Wiping out the American disease of greed

Or you could just label them, left to right, Democrat and Republican or Labour and Conservative. (Wiki Commons photo)

This unadulterated load of crass claptrap from America's young Ayn Rand wannabes popped up on my Facebook wall recently.

It is made up of ludicrous half-truths and untruths designed to appeal to a population frightened of its own shadow. Why is it so frightened? Somewhere, deep down, it knows that since electing Reagan, it has been on a downward spiral only temporarily broken by Clinton and Obama.

If a population wants to stop being frightened and halt the downward spiral for good, they have to elect several subsequent intelligent, tough, compassionate presidents. Republicanism, as practiced since Reagan, is a disease. To cure a disease, one must apply the right medicine, and one must keep taking that medicine until the problem has disappeared. The Reaganite Idiocy Syndrome is insidious; it will take several applications of democratic and possibly Democratic decency and common-sense medicine to eradicate.

It will be deadly, quite literally, to elect a Republican after only 8 years of the healing potion; Mr. Obama's applications of common sense and health care reform, for example, are still only starting to beat back the entrenched germs of greed.

First, however, one must dismantle the meme constellation constantly offered by those few who benefit from citizen fear (the rich) and those who are too ignorant to know what they do (the young conservatives.)

To refute the ludicrous points above one by one:

1. You can, in fact, legislate the poor into prosperity. It has been done time and again. Setting the slaves free "legislated" them into the ranks of those paid for work; it was then up to them to turn the possibility into prosperity.

If there is no possibility, then prosperity is not possible. When one percent of the population owns more than 90 percent of the wealth, the small amount leaked out to be shared amongst so many cannot, because it is spread too thinly, allow any one of the other 99 percent to create wealth; there is simply too little in the pot to share.

Decent tax legislation makes prosperity possible; current tax legislation makes it impossible. Simple as that.

2. This moronic statement would suggest that because I have a nice winter coat, you can't have one. It is the falsehood of inherent scarcity writ large.

I pay taxes. I have worked for that money.  But guess what? I received value for that money. I received protection from attack by foreign nations; I received education (and lo and behold, the teachers ALSO received, in the form of paychecks so this is a particularly fair exchange), and; people down on their luck or ill received money to continue living which has at least two benefits for me.

First, I have been able to provide for the less fortunate (and remind me, aren't these Conservatives usually claimants to Christian heritage?) without even having to bear the difficult task of interacting directly with people under stress.

Second, I have been able to ensure that, if it is possible and they regain their health or overcome whatever problem has led them to receiving benefits, those people will be able to contribute to society again. And if not, then I have done what the Jews call a mitzvah, a generous and kind act with no expectation of return--something almost every religion on earth says we should do one of daily without exception, though they might call it by another name.

3. About this government giving and taking idea; what a crock. The government administers the communal wealth of the nation, the wealth that we, through our legislation, have determined should be used in one way or another. They are not TAKING it from us: They are using what we have decided via laws our representatives made for the purposes we, via law, have approved. Let me know, will you, next time an armed human arrives at your door, carts off your big-screen TV and gives it to a homeless person living on the streets. I am not expecting your call.

However, that applies when we have chosen legislators who work according to voter bidding, not according to what the Koch Brothers and any number of greed-based corporations desire.

As a result, we have allowed too many legislators, mainly conservative/Republican, to shift enormous amounts of our money to those who don't need it and cannot benefit from it (for example, the Koch Brothers and Donald Trump, who took government funds to build structures about which he later went bankrupt, thereby doubling his fraud),in lieu helping those who do need it so they can rejoin productive society.

4. This is my favorite because it is so wrong on so many levels.  

You can, in fact, multiply wealth by dividing it. When a very few people have more money than they need to spend on necessities and luxuries, they hoard it, thus taking it out of circulation, which means it will not create a demand for more things. 

When many people have it, most of them will spend most or all of it for their needs and for luxuries, thus ensuring even more things will need to be created. The meme above assumes a static "pie" of stuff, which is a priori erroneous. In an expanding universe, virtually eveyr part will expand unless stopped by the application of an opposing force. Even then, eventually it will break through and expand again.

Aside from that, this is a manifesto for slavery, nothing more, nothing less. Please understand that this is precisely what the Koch brothers want, slaves to do their bidding and increase their wealth--and hidden power--far beyond its current obscene size.

