I Speak of Dreams

Happy Thanksgivukkah 2013: Lights and turkey

One way to cook a turkey

And my favorite of the Thanksgivukkah images

Source: http://jewcer.com/project/thanksgivukkah-festival-l-a-light-liberty-latkes

Grateful for friends and family, near and far.

Marney's Marching Orders for Thanksgiving Dinner

( This has been around since at least 2009, when a formatted version was published at Awkward Family Photos under the title, Thanksgiving Letter)

From: Marney

As you all know a fabulous Thanksgiving Dinner does not make itself. I need to ask each of you to help by bringing something to complete the meal. I truly appreciate your offers to assist with the meal preparation.

Now, while I do have quite a sense of humor and joke around all the time, I COULD NOT BE MORE SERIOUS when I am providing you with your Thanksgiving instructions and orders. I am very particular, so please perform your task EXACTLY as I have requested and read your portion very carefully. If I ask you to bring your offering in a container that has a lid, bring your offering in a container WITH A LID, NOT ALUMINUM FOIL! If I ask you to bring a serving spoon for your dish, BRING A SERVING SPOON, NOT A SOUP SPOON! And please do not forget anything.

All food that is to be cooked should already be prepared, bring it hot and ready to serve, warm or room temp. These are your ONLY THREE options. Anything meant to be served cold should, of course, already be cold.

The Mike Byron Family

1. Turnips in a casserole with a lid and a serving spoon. Please do not fill the casserole all the way up to the top, it gets too messy. I know this may come as a bit of a surprise to you, but most of us hate turnips so don't feel like you a have to feed an army.
2. Two half gallons of ice cream, one must be VANILLA, I don't care what the other one is. No store brands please. I did see an ad this morning for Hagan Daz Peppermint Bark Ice Cream, yum!! (no pressure here, though).
3. Toppings for the ice cream.
4. A case of bottled water, NOT gallons, any brand is ok.

The Bob Byron Family

1. Green beans or asparagus (not both) in a casserole with a lid and a serving spoon. If you are making the green beans, please prepare FOUR pounds, if you are making asparagus please prepare FIVE pounds. It is up to you how you wish to prepare them, no soupy sauces, no cheese (you know how Mike is), a light sprinkling of toasted nuts, or pancetta, or some EVOO would be a nice way to jazz them up.
2. A case of beer of your choice (I have Coors Light and Corona) or a bottle of Clos du Bois chardonnay (you will have to let me know which you will bring prior to 11/22).

The Lisa Byron Chesterford Family

1. Lisa as a married woman you are now required to contribute at the adult level. You can bring an hors d’ouvres. A few helpful hints/suggestions. Keep it very light, and non-filling, NO COCKTAIL SAUCE, no beans of any kind. I think your best bet would be a platter of fresh veggies and dip. Not a huge platter mind you (i.e., not the plastic platter from the supermarket).

The Michelle Bobble Family

1. Stuffing in a casserole with a serving spoon. Please make the stuffing sans meat.
2. 2.5-3 qts. of mashed squash in a casserole with a lid and serving spoon
3. Proscuitto pin wheel - please stick to the recipe, no need to bring a plate.
4. A pie knife

The June Davis Family

1. 15 LBS of mashed potatoes in a casserole with a serving spoon. Please do not use the over-size blue serving dish you used last year. Because you are making such a large batch you can do one of two things: put half the mash in a regulation size casserole with lid and put the other half in a plastic container and we can just replenish with that or use two regulation size casserole dishes with lids. Only one serving spoon is needed.
2. A bottle of Clos du Bois chardonnay

The Amy Misto Family (why do I even bother she will never read this)

1. A pumpkin pie in a pie dish (please use my Silver Palate recipe) no knife needed.
2. An apple pie in a pie dish, you can use your own recipe, no knife needed.

Looking forward to the 28th!!

Marney

(update: Found various places on Facebook)

Passive-Aggressive Thanksgiving, 2013

Finslippy started it in 2010 but but it went on. And on. We should start it again...The twitter hashtag is  #passiveaggressivethanksgiving.

