Top 5 Myths about Going Green

Continuing on with the countdown; # 4.

Refusing to Immunize Kids

People say that these vaccines are poisoning our children. They can contain Mercury which is said to cause autism or SIDS.

Unfortunately these people who are following the anti vaccine trend haven't got the facts. There are no major medically accepted studies that support the claims of vaccines causing autism in children.

From what I found the autism link seems to mostly go back to a 1998 study that was rejected by all major health organizations and in 2004 was even rescinded by its creator.

As far as SIDS is concerned; the rates of occurrences has gone down 40% since the institution of vaccinations.

The final point on this argument is that the way these vaccinations were stored made them to contain mercury. The problem with this argument is that the kind of mercury (Ethyl Mercury) used is not the dangerous kind (Methyl Mercury) you think of. In America the use of any mercury was stopped in 2001 anyways.

All of this is not to say that there is no risk when vaccinating your children. As with any drug there is a chance that you could get a bad reaction. However; the odds of a serious side effect are rather slim as compared to the risk of contracting a horrible disease by not being vaccinated.



The argument that many parents use is that as long as the other kids are immunized mine don't need to be. The problem with that logic is eventually there are so many "my kids" running around not immunized that an epidemic breaks out all of the doctors instead of saying I told you so as they probably should, would then have to cure you sick little sickey poos.






Jamie: "So Adam what have we learned today?"

Adam: " Vaccines are safe and all kids should get them."

Jamie: "Right on Adam; Vaccinate your kids!"

Adam: "Well the myth that immunizing your kids is bad for them; I'd have to say that's Busted.!"

Top 5 Myths about Going Green

So I was reading an article today about Going Green. This is a hot topic in society today if there is one that exists. It was listing some pros and cons of going green. I did a little more research and I'm going to compile a top five list of things people are doing that they think are saving them or the planet that really are not and in fact could be hurting. So here we go post number one, and # 5 on the countdown,

Buying Organic Foods

This one sounds like a no-brainer, we all know someone who has jumped on this organic craze. They are eating so healthy, and its so much better for the planet, their so Green. Give them their Nobel Fucking Prize.

-Organic food in fact may not be healthier at all.

-The cost is much higher than regular foods, as any shopper knows.

-Pesticides and Fertilizers were invented for a reason.
One acre of land produces 200% more wheat than it did 70 years ago. Thank you chemicals, the same result happens with meat, fruit, poultry, you name it, if we grow it; chemicals grow it better. Take away those chemicals to grow organic and what do you get? Less food per acre.

-People will argue that those chemicals cause cancer?
The cancer rate has dropped 15% since farmers started using chemicals.
People eat healthier due to those chemicals, higher yeilds cause lower prices allowing people to be able to afford better healthier food.

-Inneficiency causes less farmers to grow organic.
That makes sense. The probelm is if people buy organic, their goods must be shipped further. Is an organic gallon of milk that must be shipped 900 miles on a diesel truck spewing exhaust really that good for the planet?



Adam: "Well Jamie; what about Myth #5 Going Green by Buying Organic Foods? Does it save the planet?"

Jamie: "Actually Adam Unequivocally i think we can say that Myth is Busted!"

Album of the Year 2008 Grammy

Okay so this post should come as no surprise to anyone who knows me. If there is one performer that i am passionate about its Lil Wayne. He is of course the "bets rapper alive", and has been my favorite since the 500 degrees days when he was just a wee lad. This is going to my attempt to prove that Lil Wayne and his album Tha Carter III were robber of the best album award at the Grammy's this year.

Lets start with the obvious place the beginning. In their respective first weeks in release Raising Sand managed a very respectable 112,000 copies sold. However it was crushed be The giant Cater III's 1,005,545 albums sold in just a week, in fact Wayne managed over 400,000 on day one alone.

Next lets look at the Billboard charts which most music connoisseurs would agree is probably the most thorough and possibly informed source for information on the music industry.

Tha Carter II peaked on the chart at of course #1, somehow the "top album of the year" Raising Sand never even managed to be the top album of the week, peaking at #2.

On the Billboard year end chart for 2008 Tha Carter III was #2 and Raising Sand was absent from the top 20. For digital downloads, a staple of todays music industry Tha Carter III was #4 and yet again Raising Sand was absent from the top 20. As far as singles go, That Carter III had 4 charting singles in 2008 with Lollipop coming in at #4 for the year, whereas yet again Raising Sand dissapointed with guess how many.... zero songs on the chart.

My final argument, which may be the best one that I have, my ace in the hole if you will is this. Raising Sand should not have even been eligible to win this album. It was released in 2007 and even had a single that won best pop collaboration at the 2007 Grammys. How could it be that an album that charted no singles and never made the top 20 for album sales the entire year managed to steal the Grammy from the album that sold the most and charted the most singles for the year. This is a travesty and and outrage and I am very dissapointed in the Grammy's for allowing such a disgrace to occur. If I had gotten robbed like that smoke would be rolling from my mouth as well Weezy! CaptainSycamore