My Articles

Political Philosophy... (cont.)
Click to go back to: Part 1 or Part 2

OPTIONAL: Miscellaneous Thoughts and Questions, (What I can't see!)

With regard to care in transition, this does not mean that a good doctor should procrastinate starting the treatment, and the doctor will start it as soon as feasible. By contrast, many presidents, have tragically postponed too long, the obvious things which they should have begun promptly. And by the time they finally got around to it, it was too late, or a 1000 times more difficult. This has bought utter ruin to their presidencies, instead of easy success, and caused them to go down in history as under average and bitterly disappointing. Also, unlike a good physician who also addresses other weaknesses affecting the problemed area, many Presidents have rushed out with overkill to "cure" what they thought was solely the problem, and wondered why they didn't succeed. (Even that description may give presidents more credit than they deserve, but that's O.K.) In many cases, great constructive presidential action, or readjustments, would have been as easy as moving a finger, with little downside political risk, and much upside political benefit. It is an unsolved mystery to me why presidents would so often not take elementary, easy, virtually risk-free, good actions, when obviously appropriate. Lincoln had to take far more difficult actions as he "sidelined" each of 4 or 5 famous generals and many others. Were the more recent presidents possessed by a great unfathomable hatred for the public or themselves, or toward their successful "rivals."? Or possessed by their love for unnecessary adventurism? Or did they have too little energy to question their advisors? Or a subconscious desire to be treacherous to those who voted for them and supported them, or to the entire public? (Are these the ultimate "evolutionary" qualifications for public office?) Perhaps these politicians were "just" out to prove something to someone who made them angry, i.e. who "got their goat." I don't think it would be right to blame this one on the powerful lobby interests, or the public.

Miscellaneous remark: One thing, not greatly blamable on govt, is much of the etiquette, customs, conventional good manners, and emulation of it, which tends to compromise health, and which is often difficult for the elderly or handicapped to practice.


There are dozens of other topics that I would like to address, but that would make this article much too long. They include such subjects as follows: people with terminal illness, pain, torture and facing govt nonsense; Govt laws with regard to organ donating and their recipients; the ridiculous way that jurors are chosen, eliminated, and treated. (In almost every case, you would see a Govt that believes in its own divine right of arrogance, conceit, infallibility, bigotry, bullying, and Govt's alliance with the super powerful and privileged. You would see Govt's utter contempt for innocent people's rights, and the better ideas that often arise from the public and from independent thinkers. You would see Govt's hypocritical pretence of caring that the public be treated fairly, while plotting and working for quite the contrary!) ((If the readers has gotten this far, I will spared them the stories of how the Govt grotesquely handled some (alleged) car driving violations. Many readers likely have their own experiences and stories!))

Hopefully this article will further encourage you to think about the real causes of problems and your own solutions to them. (Not necessarily my solutions or other people's solutions, although they too should be considered.) And most of all, you should not just believe the Govt, or its puppeteers, or those controlled by govt, directly and indirectly. The Govt has a gigantic propaganda and pressure base and uses it, often subtly. So the Govt will present issues stiltedly, glibly, narrowly, and prejudicially, as if "of course there can't be a broader and more meritorious viewpoint." (And I suggest you think twice before blindly following any autocrat who exhibits the flaws of Govt.)

I have tried for nearly 40 years to avoid the alarming and depressing description (of the state of politics) in this article. I am not an idealist or perfectionist. I am reasonably tolerant of the Govt "spoil system", "modest" favors to its "friends," and special interests. I am reasonably tolerant of many politicians' high salaries and huge "fringe" benefits. Also understanding of Truman's statement that he is always loyal to a friend, and his need to have worked, at times, under a "Pendergast machine." (He is not the only one who has had to do that sort of thing.) A large, diverse country, with great resources and a resourceful people, can cope with frustrating situations and make progress, and did!

But now, we seem to have an ultimate catastrophe. Govt's power and authority has been largely diverted from the obviously right places to the wrong places and to the wrong ends. (And it even goes beyond the "1.6 gallon mandatory toilet" law. It extends to "what reasonable procedures one is "barred" from using, with regard to one's own health problems," etc., etc.!) It is as if the various "complexes" and more, which some leaders warned us of in their "farewell addresses," have descended upon us, and have 100% control of everything significant, (and much of it, an illegal and unconstitutional extension). It effectively reaches far deeper, far more broadly, far more subtly, and more damagingly than ever. And with all the powers that bigotry, general intolerance, and advanced technology can muster for it.

I think that cunning presidents and politicians can easily harness these great powers to win second terms, and do, even when there are no emergencies. Only when they "retire" can the public sometimes discover what they really did, and what they really are. And how most modern politicians diverted attention, resources, and their priorities away from the people's real past and future health needs, and social and economic needs. Basically, the govt's game is to take huge income, assets, and rights away from the people, and sometimes give a tiny bit back, after working great mischief with the balance! Thus, the Govt's many victims (who are overtaxed, harassed, and over extended) really do end up needing the Govt's help, (or help from somewhere!) Somewhat similarly with the Govt's attempt to take away the people's right to purchase health treatments of their own choice, (i.e. that is, their own choice, which may not be the "Govt's choice.") No wonder that the "average American" spends much more on health than citizens in any other modern country. Yet our country ranks far behind many other countries in good health!