Feel free to recycle.

• RT @finslippy: Thanks for calling me, finally. I guess you don't call your mother on Thanksgiving Morning anymore? #passiveaggressivethanksgiving
• RT @finslippy The only way I know anything about you is through your blog. #passiveaggressivethanksgiving -- that's my dad
• RT @randonb: No, no, the food didn't make me sick; I was just throwing up to get the taste of the food out of my mouth. #passiveaggressivethanksgiving
• RT @SarahThyre: Welllll, it appears the turkey's not the only thing stewing in its own juices. #passiveaggressivethanksgiving
• RT @LadyKatieBond: "Do you want me to get this done or to listen to every little thing you say?" #passiveaggressivethanksgiving
• RT @JRehling: Does Thanksgiving feel special to people like you who eat this much every day? #PassiveAggressiveThanksgiving

Chandler Blake Webb, 1994-2013: Cause of Death Unknown; Unlikely to Be Influenza Vaccination

Update November 26, 2013. Orac, a physician, goes into depth on how the anti-vaccine movement is exploiting Mrs. Webb's beliefs about Mr. Webb's illness and death.

Chandler Blake Webb died at the age of 19. I have the deepest sympathy for his suffering prior to death, and the loss suffered by his parents and his family and his friends.

Mr. Webb had an influenza immunization the day before he became ill. He was hospitalized some days later, and 28 days later, he died.

His mother, or his parents, refused to permit a complete post-mortem pathological examination (an autopsy).

His mother believes his illness and death was caused by the influenza vaccine, a belief she formed before his death. Her belief was stated in his obituary, and this belief has been widely reported. I am sure his mother is sincere in her belief about the cause of her son's death.

 It is to be deeply regretted that his family refused an autopsy, as the true cause of his death will never be known.

His mother's comment on FB

"Chandler had a brain biopsy, that is why I didn't allow an autopsy. He was tested and tested by the infectious control, the CDC every test came back negative...negative for meningitis...negative for lymphoma, negative for tics. They even checked him for rabies. He was negative for every fungus, bacteria and virus. He was tested for tics, herpes, anything and everything... Everything NEGATIVE. Encephalitis is a secondary symptom, yes he did have that. People should be informed of the negative side effects that the inserts in each box of vaccine contain. Also, wouldn't it be nice if when someone enters an ER with these symptoms, that the Dr.'s would ask if they had recently had a vaccine. This should have been the first thing they checked instead of the last. So So Sad."

On another thread, a knowlegable individual posted,

"Autopsies allow much more detailed exams of ALL parts of the brain than a biopsy. Refusing to allow an autopsy is not going to help prevent the next one - if there was a problem.

Reasons to think it's NOT the vaccine: If it were a bad lot, there would have been dozens or hundreds of cases. If it were "teh toxins" there would be thousands of cases.

My own gut feeling ... it was viral meningitis, caused by a virus that hasn't been identified yet, whose main host is in animals. Hanta virus went unnoticed in the USA until 1993 ... then serological studies showed that the elderly members of the tribe had antibodies."

The newspaper reports,

Utah Department of Health officials did not go into specifics about the case, though a spokesman said the department was aware of the case.

Another state health official late Friday offered a statement.

“Our epidemiology staff have commented that although they have no evidence of a flu vaccine, or any other kind of vaccine, causing this type of reaction/outcome, they take these reports very seriously and they are thoroughly investigated by the (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention),” the statement read.

Update 11/25/2013

On Fox and Friends (a show with a previous record of advancing the anti-vaccine agenda),

Webb said there's "no doubt" in her mind that if they had focused on the flu vaccine from the start that her son would still be alive....

"He was so healthy. He was pure. He should have been able to fight the flu. I wish he would have gotten the flu rather than this vaccination," said Webb.

There is, of course, no evidence for her belief.

