Blog Archives

US Homeland Security need and party politics

28/2/2015

US Homeland Security: Urgency versus party politics

On Friday the US Senate passed a bill funding Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with $40 billion through September in order to stop a government shutdown at midnight, according the CNBC news.

The Senate bill passage is a formality if the US House refuses to bring it to the floor for a vote. A political game of poker as been played by the House, specifically by House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), as he continues to try and bluff his way into forcing a rider on the bill to overturn President Barack Obama's executive order has stalled for two months. Obama’s executive order prevented the deportation for 4.7 million undocumented residents.

The US House offering is a poor substitute and on Friday suggested passing a three-week extension of current funding for the DHS. Really? Are House members optimistic that anything will be different 3 weeks? They have had two months to manipulate American sensibilities, and the only thing they put forward is a punitive immigration agenda that basically no one wants.

First, no one wants the US to be without the security of a fully operational DHS. Second, the majority of Americans want comprehensive immigration legislation. Who is the House representing? Is Boehner representing himself and the ability to hang on to the speakership by placating the conservative wing of Republicans? If so, this is reason enough to ask him to step down because playing games with American security is unacceptable and dilutes the primacy of the person third in line to the presidency.

A poll reported by Think Progress indicates the direction the country is leaning—despite the leanings of the US House. “In a survey of 794 likely voters interviewed recently, 81 percent of Americans want Congress to tackle legislation dealing with immigration, with 44 percent believing that it’s a very important issue. Adults over the age of 65 were more likely to agree that passing immigration reform was important. And while 40 percent of Democrats deemed passing immigration legislation very important, an even greater 53 percent of Republicans also considered it very important,” they said.

How important is seamless funding of DHS?

Cybersecurity is one of the most critical homeland security priorities as well as intelligence. Additionally coordination with the FBI is tantamount to protecting our borders—the invisible borders on the internet as well as American land masses. The three men called “home grown terrorists” arrested this week whilst attempting to leave the US to join ISIS were captured because protection of the homeland is paramount, and intercepting terrorists before an event saves lives.

In a New York Times report, the importance of intelligence monitoring and gathering became apparent this week. “In online postings, the two younger men seem to be searching for meaning in their lives, and increasingly disillusioned by those around them — including Muslim relatives they see as living less than devout lives.” Moreover, “the case against the three men relies in part on a confidential informant paid by the government, court documents show.”

Videos posted online by the Islamic State and messages on social media contributed to the radicalization of the three men, all of which was monitored by the DHS facilitating in part apprehension.

Also, a shutdown for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) a division of the DHS means that most employees would still continue to come to work, without receiving a paycheck for that work until the shutdown ends, which includes about 50,000 employees.The DHS website reports, “Yes, critical operations would continue, but the support for those operations would cease. Approximately 6 percent of the TSA workforce would be furloughed. Hiring would cease. Required training would cease. Travel associated with routine planned security inspections would cease. Deployment of security technology equipment would potentially be delayed.”

Maintaining the seamless operations of the DHS is not being taken seriously by the Republicans in the House. Practicing brinkmanship with the Senate and power games with the safety of Americans both in the US and around the world are appalling and a discredit to the democratic system of government. Is this the face of democracy Americans want portrayed around the world, as we pursue diplomacy and peace? If so little regard for the safety of Americans is acted out in Congress, other countries could perceive the US as weak-minded, fickle and unable to solve basic issues tantamount to running a stable government.

The three week extension being brokered by the House is a stop gap measure ensuring a few more weeks of attacks on immigration policy reform that Americans are tired of hearing.

When Republicans start haranguing that Democrats don’t compromise or “work” with Republicans, I hope they remember this day. Senate Democrats said they would vote for a three-week funding extension for the Department of Homeland Security if that legislation made it through the House, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Friday morning. Clearly Democrats prioritize the security of the US, not brinkmanship or party politics.

In Politico, Schumer said he’s not sure if the House can pass the three-week bill, but Senate Democrats would prefer to pass a full funding bill.

“The quickest and easiest solution … is for them is to put the bill that Senator McConnell, their fellow Republican, put together, and just fully fund Homeland Security, and then we can debate immigration,” the New York Democrat said. While his party would support the legislation, even short-term extensions hurt homeland security.

I predict legislation will be passed before midnight tonight, but not after some Republicans have squeezed out every ounce of propaganda they can muster to confront and neutralize the Democratic agenda to treat immigration reform with the respect and honesty it deserves.

