-tasking, 24/7 work lives and overscheduled children. Has speed made us happier and more productive? Or is the pace of life spinning out of control? Can we slow down without turning back the clock? Or is the slow movement only for the affluent?"
I really enjoyed this program because I have been struggling with slowness. OK, I'll say it. I'm naturally kind of slow. I like to approach things obliquely and work my way around the edges until I feel ready to pounce. I don't like to do several things at once, although I can if I must. This temperament of mine gets me in trouble at work, frustrates other people, and frustrates me also. I find that while I generally finish projects on time, I approach them so differently that I am seen as a fish out of water. I am very methodical and it's hard to rush me. I guess my process can be difficult for the go go go people to watch.
I think we are all being rushed constantly. Some enjoy it and thrive on it, but some don't. I'm part of the don't. I think people like me are kind of beaten up for that character trait in the US, where it's go go go go go all the time. Damn the torpedos - full speed ahead. I like to go slow if possible, get it right the first time, and set myself up for success and efficiency when repeating said process. Comments?
Monday, September 7, 2009
HEALTH CARE REFORM
I don't get the opposition to health care reform. Having had plenty of health care issues, my own and my family's, I can confidently state that our current system is broken and minor tweaks won't fix it.
I wonder about the motivations of those that protest so vociferously. Even if they are happy with their current situation, who could be happy knowing that their health care is tied to their employer?
My conspiracy theory self wonders if tying health care to jobs isn't just another way of keeping the people down. You are more beholden to your employer if they supply your health care. Why would anyone want that?
And as far as letting Big Government control my healthcare, I'd trust them far more than Big Corporations who are driven by profits and seemingly not burdened by conscience.
I will be saddened if there is not a government option for those that want to tell insurers to stick their rescissions http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32729358/ns/health-more_health_news/ where the sun don't shine.
I wonder about the motivations of those that protest so vociferously. Even if they are happy with their current situation, who could be happy knowing that their health care is tied to their employer?
My conspiracy theory self wonders if tying health care to jobs isn't just another way of keeping the people down. You are more beholden to your employer if they supply your health care. Why would anyone want that?
And as far as letting Big Government control my healthcare, I'd trust them far more than Big Corporations who are driven by profits and seemingly not burdened by conscience.
I will be saddened if there is not a government option for those that want to tell insurers to stick their rescissions http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32729358/ns/health-more_health_news/ where the sun don't shine.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