Sources:

• November 22, 2013 http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865591185/Utah-woman-claims-flu-shot-caused-teenage-sons-death.html
• November 22, 2013 http://www.ksl.com/?sid=27747957&nid=148
• November 22, 2012 http://fox13now.com/2013/11/22/utah-mother-says-her-son-died-due-to-flu-shot/
• November 25, 2013 http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/11/25/heartbroken-mother-fox-and-friends-healthy-teenage-son-chandler-webb-died-after-routine

Luke Gulley, Autistic, 1999-2013

Dameian “Luke” Gulley was autistic and 14 years old. Like many autistic folk, he found comfort in a set routine. He walked himself to Valley Oak Middle School every morning. On Monday, November 18, 2013, he left his home in Visalia but never arrived at school.

His parents reported his disappearance, but the Visalia Police Department treated his disappearance as "a runaway" rather than a missing-persons case.

His body was found on Thursday, November 21, outside of the Visalia City limits, some miles away from his route, in "Sequoia and Kings National Parks".

The FBI has been called in, and will work with local law enforcement.

My deepest condolences to his family and friends. 

This does not appear to be a case of wandering or "elopement", as Luke regularly walked from his home to his school, but more in the nature of abduction. 

The US has a national alert system for abducted children, the Amber Alert System, but no such alert system for missing autistic individuals is in place.   

Sources:

1. November 21, 2013 http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/article/20131121/NEWS01/311200042/Autistic-teen-missing-Visalia (source of the image)
2. November 22, 2013 http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/article/20131123/NEWS01/311220030/Teenager-autism-found-dead

Jacques Littlefield's Memorial Chili Dog Doritos Casserole--2013 Edition

Today is the 64th anniversary of Jacques' birth. He had a real taste for...well not haut cuisine. 

Original recipe narrative, which is much funnier

http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/011758.html

Chili-Dog Casserole by Sean Craven

Ingredients:

• 1 12 oz. bag of Ranch-flavored Doritos
• 1 16 oz. package of Nathan’s Famous hot dogs (skinless)
•  4 15 oz. cans Dennison’s original chili con carne (or Hormel or Wolf)
• 4 cups pre-shredded orange cheddar cheese, any brand (cheaper is better)
• 1/2 lb. extra-sharp cheddar (white, if you can get it), sliced thin
• About a quarter-cup of French’s yellow mustard 

(optional if your diners like spicy)

• 1/4 lb pepper cheese, Havarti or jack; reduce sliced extra-sharp cheddar to 1/4 lb.
• Vlasic pickled nacho rings or pickled jalapenos (add to your taste to the hot dog layer)

Tools

• Mixing bowl
• Saute pan
• Lasagna pan or pan measuring about 13 in x 9 in x 2 in.

Procedure

Serving time minus several hours (or even day before)

• Slice the hotdogs lengthwise into quarters, then thinly crosswise (about 1/4" wide)
• Saute the hotdogs briefly to brown
•  Remove to bowl, add the mustard, and toss. You can do this the night before, if you wish.

Serving time minus 1 hour or more

• Preheat the oven to 350 degrees
• Open one bag of Doritos and crush roughly -- you want large, flat pieces.
• Take out a large handful of chips and set aside.
• Open the bags of shredded cheese. Take out a handful and set aside.

Assemble the layers as follows:

One:

• Doritos (scatter just enough to cover bottom of pan)
• Shredded cheese, about a cup, scattered evenly over previous layer
• One quarter of the hot dogs, scattered evenly over previous layer
• One quarter of the sliced cheese, layered evenly over previous
• One can of chili, spread as evenly as possible over previous layers

Two:

• Doritos (scatter just enough to cover previous)
•  Shredded cheese, about a cup, scattered evenly over previous layer
• One quarter of the hot dogs
•  One quarter of the sliced cheese
• One can of chili, spread as evenly as possible over previous layers

Three:

• Doritos (scatter just enough to cover previous)
• Shredded cheese, about a cup, scattered evenly over previous layer
• One quarter of the hot dogs
•  One quarter of the sliced cheese
•  One can of chili, spread as evenly as possible over previous layers

Four:

• Doritos (scatter just enough to cover previous)
• Shredded cheese, about a cup, scattered evenly over previous layer
•  One quarter of the hot dogs
•  One quarter of the sliced cheese
• One can of chili, spread as evenly as possible over previous layers

Topping

The Doritos should be all used up. If not, no worries. Return reserved Doritos to bag and crush very finely, to crumbs. Put reserved cheese in Doritos bag & shake until crumbs & cheese thoroughly mixed.