Resources
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102462671#
http://www.pewresearch.org/topics/immigration-attitudes/
http://thinkprogress.org/immigration/2014/11/04/3588311/majority-americans-voters-want-immigration-reform/
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/funding-extension-dhs-democrats-chuck-schumer-115580.html?ml=ri

0 Comments

US Israel relations strained

26/2/2015

5 Comments

US and Israel relations are strained—thanks to House Speaker Boehner

As the speech before the US Congress by Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu nears, the White House has deemed it “destructive” questioning the diplomatic wisdom of both House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) for inviting him and Netanyahu’s acceptance during ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran, according to a report by the Associated Press.

Despite the reports by US administration, Israel’s Prime Minister contends the US has “given up” on stopping Iran from developing nuclear advances for war.

Netanyahu’s invitation was conducted without conference with President Barack Obama and has caused a rift between the House of Representatives and this administration. The White House terms the action as a breach of diplomatic protocol.

In an appearance on the Charlie Rose show this week, Obama national security advisor Susan Rice said that Netanyahu’s statements “injected a degree of partisanship” into the relationship between the two countries.

Rice’s comments are among the most overt so far by the administration since Netanyahu accepted an invitation from Speaker John A. Boehner to make his case to Congress against a nuclear deal with Iran, which has been a priority of the President. “It is also the frankest acknowledgment yet by a top American official of the degree to which the controversy has damaged United States-Israeli relations,” according to the New York Times.

Secretary of State John Kerry also criticized the visit suggesting that in nuclear negotiations Netanyahu “may have a judgment that just may not be correct here.”

As it appears the visit is going to take place, the Israel PM has turned down an invite by Senate Democrats to meet with them. He said a meeting could “compound the misperception of partisanship” regarding the visit. Netanyahu’s admission that a meeting would “compound” misperceptions suggests he already realizes there are issues that violate international protocol. These, however, are not “misconceptions” but rather Israel playing partisan politics with a Republican controlled Congress that is exhibiting blatant disregard for protocol to advance an ideological policy that could eventually mean war in the Middle East.

Although not saying formally they will be boycotting Netanyahu’s speech to Congress, top US officials Vice President Joseph Biden and Secretary Kerry both will be occupied and not attending the joint session. Biden will be “traveling” and Kerry in Switzerland when the Israel leader is in the US.

Meanwhile on the home front in Israel, the PM is under fire because housing prices have gone up more than 50 percent during his six years in office, according to the Israel’s news source Haaretz. The cost of living has likewise increased 30 percent. The security of Israel’s population seems to also be at risk as stabbings by terrorists have “come back” and the country endured 50 days of rocket attacks during the summer.

Somehow the term “taking the path of least resistance” for Netanyahu includes leaving his troubles and homeland unrest behind him in favor of traveling to the US where he has a camaraderie with a hawkish Republican Congress willing to listen and support what many believe is not only a breach of diplomatic protocol but an attempt to blind side sensitive negotiations with Iran that could eventually bring peace to the region.

Resources
http://frontpage.pch.com/p/news/source/news_ap/category/top_headlines/article/f581624b3fa646d8a18997eb6d7dfc9b
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/26/us/politics/susan-rice-calls-netanyahus-planned-visit-destructive-to-us-israel-ties.html?_r=0
http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/.premium-1.644087

5 Comments

Fancy a one way trip to Mars

25/2/2015

0 Comments

Would you take a one-way trip to Mars?

Op-Ed: A Dutch company is planning to establish a colony on Mars beginning in 2024. They sent out queries for applicants to participate in a project to inhabit the Red Planet for the rest of their lives. It’s a one-way ticket with no returning to Earth. Would you do it?

Before you answer, consider this: No more financial worries, no more career ponderings or changes, retirement completely covered, guaranteed income for life—as long it lasts, which some predict will be a short life span. One would also relinquish family associations, which could include never seeing children again. Would the positives outweigh the negatives?

Apparently 200,000 applicants believed it was a chance of a lifetime and sent the Dutch company applications. The field of applicants has been narrowed to 100, and they will go on to further testing later this year, which is expected to include team-building exercises and later, isolation to test their psychological tolerance, according to CNN.

The final count will be 24 with 12 females and 12 males. They will be selected to make up six crews of four, which Mars One says they hope to launch to the Red Planet every two years from 2024, with the aim of starting a colony there. The list of 100 finalists includes scientists and academics as well as those who are just seeking adventure.

