statements are my opinions. I encourage readers to research statements for
accuracy, and draw their own conclusions. Some of my quotes are attempted
from memory, and may only be approximate.
Philosophy, Political Science, Politics, My Opinions
This is a very long and somewhat irritating article. It is not for everyone. The reader might skip to any heading of his/her choice or to the last sections of this article. Many parts are descriptive, and contain assertions based on what people have told me. And also my experiences and my memory. (Some parts are not even "provable," contrary to what we have been trained to demand. But if I told you that aspirin relieved my headache, how can I really "prove" that to you?) Some assertions are based on references given on various pages of my article. Most people have experienced much, and heard or read much, during their lives. Yet they have lacked the time to compile it in an orderly, meaningful way, so that conclusions could be drawn. I have attempted to take the time to do that, to draw my own conclusions, and to present it below. Wherever possible, I have avoided the mentioning of politicians' names and their parties, because this article is not supposed to be a campaign commercial. The reader might e-mail me if any single "questionable assertion" prevents them from "getting the general picture." (Many phrases in my science papers also emerge in my article below. My abbreviation for "Government" is "Govt" ).
Optional, Miscellaneous Remarks, "What we see and what we don't see":
In the case of Jefferson vs. Hamilton, at least citizens knew what the candidates stood for. Now most candidates for "high" office are groomed for it by perfecting their ability to pretend to be in favor of that which they oppose, and by perfecting their ability to work against that for which they campaigned! (Their shallowness and insincerity aids them.) And they will perform just as they were, "behind-the-scenes," groomed to perform! Often they take special care that a bill will not pass, before they vote for it. Other times, even worse, they are not so careful, and it does pass! Sometimes, as the "saying" goes, "only the politician's favorite h/a/i/r/d/r/e/s/s/e/r/ lobbyist knows for sure" what the bill means. This makes electing good politicians difficult, and that important options are already lost, after primaries. (I have heard that one politician was picked by "friends" to run for a high office, because the politician was considered too stupid to chew a piece of gum and walk down the sidewalk at the same time. Although that may be true, I think that it was the politician's other major flaws that kept him from helping the country, during his few years in high office.)
Optional, Other Remarks:
In an earlier article, I said about getting down to basics, "I intend to do it, not to avoid doing it!" In this article, I will similarly try to determine what is needed to fix the system. Not like most politicians, who pull anything, and do anything, except what is basically needed to fix the system. The first scientific question that I asked on my home page, needs very little alteration to apply to politics: " Have you ever noticed how politicians rush to pass volume after volume of legislation, with pro-public sounding titles and appearances? But they scrupulously avoid the simple changes or planting the inexpensive 'seed' to solve the problem. And of course the problem almost always gets worse, or stays the same. Often politicians will make great efforts to see that a basic solution never gets to the floor, even to be considered, much less voted upon."
Three Stories, and Important Conclusions:
When "our" federal Govt passed a law reducing the flush volume of new "residential" toilets to only 1.6 gallons, do you really think Govt was trying to help the environment (our environment)? "Our" Govt does not care if they cause our toilets to stop up each week, as long as we have to clean up the mess that Govt caused. And as long as the politicians, who voted for it, never come to our attention until they are comfortably retired. Whose interests do they serve anyway; which lobbyists or contributors? (As the saying goes "do you know where your c/h/i/l/d/r/e/n/ politicians are?") I think there are vast areas where no "lobby group" represents the legitimate, common sense needs and rights of reasonable citizens, or advocates these on citizens' behalf.
Notice also how the federal Govt, with all its "anti-trust" laws, "fair trade" acts, etc. pretends to protect the public against merger, pricing, and unfair conspiracies. Yet, the Govt turned it back on the public during many years of overt and covert long distance telephone "slamming." In my opinion, it was obvious that millions of people's preferences were being lied about, or deliberately forged, or recklessly ignored (with regard to people's choice of long distance telephone companies). Also people's privacy rights were being violated by organizations after thus "stealing" the market. And the Govt behaved as if they could not "figure that out." Govt did not act promptly or effectively on victims' behalf, in my opinion. (Again no strong lobby group acting on citizens' behalf, and no Justice Department in any "rush" to help.)