Spread Doritos - cheese mixture over top of chili.

Bake in oven for 30-45 minutes, until center is hot.

Serve. And honey? This is how I feel.

----

Today, Jacques's longtime pal Sue D. and I went out to lunch at a local Chinese cuisine restaurant. We did not order lemon chicken, but we did talk about how much it was his favorite dish.

Religious Exemptions to Vaccine Mandates and the Law: Where Are We? Where Can We Go?

This is a guest post by Dorit Reiss.

In an article about religious exemptions¹ , Attorney Alan Phillips criticized Dr. Paul Offit’s call for an end to religious exemptions. While Mr. Phillips correctly pointed out some minor errors in Dr. Offit’s legal arguments, the bulk of his critique is extremely unconvincing (even setting aside his personal attack on Dr. Offit; on that, see Michael Simpson's thorough debunking²). There are three reasons to give substantial weight to the critique of religious exemptions. First, courts in the United States have clearly and consistently rejected claims of a constitutional right to a vaccine exemption. Second, the religious exemption is extremely problematic because of its vulnerability to abuse, even apart from the dubious morality of sacrificing a child’s health for religion. And finally, although interpreting exemption laws is the role of the courts, creating exemption laws – or abolishing them – is a question of public policy, and there is a powerful case for abolishing non-medical exemptions that deserves legislative consideration.

There is no Constitutional Right to an Exemption
School immunization requirements in the United States have been around at least since the latter part of the 19th century³  and have been upheld by the United States Supreme Court⁴. While Mr. Phillips suggests that parents “do have a Constitutional right to exercise a vaccine religious exemption,” no court in the United States – federal or state - has ever found that a state has a constitutional duty to provide parents with a religious or philosophical exemption. In fact, every court that directly examined the question arrived at the opposite conclusion, basing it on a state’s power to protect the health of children and the public health. The last time the Supreme Court addressed the issue – albeit as an example in another context – the Court said that a parent “cannot claim freedom from compulsory vaccination for the child more than for himself on religious grounds. The right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the community or the child to communicable disease or the latter to ill health or death⁵.” Most recently, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals found that school immunization requirements can withstand even strict scrutiny⁶ .

Even courts that struck down religious exemptions for preferring some religions over others – something most courts reject, as Mr. Phillips pointed out – struck down the religious exemption but kept the school immunization requirement intact^7,8 (no doubt to the chagrin of the winning – but losing – plaintiff).  These courts sent legislatures a clear message in two parts: 1) if you want to provide a religious exemption, it needs to be non-discriminatory; but 2) you are perfectly free to not provide a religious exemption.

Dr. Offit would go further. He supports the ruling of the Supreme Court of Mississippi, in Brown v. Stone⁹,  that a religious exemption violates the equal protection guarantee of the 14th amendment. Mr. Phillips is right to point out that Brown does not reflect the prevailing legal interpretation; no other court has adopted that part of the ruling. But it is a legitimate legal argument to advance Brown’s interpretation and to buttress it with policy arguments. Before it is a persuasive one, though, that discussion needs to be pushed further. The public policy reasons need to be more developed than in Brown, and the relationship of that interpretation to other 14th Amendment jurisprudence addressed. I would also like to see a principled way to draw the line: if we follow a constitutional doctrine that says you cannot treat children differently on religious grounds, how far do you take it, and what remains of freedom of religion in the family?