The 24 successful applicants will undergo intense training for eight years. “The teams will be isolated from the world for a few months every year in simulation facilities, to learn how they respond to living in close quarters while isolated from all humans except for their crew members. In addition to the expertise and work experience they must already possess, they have to learn quite a few new skills: physical and electrical repairs to the settlement structures, cultivating crops in confined spaces, and addressing both routine and serious medical issues such as dental upkeep, muscle tears and bone fractures,” according to the Mars One website.

Art imitates life

In the 1972 movie “Silent Running” starring Bruce Dern, he plays a character named Freeman Lowell who is part of space expedition consisting of four crewmen aboard the space ship Valley Forge. Lowell is the resident botanist and ecologist who tends and preserves a variety of plants for their eventual return to Earth and the reforestation of the planet after an ecological disaster. Lowell spends most of his time in the bio-domes, cultivating the crops. To make a long story short, he and three drones he calls Huey, Dewey and Louie are the sole survivors on the ship. Lowell reprograms Huey and Dewey to plant trees and play poker. Huey is damaged when Lowell accidentally collides with him while driving a buggy recklessly, and Dewey sentimentally refuses to leave Huey's side during the repairs.

According to Mars One, the colonists will only have canned or freeze dried food, which makes one wonder why grow lights in bio-domes are not being considered. Lowell, on the other hand, grows his own food and is horrified when he discovers that his bio-dome is dying, but is unable to come up with a solution to the problem.

When a rescue ship eventually re-establishes contact, Lowell knows that his crime—he killed a crew man--will soon be discovered. It is then that he realizes a lack of light has restricted plant growth, and he races to install lamps to correct this situation.

In an effort to save the last forest, Lowell jettisons the dome to safety. He then detonates nuclear charges, destroying himself and the ship. The final scene is of the now fully lighted forest greenhouse drifting into deep space, with Dewey tenderly caring for it, holding an old watering can.

We don’t know if drones or bio-domes are in the future for the Mars astronauts, and the ultimate outcome of the experiment is uncertain. The Mars One description of what they will report is optimistic highlighting the lighter side of isolation. They will be asked to share all that they enjoy and find challenging. It will give the people on Earth a unique and personal insight view of life on Mars. The creators have envisioned intriguing questions like: What is it like to walk on Mars? How do you feel about your fellow astronauts after a year? What is it like living in the reduced Mars’ gravity? What is your favorite food? Do you enjoy the sunsets on Mars? These are lovely questions, but somehow they skirt the interpersonal issues that could be the down fall of space exploration.

Reports would have to include interpersonal relationships and the effects of living on a hostile planet and confined enclosures with restricted interaction and support of a wider community. In science fiction movies like “Silent Running” and more famous “Space Odyssey: 2001,” the science was the easy part. Living together was the challenge. I know you are probably thinking can science fiction predict the future.

Business Insider described some instances when science fiction writers like Jules Verne did in fact predict the future in their books, some of which have been made into movies.

Verne's dystopian "Paris in the Twentieth Century" wasn't his greatest work, but what makes it most interesting are the inventions he predicted almost 100 years before they were actually made. They include the submarine and the technology needed to land on the moon, they said.

“The World Set Free” by H.G. Wells predicted the use of atomic bombs. “Brave New World” by Aldous Huxley told us about a society controlled by mood-enhancing drugs. If you have ever heard the phrase “Orwellian,” then you know “1984” predicted world domination by a select few.

“Stranger in a Strange Land” by Robert Heinlein: he may have also foreseen the Mars One mission to send people on a one-way ticket to live on Mars, as his book's main character was born and raised on the red planet.

“Neuromancer” by William Gibson was published in 1984 about cyberspace and computer hackers. Many of us were still figuring out how to use a computer while Gibson's character was not only using a computer, but hacking and stealing data.

Earthlings are consistently overwhelmed by the enormity of space and the infinite possibilities for future generations who will be space explorers. Mars One is the beginning of experimentation with living on other planets in a different atmosphere and environment. If stories about space travel are any indicator, the most difficult challenge will be just trying to get along with others, which if you think about is the same thing many of us are doing on earth.

Resources
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/17/tech/mars-one-final-100/
http://www.mars-one.com/mission/humankind-on-mars
http://www.scifimoviepage.com/silent.html

0 Comments

Academy Awards platform

24/2/2015

3 Comments

Academy Awards: Platform for descent and social conscience

The 87th Academy Awards ceremony host Neil Patrick Harris took the pulse of the audience in person and at home when he opened the show with a controversial quip welcoming everyone to the best and “whitest.” This was intended as a play on the word “brightest,” setting an activist tone for the evening. The awards have been under criticism for not recognizing people of color.