 5. This one actually destroys itself. It is the result of believing numbers 1-4. Believing this and acting upon it, rather than taking back power--recalling legislators who are NOT using our money as we would like, to help the common people and not the uncommon scoundrels at the top--is the only thing that can make it true.

Here's the really bad news: So many people already believe that the falsehoods expressed by 1-4 are true that we are already well into the failure of society. Well into it. But the way out of it is NOT to believe in 1-4--that's what got us here in the first place. Reagan-Bush-Shrub made sure of it.

Taking the cure to stop the ethics-challenged, greed-ridden, compassion-negative Republicans and Conservatives from misusing our money is essential. It is the only thing we can do that will reverse our downward spiral.  The only thing.

Mr. Obama went a long way toward reversing it, but he had only two terms, hallmarked by Republican obstruction. To resurrect America from the five terms, between them, of Reagan-Bush-Shrub, not to mention the skids under society engineered by uber-criminal Richard Nixon will take more than a pound of cure. It will take boatloads.

Nixon-Reagan-Bush-Shrub are all criminals, not Occupy, not Mr. Obama. Nixon-Reagan-Bush-Shrub stole from the poor to give to the rich, and while they were at it, planted the spores of the diseases of greed, cruelty, ignorance and self-centeredness in the American population.

It is time to cure the disease, toss out the infection of conservatism and steal from the rich to give to the poor, like Robin Hood. Except we won't be stealing it; it was ours to begin with.



PS It might interest these obviously ill-educated Young Conservatives to know that their hero, Ayn Rand, accepted Social Security and Medicare, programs she railed against and which her halfwit followers now want to curtail.  Please note: She was so full of hubris that, despite relying on the largesse of the rest of us via Social Security and Medicare, she never recanted her hatred of those programs. Rand was a nicotine addict who had lung cancer and whose cockamamie ideas never made her enough money to retire without Social Security, thereby disproving her own theories.

Copyright 2016 Laura Harrison McBride

Checkbook Christianity excuses Arizona's fascist law

(Jesus driving the moneychangers from the temple. Rembrandt, 1626. Wiki commons)

Apropos the situation in Arizona, a few questions:

Why is it that those who claim most loudly to be Christians also complain most loudly about a supposedly Christian nation (it’s not, but that’s another column) allowing immigrants, legal or illegal, into the nation? I refer, in fact, to some comments on Facebook this morning in response to a Johnson City Press article regarding the judge who put the brakes on Arizona’s juggernaut toward becoming an armed camp where only white Anglo faces need appear.

Do they not in fact believe that Jesus of Nazareth fed a crowd of thousands from a few loaves and fishes? If they do believe that he did―and further believe as they claim that the living Christ is among us―then why do they not think the immigrants in their “Christian country” will be provided for?

If they believe, also, that God is the source of all, as they claim they do, why do they not believe that there will be enough to go around, enough for them and enough for immigrants, legal or illegal? Is their God, then, a limited God?

Many have said that, “Oh, yes, I sure enough believe in Christian charity. Why, I give through my church to buy blankets and such for poor folks.”

However, charity with the checkbook absent charity in the heart is no charity at all, and is, further, about as far from the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as it is possible to get.

It might also interest the Checkbook Christians to note that they are no more than the distant, rapacious, disconnected, greedy Wall Streeters they so love to vilify. If one’s only aim in life is to have enough wealth to write the check for whatever―from humongous yachts to ten buck drops in a bucket of need and misery―there is no difference. None at all. As the Wall Streeters were merely protecting their lifestyle, so the Christians practicing checkbook charity are protecting theirs. When you add to it laws such as those in Arizona, you’ve got something arguably worse than what Wall Street did…because it is in the name of God. At least the bankers were honest about it; they did it in the name of greed.

But, but, but….I hear them saying, all in chorus. No buts. If a Christian is not practicing compassion and charity in his or her heart as well as via his or her pocketbook, that person is no Christian at all, no follower of the man or myth known as Jesus of Nazareth. It cannot be both ways. Either one is charitable in all ways, or one is not a Christian. Amen.

The National Health Service, Homeopathy and Public Ethics

 Hippocrates by Rubens

Hippocratic? Or Hypocrites?

This week, there are two thrusts in coverage of planned National Health Service cutbacks in the United Kingdom. The first involves which programs to cut; up for consideration is extensive payment for fertility treatments. Also up is coverage of homeopathy, a 200-year-old system of medicine subscribed to by the Royal Family, lots of other Brits, a few Americans, tons of Indians (many of whom live, in fact, in England) and many, many French people.