A politician is running for high office. He promises the public "A Patient's Bill of Rights". Does he mean what you think he means? Does he mean that the patient will be able (with the patient's choice of health care professional) to have the treatment of the patient's choice? Even if the patient is willing to pay for it? Even if the patient signs a voucher saying he/she understands that it is not the "preferred" treatment of the FDA or State politicians and their puppet interests? Even if the patient is a responsible citizen? The answer is no, or that even if grudgingly allowed by Govt, the following: Especially if the patient's choice of treatment works better than the harmful preferences of the Govt and its puppets', the govt will resort to any hook or crook to destroy him/her or get even. At best, only Govt's style has changed since the "Frank Church" report ((S. Rep. No. 94-755, 94th Cong., 2nd Sess. Book I, (1976) and Orlikow et al.v. U.S.)) Even these only barely touched upon a little of Govt's vast and great misconducts. (Many States have laws narrowly limiting the medical treatments that one may undergo for this or that disease. And often the narrow range is even more damaging than the disease. And this is strongly encouraged by the federal Govt, in my opinion. What I find so insincere and perfidious is how any politician has the audacity to continue to take away a patient's most basic health right, and call that a patient's "bill of rights!" Whatever the pros and cons of the politician's healthcare program, it is not a "bill of rights.")
Incidentally, a variety of victimized doctors and groups are trying to change the present reactionary govt laws, regulations, attitudes, and govt policies, so far mostly in vein with regard to the Govt. This subject is later addressed in my discussions about Pauling and people like him, a "fired" Surgeon General, and the so-called "war on drugs."
Conclusions from stories:
Tolerance toward different viewpoints, and ethical experimentation with limited risk, are a basic part of "Natural philosophy", and also of the constructive evolution of species. It is a major principle of Nature. ((And often such approach has made possible more effective medical alternatives than some extremely expensive (dubious) ones, encouraged by Govt, and so costly to taxpayers.)) At best, Govt's policy toward some great ideas is this, "If you can't stop it, stalls it. Stall it, while you see if your favorite special interests can monopolize it. If so, help the favorite special interests to steal it and monopolize it. If that is not possible, suppress it, divert it, or destroy the idea or innovation."
This narrow-minded policy has not changed since the time of E. Armstrong and similar victims, and it continues to be largely a Govt made problem. Govt and its powerful bureaucracy have merely refined their appearances to make it look like the federal Govt "protects" our interests, or tries to. In many cases, it is only the fear of "consumers" and lawyers, that affords the public even the slightest protection, not any fear of the federal govt. (Incidentally, even the word, "consumer," promoted by some lobbyists, is stiltedly demeaning and inaccurate. The history of almost all consumers is that they have been "net producers," to the extent allowed by the system, often minimizing their consumption to that end. And the term, "customers" or "productive consumers" would be more appropriate, (or is the latter term reserved for politicians and their special interest lobbyists, and the military only?)
Fortunately, industrial and technological progress has also improved the life of most people, in modern times, although too often politicians get the credit. Unfortunately, we often hear the political rhetoric, "During 'my' 4 years, 'I' gave you jobs and prosperity," and many people are fooled by that.
A few thoughts about the Govt's "War On Drugs":
Historically, at least, there have been many cases in which patients have been given a certain FDA approved substitute for morphine, for temporary, post-operative physical pain. (I guess morphine was considered too naturalistic, effective, or unprofitable, in those instances.) The "substitute" caused the patient's pain to increase! It also caused the patient's mind to think that he/she was an insect or bird or something, and that the torturous pain and the dangerous situation would not subside. (Eventually it would subside, after the "crummy" "FDA drug" wore off, but the patients did not know this, in their tortured, dangerous, and confused state.). In my opinion, that is the type of sad episodes that "our" Govt and most politicians promote. Not some wild shooting gangster out of "prohibition" times doing this to us, "our" Govt rather!