The "Cosmopolitan" "need" to "boss" around the world arises from the failure to get "our own house in order." (Similarly, with the need to "teach the world," instead of learning from one another, including diversity.) With a few small, non-superficial changes in our laws, or a president willing to promptly "move a finger," in the correct direction, much great progress can be made. The public would feel the benefits quickly. The powerful "Complexes," might momentarily "suffer" a minor earnings or "profit" "correction." But they too, would soon enjoy a much greater prosperity and health than before, and on a sounder foundation. (The Govt leaders and their families would neither suffer politically, nor in the history books. And neither would they have been disloyal to their political "friends" nor to their favorite lobbyists. And these latter things, I think, are important too.)

There is a humane side to "Naturalism," and it can provide us with the wisdom to progress humanely, if studied and applied carefully. In this article, I have tried to present some examples. Many others have also, in their works. (For example, Irwin Stone, wrote a book, with forwards by Nobel Laureates Pauling and Szent-Gyorgyi. The author studies plants', animals' and mammals' natural evolution in order to solve problems, regarding human health and much unnecessary disease. It makes recommendations, and comes to general conclusions on the importance of most human beings getting at least a few grams of vitamin C per day. My prediction is, for example, that it would protect almost everyone who suffers seasonal allergies from their problem.)

I wish to reiterate my opinion that the Govt, its bureaucracy, and some of its puppeteers have not changed their determination to promote mis-information, mal-information, and mal-actions. Many were described in this article. In my opinion, our tax paying money has been spent by Govt, FDA and NIH to aid in misinforming us and doctors, and to fund and aid in killing and injuring monkeys and kids, with unnaturalistic schemes. Also without affording them the most elementary, humane defenses. In my opinion, also to help prevent the appropriate truths from coming to the public's attention, and the latter continues! And I am talking about what Govt is doing to us, not Dr. Kevorkian. (As I type this, I read that a recent President or his friends are trying to blame the President's pardoning of a "fugitive" on some foreign country, domestic group, or scapegoat, instead of just accepting his own responsibility for his pardon, i.e. with its various "pros and cons." I doubt if President Truman would have dodged such a responsibility, even if his decision had made him seem foolish.) Do you know where your politicians are? We must get busy, involved, and try to politically improve things.

((Addendum: Since my 3-3-2001 article above, including the last two paragraphs about health, a sad event seems to have occurred. During a test, to induce and study allergies, at a major gov't funded research center, a "volunteer" appears to have died after breathing "methacholine" and "hexamethonium", i.e., breathing them as intended (not accidentally). I fear things are completely "out of whack" in this country, and have sometimes affected foreign affairs, too. Again, I regret that limited space prevents me from addressing current events, and refer the reader to "non-mainstream" thinkers for lasting, humane solutions.))

Addendum 2 (1-20-2005):Opinion on the 2001 9-11” Victims Compensation Fund 

In principle, it is a good idea for a Nation’s citizens to compensate its innocent victims, i.e., those who were killed or injured in an “unprovoked” enemy attack.  In fact, the main reason why a people form a nation is for the protection of it citizenry (in theory).  

But, unfortunately, the “compensation principle”, which the President and his Congress applied, was quite different from the noble one, above; and was, instead, too disgraceful, in my opinion.  Some killed victims were compensated 28 times more than others, since the compensation was based mainly on the victim’s “personal income”, or predicted income potential.  But there are extremely great flaws, prejudices, and pompous presumptions, when a government uses a person’s so-called “personal income” to measure a person’s value, or contribution to the society, or even to gauge a society’s obligation to a person.   

A “Special Master” was assigned to distribute the fund based on the law, and he was somewhat more considerate than most Government politicians and bureaucrats, in my opinion.  He later explained that he thought that a flat sum compensation on behalf of each killed victim might have been a preferred way to work things out. 

But I think that even the “one-flat-sum-each” paradigm is too imperfect and simplistic; and it does not “give effect” to certain applicable and appropriate sociological and ethical principles.  I would have preferred compensation ratios, somewhat like as follows:  $600,000 flat sum to each U.S. citizen killed.  Added to that; for up to as many as two children: $200,000 for the benefit of each kid of the victim who was not beyond grade school age; (or $150,000—not beyond high school), (or $100,000--not beyond college).  And added to that, $200,000 for the surviving spouse with a child not yet beyond high school, or $100,000 otherwise.  The sums and ratios I suggested are only approximate; but the idea is to give effect to the following principle:  A society’s duty is to militarily defend the well-being and maturation of its families.  It seems logical and ethical for an appropriate society to provide that much financial security and commitment; and for that society to perpetrate itself.   

Admittedly, the question of appropriate compensation is challenging.   But one can only wonder about the motivations behind the “crazy compensation system” concocted by the President and his Congress, a system that also punished farsighted parents who took out comprehensive life insurance.  And I am not surprised that such a President and his Congress would later attack Iraq--based on their false accusations that Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction”.  And take over Iraq’s valuable energy assets.  All that leaves one wondering--can citizens even trust the President’s and Congress’s pretence that the 9-11 (2001) attack was entirely unprovoked? 

Incidentally, the average compensation was $2.1 million for each death, and $0.4 million for each injury.  Persons, who sued companies, etc., separately, for what they felt was grossly neglecting to provide reasonable security, were deemed ineligible to participate in the government compensation program at all!  (Government openly represented that as an attempt to shield Airlines, etc., from many lawsuits; but I think it was also Government’s attempt to discourage victims from looking to closely at their own government’s behavior.)

Click to go back to: Part 1 | Part 2 | Home
Carl R. Littmann

(Readers’ comments always welcome)
For my Email and address, see my Homepage