Homeopathy is regarded by mainstream doctors as nothing more than placebos. They believe this because, as mechanics more than scientists, philosophers or artists―all of which physicians were meant to be in more enlightened times as recently as the 18th century―they cannot find any trace of active ingredients within the pellets and liquids dispensed by homeopaths. Modern doctors are apparently ignorant of quantum physics and the work of Dr. Masuro Emoto in which he found that the molecular structure of water changed depending on whether it was from a clear mountain stream or a polluted urban river. Not the contents of the water, mind…the water itself. That is how homeopathy works; the active ingredient, often a poison if used at full strength, is diluted in an inert substance such as purified water and during the process, the active ingredient’s properties are transmitted to the inert carrier.

So, upon that brief and somewhat inexact explanation of how homeopathy works (and it would be inexcusable for me to fail to admit that it is the only form of medicine I have used for more than 30 years), the questions are these:

One form of medicine fits all?

1.  Is it ethical for a doctor to proceed against a form of medical treatment different than that to which he adheres despite a portion of the public believing it is in their best interest to follow that alternate form of medicine?

2.  Is it ethical for citizens and their elected politicians to deny public coverage for such treatments on the same basis as coverage for mainstream treatment?

Regarding question one: If a doctor actually follows the Hippocratic Oath, which admonishes “first, do no harm,” then clearly by removing equal coverage out of public coffers for a minority medical system, they are doing harm. Often, they say they are “protecting” that public from wasting money (their own and the public’s) on what they say are ineffective treatments.

First, those treatments are not ineffective if they promote health in those who use them, which they do, regardless of what the doctors see or do not see in the chemical components of those substances, or on how many double-blind studies have or have not been conducted. (Aside from which, not a week passes that there is not another revelation regarding bogus studies for deadly mainstream pharmaceuticals…so much for “real” science.”) So, on a purely factual basis, they are acting unethically.

When did doctors become God?

Second, on what day did the public relinquish its prerogative to choose its own health care to doctors, or any other so-called and/or self-proclaimed expert? In short, on what day did God (if you believe in one) decide to share power with those who are members of a large, national medical association in some developed nation or other?

Printed below is a copy of a version of the Hippocratic Oath used in many medical schools today. It was written by Louis Lasagna in 1964; he was academic dean of the School of Medicine at Tufts University.

Dr. Lehany, Scotland’s answer to the Luddites

The portions of the Hippocratic Oath which particularly address the issues raised here are italicised. I would particularly draw those to the attention of Dr. Gordon Lehany, author of the most recent assault on homeopathy from the UK medical establishment. Dr. Gordon Lehany is chair of the British Medical Association’s Scottish junior doctors committee, and therefore inordinately influential for the future of medical practice in the UK.

Money, greed and ignorance

Regarding question two―Is it ethical for citizens to justify denial of alternative medical coverage on financial grounds?―the answer is simple. No.

Many of those commenting on public forums on this issue cite the same sorts of mechanistic pseudo-evidence as Dr. Lehany might cite. But by ignoring the work of Dr. Emoto and Canadian researcher Dr. R.H. Clark, who altered the character of water by what he placed next to it, it is as if they are trying to convince themselves and the rest of us that the Remington Standard typewriter is preferable to the computer for quickly producing typed sentences…because the Remington is the one they know how to operate and fix, while they are mystified by computing.

But many raise the issue of cost, as well. Why, they ask, should they pay for this “magic” medicine with their tax dollars?

Again, the answer is simple: Because in a democratic society, each member is responsible for not only his or her own happiness and right to pursue same, but those same rights for every other member. Most people who use homeopathy don’t think much of Big Pharma and its killer compounds, and yet, one doesn’t read of them refusing to spend much larger amounts on it because it is what the majority favour. They actually believe the Hippocratic dictum, First, do no harm. And it would be harmful to a population of sick people to badger and threaten them about the means they have chosen through which to heal, even if one doesn’t personally favour it.

One reaps what one sows. Dr. Lehany is sowing hostility and pandering to a narrow world-view, if not practicing thinly veiled greed. The public commentators are expressing both ignorance and hostility and the obverse of greed, parsimony.

Worse, parsimony directed at those they do not know and yet would harm.

 ***

Modern Hippocratic Oath

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say “I know not,” nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death.

If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.