The Religious Exemption is Problematic
As Mr. Phillips highlights, “[f]ederal courts have interpreted the First Amendment's ‘free exercise’ [of religion] clause as protecting any belief that is ‘religious in nature’ and ‘sincerely held’ (as the law defines those phrases).” This broad interpretation is part of the problem. There is, no doubt, a minority whose opposition to vaccination is sincerely based on religious grounds. You can question whether states should privilege such sincere beliefs over protecting children and the public against vaccine-preventable diseases, and Dr. Offit does. Courts, as explained, uniformly left that decision to the states.

But even for a state that values religious beliefs, offering a religious exemption is problematic today, since the evidence suggests that the vast majority of exemptors oppose vaccines not based on religious grounds, but based on ill-supported safety concerns, and their use of the religious exemption is insincere.

The most extreme example of such abuse is the creation of special churches to oppose vaccination. For example, the Congregation of Universal Wisdom¹⁰ was created by a chiropractor at least in part to provide vaccine opponents with religious cover¹¹. 

Mainstream religions do not oppose vaccines, and often expressly support them. While that fact is not determinative under our jurisprudence, it is suggestive. When a Catholic, Jew or Muslim – in direct contradiction to the majority of religious authorities – claims opposition to vaccination on religious grounds, their religious argument is suspect. The broad jurisprudence Mr. Phillips highlights provides states with very few options to actually examine whether the reason for exempting is, indeed, religious (though some states do engage in such an inquiry).

Studies suggest that most parents who refuse vaccines do so on the basis of safety concerns¹². Cases exist in which claims for religious exemptions were rejected because the court determined that the parent’s real concern was a safety concern^{13, 14}. 

Even states that were initially motivated by a sincere desire to protect religious minorities should reconsider whether a religious exemption which is not constitutionally required is appropriate given this widespread abuse.

Vaccine Exemptions are a Question of Public Policy
Interpreting and applying exemption laws raises legal issues. Enacting them or abolishing them, however, is a question of public policy, within the appropriate constitutional limits. Mr. Phillips has his own view on this, and his view is decidedly anti-vaccine: vaccines are dangerous;  the health care systems that promote vaccines are corrupt;  and vaccine exemptions pose no health risks.  His medical claims have already been addressed by an academic physician-researcher, who certainly has the medical credentials to do so¹⁵.  But Mr. Phillips also argues that “there is a legal presumption that the exercise of a vaccine religious exemption does not pose a significant risk to anyone. If it would, state legislatures, who are presumed to have considered the possible consequences of enacting exemption laws, would not have enacted the exemption laws in the first place.” Mr. Phillips does not cite any authority for this proposition, and the only case I know of that even remotely supports it is the 2007 Diana H. case from Arizona¹⁶. That case is very weak support: even the majority (two judges and a very powerful, compelling dissent) cited several risks of not vaccinating. All the majority did was defer to the legislature’s balancing of the health risks it acknowledged with parental rights. Even if we were to accept this decision, which is not well-supported in my view, there is nothing preventing a legislature from revisiting this balance and finding that exemptions do pose a significant risk.

The legislature may do so in response to a rising number of exemptions, to outbreaks of diseases, or after being persuaded by an opinion voiced, for example, by Dr. Offit. After all, an infectious diseases doctor who sees the result of not vaccinating directly in the form of suffering or dying children is uniquely qualified to speak on the harms of having such exemptions, and to advocate for a change in policy. Dr. Offit, in particular, is a well-known, well-credentialed vaccine researcher, and has been engaged in vaccine policy and education for many years. His perspective deserves substantial weight.