Govt pressures, and the mal-information put out by Govt, continue to often result in the under treatment of pain, and the mismanagement and ineffective treatment of pain, without justifiable excuses. (If a politician tells you that a drug he likes relieved your pain or problem, must you believe that it did, regardless of how you feel? If a politician tells you that an herb, vitamin, or something "has absolutely no medical benefit," no pain relief, or any other relieving effect, must the politician be right, regardless of your experience or your doctor's experience? These are issues which were supposed to have been settled when Galileo looked at stars, planets, and moons, and not settled in favor of bigots, their dictatorial tyrants, or even "majority rules"! So much for the politician and the politician's "doctor" and their puppeteers!)
(This is also one reason why the federal Govt is loosing its credibility, regarding schools and education, everyday. A credibility, which as Lincoln once warned, would be virtually impossible to restore, if ever lost. A reason why many, who once viewed school "vouchers," as the ultimate irresponsible and corrupt abrogation of duty by our Govt, are "throwing in the towel." And I think it would have been helpful if more teachers and educators in the public schools would have encouraged their favorite President to take a more humane and scientific attitude toward healthcare. A little more like a "fired" Surgeon General did or others did. Instead of endorsing a "politico-truth-squad dictatorship" version of "inquiry", a stilted or "truncated" version of science, i.e. the type that impeded Galileo. In my opinion, neither the "fired" Surgeon General nor other responsible people, favored teaching kids to use habit forming "drugs", or any harmful things, or in any harmful way.)
Some thoughts about Govt's approach to health, and alternate approaches:
The Govt also wages an overt and covert war against naturalistic, helpful, and basically safe nutritional foods and supplements, and their providers. ((I conclude that from the following: the details of many legal cases that the govt has lost, despite Govt's near infinite resources; from many other cases that govt would have lost, had the victims had the money and the "larger picture" to really defend themselves; from the Govt's stilted priorities, what the govt seeks to label and to avoid labeling; Govt's unnecessarily aggressive assaults in many cases, and other factors. Also, I note the Govt's use of spies or provocateurs against some small healthcare "organizations," and the Govt's actions against helpful "whistleblowers" who "make waves" about Govt's costly and corrupt relationship with some larger healthcare "organizations." The Govt uses our taxes counter productively in all the above! (And historically, Pauling received a "cold shoulder," at best, when he tried to "enlighten" Govt attitudes).)) I think that Govt's deranged, negative priorities are an attempt by it to help subsidize politicians' favorite drug company interests and the like. And it has especially hurt the people, groups, and races, with the least resources, and I think it was so intended to! (In my opinion, it was the despicable and continued role of the top FDA leaders in those affairs, which ultimately destroyed the sincere hope of some peons, that the FDA might play a useful role in discouraging smoking. The FDA's war against nutritional supplements has greatly harmed smokers beyond the harm of "just" their smoking.) One example of FDA's destructive attitude was shown in the case of "Pearson versus Shalala," and in a subsequent case, when the FDA tried to evade that case's lessons.
In some instances, medium sized govt "alternate bureaucracies" have been created to partly supplement the large, discredited FDA and other large Govt bureaucracies, in my opinion. But that is not a very efficient or satisfying "fix" long term. They, too, can fall under "negative influences," especially without a decent philosophy guiding them. Unfortunately, the goal of politicians is for govt to keep a hand in everything, so that if anything good should happen, it can be made to looks like it came from Govt! But the reality is that most good things happen in spite of Govt! Govt should stop blocking legitimate freedoms and options of individuals who don't harm anyone else in the society! (Not the opposite!) That is a still better "repair," the "planting of the important seed," a basic and "naturalistic" solution! (Even if it disturbs some theocrats, bigots and Govt puppeteers.)
I'm against products with built-in obsolescence or potential defects, which cause the consumer to waste time and money to constantly get the result "fixed"; and that also goes for "drugs," whether or not FDA approved. I'm for good judgement, which includes avoidance and choices. That's why I condemn "our" Govt's actions, a little of which is described in the "Frank Church" report. Govt's history is one of insincerity and bad faith. Govt covertly drugged innocent people, and intentionally caused injury or death to many innocent people (like it was for sport), in my opinion. The federal Govt also profiled, mis-profiled, and mal-profiled people, covered it up, and protected the guilty. Govt produced and distributed misinformation and most often, mal-information. Also "our" Govt tried to get the UN to indirectly aid in these bad sorts of things, and "our" Govt is continuing great tragedy by its stilted forfeiture schemes and other tricks.