Sunday night’s reference by Harris was not the first time the Oscars have been used as a venue bring attention to lack of diversity in movies. In 1973 Marlon Brando refused to accept the Best Actor Oscar for his performance in “The Godfather.” He boycotted the academy show and sent Sacheen Little Feather to speak in his stead to decline the award protesting the treatment of Native Americans by the film industry.

The first declaration in the evening was delivered by Patricia Arquette as she received the Best Supporting Actress award for her portrayal as the mother in “Boyhood.” Her acceptance speech echoed what many women have in their heart: “To every woman who gave birth to a tax payer and citizen in this nation: We fought for everybody else’s equal rights, It’s time to have wage equality.”

Likewise Reese Witherspoon and Laura Dern spoke out after the awards. Witherspoon said she was frustrated with roles for women in Hollywood, and that is why she created her own production company. She produced and acted in the movie “Wild,” for which she was nominated for but lost as Best Actress.

Personal history and motivations by those in the industry add quality and substance to entertainment, thus, enhancing the credibility and veracity of themes and the magic of the big screen. Graham Moore who won Best Adaptation for writing for “Imitation Game” recounted his personal struggles as his motivation for writing about the genius Alan Turing who happened to be gay.

“When I was 16 I tried to kill myself because I felt weird and different, and I felt like I did not belong,” he said. “ I would like this moment to be for the kid out there who feels she is weird and different and feels like she is doesn’t belong…You do.”

Among the testimonies, there was also an opposing view—albeit subtle. Laura Poitas accepting the award for “Citizenfour” a documentary about Edward Snowden said threats to privacy and democracy should be exposed. But when the cameras went back to the host Harris he said, “The subject of “Citizenfour” could not be here for some treason,” obviously a challenge to Poitas’ remark absolving Snowden of any crime. Living in a free society means everyone has a chance to voice their views—even to a billion TV watchers!

The performance of the best movie song “Glory” from “Selma” won the adoration of all present as John Legend and Common were rewarded with Oscars in the category. John Legend called on protecting voting rights and the incarceration rate of African American males, which he said was higher than the number of slaves in the South before the Civil War. In comments after the ceremony, Legend said, “When you think about equality and freedom and justice, we’ve got a lot more work to do.”

These are few of the social/political proclamations that stood out. The over arching question remains is the Academy Awards an appropriate venue for declarations?

One of the most important aspects of writing a good story is the ability to develop a coherent point of view.

Stories that become movies usually have something to say, whether it’s social, political, or emotional. A movie with a weak or undeveloped point of view leaves the viewer empty neither wanting more, nor caring about the characters. Excellence, however, is satisfying with subject matter and characters—not only do we identify with them, but also it stimulates our curiosity to know more or seek knowledge and understanding.

The vision of the storyteller/writer becomes at once tangible through the performance arts. The writer and the actor merge in one single vision. In an awards ceremony, the recipient steps back inside the story giving relevance to the theme and, indeed, their own relationship to it. Personal anecdotes and experiences inject life into the auspiciousness of an award; therefore, I would argue that it is entirely appropriate to humanize art with an event or cause that propelled a person to create.

The body of performance arts, whether on the page or screen, reaches out to us poignantly from the mouths of those charged with capturing humanity in all its glory and degradation. And the fact that in America we have free expression is greatest gift of all.

3 Comments

US laws allowing guns on campus tempt more violence

22/2/2015

0 Comments

A story in the Boston Review in 2014 tells about Richard Martinez,’ the father of son Chris killed on the campus of the University of California Santa Barbara, plea to stop gun violence on college campuses.

“Why did Chris die?” he asked, choking back tears. “Chris died because of craven, irresponsible politicians and the [National Rifle Association]. They talk about gun rights. What about Chris’s right to live?” He went on, “When will this insanity stop? . . . We don’t have to live like this,” they said in the report.

In the light of gun violence on college campuses, gun advocates are using it as an excuse to legalize firearms. Furthermore, they are trying to convince Americans that carrying a gun will ensure the safety of female students and reduce sexual assaults. The research, however, does not support gun advocates position.

Support for campus carry laws argues that armed students and faculty members could prevent mass shootings like the one at Virginia Tech in 2007. The carrying of concealed firearms on college campuses is banned in 41 states by law or by university policy. Carrying guns openly is generally not permitted, but that could change as gun groups continue to propagandize guns as a deterrent to criminally acts.