Personally, I am still working through my views on exemptions. While freedom of religion is an important value in the United States, because of the very high risk of abuse, and because of the consequences for public health, I agree with Dr. Offit’s criticism of religous exemptions. But I find myself going back and forth between the two positions first,  the position that there should be no exemptions except medical ones; and alternately, and the position that states should offer a “personal choice” exemption -- but make such an exemption difficult to get. My reasons for supporting the latter position derive from the existence of a minority that would not vaccinate no matter what, because they sincerely – if wrongly – believe vaccines are toxic and will severely harm their children. I do not want to force those parents into a position where they see themselves as forced to lie about their religious beliefs, or alternatively, feeling they are forced to homeschool their children. The latter option is not only a substantial burden, it would deprive those children of a public education (that would hopefully provide them, among other things, with a good grounding in science). On the other hand, would tightening vaccine exemptions really motivate a substantial number of parents to homeschool that would not otherwise do so? And is it politically feasible to enact a personal choice exemption that is stringent enough to only apply to the tiny, die-hard minority that would not vaccinate at any rate? After all, anti-vaccine activists have mobilized in force to fight situations like California’s AB2109, which only required a health practitioner to confirm that the exemptor had received relevant information. How hard would they fight an attempt to make exemptions actually hard to obtain? I am conflicted.

Of course, unlike Dr. Offit, I have never had to deal with the results of not vaccinating directly. I’ve never seen a child die, let alone a seeing a child dying vaccine-preventable disease. I hope I never will. The force of these other considerations likely pales dramatically when you have to look into the face of a dying child or her parents. On the other hand, the problem Dr. Offit faces is that – thanks in large part to widespread vaccination – most people are in my position rather than his: not having seen up close the harms of vaccine-preventable diseases. That might be a good reason to listen seriously to those who have. We could, of course, choose to wait until we have more dead or disabled children to decide to clamp down on exemptions. But do we really want to pay that price?

Notes

1. Phillips, A., Attorney Refutes Dr. Offit's Vaccine Exemption Criticism. Green Med Info website, posted June 10th 2013 http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/attorney-refutes-dr-offits-vaccine-exemption-criticism, accessed 11/2013.
2. Simpson, M. Debunking Myths about Dr. Paul Offit, Skeptical Raptor website,  http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/debunking-myths-dr-paul-offit/, accessed 11/2013.
3. Duffield v. Williamsport Sch. Dist., 29 A. 742 (Pa. 1894).
4. Zucht v. King, 260 U.S. 174 (1922).
5. Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166-167 (1944) found at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0321_0158_ZO.html, accessed 11/2013.
6. http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Unpublished/092352.U.pdf, accessed 11/2013.
7. Sherr v. Northport-E. Northport Union Free Sch. Dist., 672 F. Supp. 81, 83 (E.D.N.Y. 1987)
8. Dalli v. Bd. of Educ., 267 N.E.2d 219 (Mass. 1971)
9. Brown v. Stone, 378 So.2d 218, 220 (Miss., 1979)
10. Church of Universal Wisdom URL: http://www.cuwisdom.org , accessed 11/2013.
11. Calandrillo SP., Vanishing vaccinations: why are so many Americans opting out of vaccinating their children? Univ Mich J Law Reform. 2004 Winter;37(2):353-440., http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15568260 accessed 11/2013.
12. Gust DA, Darling N, Kennedy A, Schwartz B., Parents with doubts about vaccines: which vaccines and reasons why. Pediatrics. 2008 Oct;122(4):718-25. doi: 10.1542/peds.2007-0538. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18829793, accessed 11/2013.
13. Check ex rel. MC v. New York City Dept. of Educ. E.D. N.Y., 2013. Slip Copy, 2013 WL 2181045
14. Farina v. Board of Education of the City of New York, 116 F.Supp.2d, 503 (2000)).
15. Orac Knows (pseudonym) Responsibility versus antivaccine Activists Respectful Insolence Blog http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/27/responsibility-versus-antivaccine-activists/, accessed 11/2013.
16. Diana H v. Rubin, 217 Ariz. 131 (Ariz. App. 2007).

Dorit Rubinstein Reiss is a professor of law at UC Hastings College of Law. She graduated Magna cum Laude from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem,  where she served as Editor in Chief of the Law Review, and holds a  Ph.D. from the Jurisprudence and Social Policy program in UC Berkeley. Her doctoral dissertation was on the accountability of agencies, whic continues to be a focus of her research.

Veteran's Day 2013

(I've looked for a definitive source for this image, with no luck)