Does it make good sense that huge numbers of people would take harmful (or so-called useless) drugs if "our" medical and social system offered more effective drugs and better treatments? In my opinion, the Govt's "War on drugs" is a dirty, dirty farce intended to provide job security for politicians and their puppeteer special interests. And that includes the subsidizing of some drug companies in cases where they don't offer very effective drugs. All this at public expense, as usual! The "war" campaign may be described as: "Just Say No to Thinking!" It should be terminated, and common sense alternatives and treatments substituted.
I think that the federal Govt should also stop mal-profiling and vilifying the ill, the afflicted, and the handicapped. Despite Govt's rhetoric to the contrary, that is the govt's history and one of its deranged pass times, since the 1950's. (And I'm not just talking about Govt's reactions to veterans who complain about disorders, disorders which the Govt doesn't wish to admit exists.) And no amount of the Govt's pitiless, judicial murders, even if continued, can hide that history, in my opinion. (See below.)
Suggestions for "Fixing" the Political Problems (and why it is so difficult):
This is a very difficult problem. "Our" govt has worked so very hard to create a mean, bigoted, ignorant, and dangerous public and govt. (And don't expect any help from the Hague Tribunal and others, whose "heads have been adjusted" to look elsewhere!) From the time of the Watergate tapes, to more recent tapings (indirectly related to shameful actions in Arkansas hotel rooms), Govt has sought to punish the "so called" whistleblowers, not the "Kingpin," in my opinion. One President, apparently, could not finish his second term, because his extreme corruption became "too" obvious and embarrassing. In one of his few important tapes (which he did not succeed in having erased) he says that he wishes an (innocent) group persecuted, (profiles them) and orders that the govt bureaucracy to go after them like a S.O.B. It is disappointing that many peoples' response was just that "he got what he deserved because he should have burnt all the tapes and destroyed all the evidence, immediately!" ((They wanted a "first rate" despot to be their (narrow special interest) leader, and were somewhat impatient or angry with his "clumsiness"!)) Even with the rise of their much sought after "non-clumsy", "first-rate" spin creators, people still make similar comments about disposing of evidence. Like the "stain on a dress." They are "spin-blinded" to the broader, associated issues, in my opinion. (And also, I think, to the shameful events which occurred in Arkansas, before they happened in Kosovo.)
Changing the subject slightly, a president "turned his head the other way" during a few "brothers to the rescue" airplane (propaganda leaflet) droppings over Cuba." Or did I get that wrong, i.e., were they just "accidentally" off course like the KAL plane over Russia? Anyway, although I disagree with some neighboring countries on some important issues, I think that there are better ways to make progress. Like Laotse and others advocated. And we should not encourage the "tail to wag the dog." Neither should the Govt fool the people about the cause, every time a "battleship Maine" blows up, just because it is easy to go beat up on a "Spain," or on some other little "scapegoat," nor encourage this. Does that type of bullying make our schools safer? ((Incidentally, the likely "coal gas" explosion on the Maine was not Spain's fault. (Nor an evil "Gun's" fault, despite our Govt's occasional spin or rhetoric.). We should keep in mind the "battle cry," "Remember the Maine," for reasons quite opposite the Govt's intended reasons and negative motives. And also we should remember that some "Greenmail" payers (corporations) have taken much more from the average Americans than any small South American country ever will. And, as usual, the harm that self serving pro-crusaders, war mongering politicians and congressmen, and their special interests do (using your lives and bucks), utterly dwarfs the harm that any average person or scapegoat can ever do.)) (Regretfully, some of those "congressmen" seemed to behave more like "dumb-driven cattle," or swine, to borrow Longfellow's "words".)
Click to go to: Part 2
Carl R. Littmann
always welcome) For
my Email and address, see my Homepage
my Email and address, see my Homepage