Pro-gun groups together with the NRA have been promoting concealed carry of firearms in schools and college campuses for a few years. The NRA says, “Colleges rely on colorful ‘no gun’ signs, foolishly expecting compliance from psychopaths.”

Individual state legislatures in some states are supporting the NRA position and submitting bills to state policy makers.

An Indiana law allows guns on school property, so long as they are contained within parked cars. “Teachers have to leave their 2nd Amendment rights at the front door when they go to work,” said Indiana Senator Brent Steele, explaining why he supported guns at schools, in spite of the fact that the courts have never wavered on the constitutionality of gun bans on school property.

A bill in Nebraska, if passed, would allow teachers and school employees to carry concealed handguns in schools. In Idaho Governor Butch Otter recently signed a law that allows residents with “enhanced concealed-carry permits” to keep firearms on college campuses. A similar bill passed a Florida Senate panel but ultimately was voted down.

Gun advocates and some lawmakers believe the new legislation with improve security in schools. They believe that if students and teachers are armed shootings like Columbine High School in 1999 could be prevented. They fail to mention, however, that there were armed security guards at Columbine High School.

The logic they profess would have prevented or made less deadly at Virginia Tech in 2007, Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, UCSB, Seattle Pacific University; however, the research does not support their position.

Evidence for firearms in schools is the opposite of what gun advocates purport

In 2013 The American Psychological conducted research on gun violence: Prediction, Prevention and Policy. They commissioned a panel of experts to reveal research-based conclusions and recommendations to reduce the incidence of gun violence including homicide, suicide and mass shootings.

The following are the findings: Prevention efforts guided by research on developmental risk can reduce the likelihood that firearms will be introduced into community and family conflicts or criminal activity. Prevention efforts can also reduce the relatively rare occasions when severe mental illness contributes to homicide or the more common circumstances when depression or other mental illness contributes to suicide. Reducing incidents of gun violence arising from criminal misconduct or suicide is an important goal of broader primary and secondary prevention and intervention strategies. Such strategies must also attend to redirecting developmental antecedents and larger socio-cultural processes that contribute to gun violence and gun-related deaths.

What works: Policies to reduce gun violence

The use of a gun greatly increases the odds that violence will lead to a fatality: This problem calls for urgent action. Firearm prohibitions for high-risk groups — domestic violence offenders, persons convicted of violent misdemeanor crimes, and individuals with mental illness who have been adjudicated as being a threat to themselves or to others — have been shown to reduce violence. The licensing of handgun purchasers, background check requirements for all gun sales, and close oversight of retail gun sellers can reduce the diversion of guns to criminals. Reducing the incidence of gun violence will require interventions through multiple systems, including legal, public health, public safety, community, and health. Increasing the availability of data and funding will help inform and evaluate policies designed to reduce gun violence.

In the report, they contend that the use of a gun greatly increases the odds of a gun fatality. Additionally, studies by the National Research Council conducted in 2004 and again in 2010 to address the relationship between right-to-carry laws and crime rates and both times found that concealed carry laws have a negligible effect on crime rates, according to a report by the Boston Review.

Concealed carrying increases rates of aggravated assault. Two legal scholars, Ian Ayres and John Donohue, further reviewed the findings supporting concealed carry and discovered that the data contain numerous coding and econometric errors that, when corrected, yield the opposite conclusion: right-to-carry laws increase crime.

In conclusion, the Boston Review said it best:

“The NRA supports bills that permit guns to be carried in vehicles on school grounds, arguing that firearm owners should not be punished for accidentally leaving a gun in their car. Curiously, there seems to be little concern for what happens if the same careless owner accidentally forgets to lock his car, accidentally fails to put the safety on, or accidentally pulls the trigger, ad infinitum. It seems clear that there are many more ways to accidentally go wrong with a gun than there are ways to go right, and this is especially true in a densely populated, anxiety-ridden, alcohol-saturated, hormone-fueled school environment.”

Resources
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/19/us/in-bid-to-allow-guns-on-campus-weapons-are-linked-to-fighting-sexual-assault.html?ref=politics&_r=0
http://www.bostonreview.net/us/evan-defilippis-guns-schools-nra-ucsb
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20121001/allow-concealed-carry-on-campus
http://www.apa.org/pubs/info/reports/gun-violence-prevention.aspx

0 Comments

Measles parties California

18/2/2015

0 Comments

Just when you think you had heard everything, something happens to question the mentality of the human herd. In California, one of worst measles afflicted states in the country, health officials are warning parents not to hold "measles parties" that intentionally expose their children to measles and other childhood diseases, according to a report by ABC News.

The trend has prompted the California Department of Public Health to strongly recommend against “the intentional exposure of children to measles as it unnecessarily places the exposed children to grave risk and could contribute to further spread of an outbreak,” the agency said in a report on Monday.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) began tracking the outbreak in California on January 1, and currently there have been 121 confirmed measles cases in the state with 19 new cases just last week.

Some unconfirmed information suggests non-vaccinated people who had visited the Philippines were exposed, and then went to Disneyland in California. A group of non-vaccinated people visiting Disneyland in California in December are believed to have started the outbreak, but it has now spread to 17 states -- the latest being Delaware, Michigan and Nevada, according to the CDC. Last week, five babies at an Illinois daycare center were diagnosed with measles, prompting national daycare center chain KinderCare to require all staff members working with newborns to be vaccinated.

Disneyland is host to many international visitors, and measles can be brought into the US by non-vaccinated travelers who are infected in other countries, particularly in Western Europe, Pakistan, Vietnam and the Philippines. Additionally, Americans who travel overseas can contract the virus and spread it to unprotected people when they return to the US, which can lead to an outbreak, which is the reasoning on why Disneyland was ground zero for the outbreak.

There have been other US outbreaks, mainly among non-vaccinated groups. In 2014, there were more than 600 cases of measles in the US. The largest outbreak of the disease involved 383 cases, and occurred primarily among non-vaccinated people living in Amish communities in Ohio. There were also 22 other smaller outbreaks, according to the CDC. Many of the US cases in 2014 could be traced back to a large measles outbreak in the Philippines, the agency told Live Science.

Measles parties born in ignorance

Measles parties were popular in the 1950s and 1960s before the MMR vaccine program was introduced for measles, mumps and rubella. The practice of measles parties is based on the belief that infected children will build up immunity to the virus because once someone has the measles they cannot catch it again.

But the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention strongly discourages intentional measles exposure. The virus is particularly dangerous for children under five. In a worst-case scenario it can cause pneumonia, brain swelling or death.

Dr. Richard Besser, ABC News chief health and medical editor, echoed the same concerns about measles parties.

“This is a really bad idea,” he said. “Although most children recover from chicken pox and measles without a problem, not all do. The vaccines are far safer than the diseases.”

Who should and should not get the MMR vaccination

MMR is a two-shot series of vaccines usually given during childhood. A child should receive the first shot when he is between 12-15 months, and the second when he's between 4-6 years of age.

If you're not sure if you have had the diseases or the vaccines (prior to 1971 it was given in three separate shots), you can get the MMR vaccine as an adult. Talk to your doctor about it if:

You were born after 1956. (If you were born during or before 1956, you are presumed to be immune, because many children had the diseases then.)
You work in a medical facility.
You are planning to or may become pregnant.

You shouldn't have the shot if:

You have a severe allergic reaction following the first MMR shot.
You are allergic to gelatin or neomycin.
You may be pregnant or are planning to become pregnant in the next 4 weeks. (The vaccine is safe if you are breastfeeding.)
Your immune system is weak because of cancer drugs, corticosteroids, or AIDS.

Over the years, some have suggested that the MMR vaccine is linked to autism. The CDC stands firm that there's no evidence to support that idea. The benefits that the vaccine brings in disease prevention far outweigh any potential risks.

Resources
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/stay-measles-parties-docs-warn-parents/story?id=28842782
http://www.livescience.com/49716-measles-outbreak-questions.html
http://www.webmd.com/children/vaccines/measles-mumps-and-rubella-mmr-vaccine

0 Comments

Dava Castillo

is retired and lives in Clearlake, California. She has three grown children and one grandson and a Bachelor’s degree in Health Services Administration from St. Mary’s College in Moraga California. On the home front Dava enjoys time with her family, reading, gardening, cooking and sewing.

After writing for four years on the news site Allvoices.com on a variety of topics including politics, immigration, sustainable living, and other various topics, Dava has more than earned the title of citizen journalist.

Politics is one of her passions, and she follows current events regularly.

In addition, Dava has written about sustainable living and conservation. She completed certification at the University of California Davis to become a Master Gardener and has volunteered in that capacity since retirement.