Remember that the social contract by which our nation, and other nations, came into existence, is about an agreement the domestic poor have with the rich in their countries. The poor agree to not rise up together against the rich so long as the rich don’t steal from them or kill them if they complain. The rich agree not to steal from or kill the domestic poor so long as they are allowed to go outside the country to gain wealth by stealing from or killing the people, rich or poor, they find there.
America’s rich folks are in the middle east stealing what they can and killing anybody who might effectively complain because, well, the wealth is there in the oil. There might be precious metals and other valuable resources. They can do this because the domestic population in America lets them. By their apathy and studied indifference they enable the rich to suck up the wealth they find in that part of the world. There is the idea, too, that if America’s rich get more wealth, then some of that will trickle down to benefit the domestic poor who have allowed the rich to do what they’re doing.
The problem for the domestic poor is that America’s rich can go to other poor and weak countries and take over their domestic populations so that they can play one poor population off against another. This is the idea that slavery works, it makes the rich wealthier, without giving any more wealth or power to the poor. So, the rich are making money off the slaves in places like China, Indonesia, Malaysia, and India, at the expense of the domestic poor in America.
The situation in Europe suffers from the same principle. All the richer countries are now being asked to work for less pay, and to live with less social welfare, just to compete with the slaves in these other countries.
Here’s a discussion of how this is working out for the domestic poor in both Europe and America,
The claim made by Cook and Levi is that Empiricism, and philosophical ideas in general, is a body of arguments, their claims, and ideas, based on a mistake, the mistake of misunderstanding the meanings of words that we would otherwise discover, if looked at carefully enough, in the details of examples of ordinary discourse.
I will here explain a little more about what Cook and Levi believe is the solution to philosophical problems. Their solution is to expose it’s originating mistakes in our thinking, and thereby give good reason for us to ignore or repudiate philosophy’s arguments, claims, and ideas.
I here mean to suggest an alternative explanation for the genesis of philosophical ideas, one that disagrees with what Cook and Levi have argued. The argument that I want to make involves the use of an ancient example, the story of Alexander and the Gordian Knot.
…and a short description of what Alexander did to the knot with his sword,
Many individuals came to Gordium to try to undo the knot, but they all failed. Then, according to tradition, the Greek conqueror Alexander the Great visited the city in 333 B . C . After searching unsuccessfully for the hidden ends of the Gordian knot, Alexander became impatient. In an unexpected move, he took out his sword and cut through the knot. Alexander then went on to conquer Asia, thus fulfilling the oracle's prophecy. Alexander's solution to the problem led to the saying, "cutting the Gordian knot," which means solving a complicated problem through bold action. http://www.mythencyclopedia.com/Fi-Go/Gordian-Knot.html#ixzz0vCVpcsR6
There should be a distinction between substances that can, with foresight, be used to people’s benefit, and substances which facilitate the destruction of people’s lives. Sometimes the identification of what these substances are is complicated. Sometimes we’ve drawn the lines in the wrong places and we need to rethink what’s been thought in the past.
So, we’ve made marijuana illegal, as a national policy, to prevent its use and the introduction of people who use it to much more destructive drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamines.
There is the argument, however, that instead of being an inherently harmful drug, marijuana has medical benefits that should not be denied to them.
Here’s some discussion about that issue,
Cannabinoids Kill Cancer and Our Government Has Known for 36 Years
by GSA on May 18, 2010
Below is a repost of an article published on Americans for Safe Access website: www.safeaccessnow.org in November of 2003. The article describes how cannabinoids, the active components of marijuana, inhibit tumor growth in laboratory animals and also kill cancer cells. Then it finishes off by saying that the US government has known for more than 35 years and that the media which would normally go crazy about a cancer cure story like this, doesn’t at all and in fact seem to be burying the story rather than promote it in any way. I for one am amazed at the government’s stance on marijuana and their failed war on drugs, which is more like a war on it’s own country. I guess too many people get rich off of the war on drugs.
A new study published in Nature Reviews-Cancer provides an historic and detailed explanation about how THC and natural cannabinoids counteract cancer, but preserve normal cells.
The study by Manuel Guzmán of Madrid Spain found that cannabinoids, the active components of marijuana, inhibit tumor growth in laboratory animals. They do so by modulating key cell-signaling pathways, thereby inducing direct growth arrest and death of tumor cells, as well as by inhibiting the growth of blood vessels that supply the tumor.
The Guzman study is very important according to Dr. Ethan Russo , a neurologist and world authority on medical cannabis: “Cancer occurs because cells become immortalized; they fail to heed normal signals to turn off growth. A normal function of remodeling in the body requires that cells die on cue. This is called apoptosis, or programmed cell death. That process fails to work in tumors. THC promotes its reappearance so that gliomas, leukemias, melanomas and other cell types will in fact heed the signals, stop dividing, and die.”
“But, that is not all,” explains Dr. Russo: “The other way that tumors grow is by ensuring that they are nourished: they send out signals to promote angiogenesis, the growth of new blood vessels. Cannabinoids turn off these signals as well. It is truly incredible, and elegant.”
The Banking Act of 1933, widely known as the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, separated banking according to the types of banking business - commercial banking and investment banking. It was passed when a large portion of the U.S. banking system collapsed during the Great Depression in the 1920s and 1930s.
History and Meaning of Glass-Steagall Act
The stock market crashed in the U.S. in 1929. That was, essentially, the beginning of the Great Depression. Very similar to the beginning of the Great Recession in 2008, the stock market had reached new highs before 1929 driven by speculation. The Glass-Steagall Act was a reaction to the fact that banks, before the Great Depression, had mixed the commercial and investing activities and regulators felt that this had caused some of the problems. In other words, mixing the commercial and investment banks functions caused banks to take too much risk with depositors' money.
Banks were accused of being greedy....taking on too much risk with depositors' money in hopes of scoring big investment rewards.
After the enactment of Glass-Steagall, commercial banks could accept depositor's money and make loans but could not become involved in selling or trading securities or underwriting. They certainly could not trade in risky or speculative financial instruments.
A friend of mine explained how she has two wonderful kids, but two really bad ex boyfriend/husbands. The problem with where she’d been living was, well, the boys spent their lives taking drugs.
Oregon doesn’t seem to be any different than the rest of the country. We have social problems. There’s few real job opportunities. There’s a question whether education will reward one with a sure job. Communities struggle with financial woes. The state is bankrupt, and so there’s less money to create and sustain programs for people to keep them off drugs.
It’s a real problem. Here’s some info about the problem:
The scientists are still trying to figure out what the drugs do to us. They know that smoking causes cancer. They want to know what kinds of problems we should expect from the use of meth, cocaine, heroin, alcohol, and the “club” drugs.
Here’s a story about Oregon’s drug problem in schools,
Oregon's drug problem: Social programs, schools can help beat addiction
Published: Saturday, March 13, 2010, 12:55 PM Updated: Friday, March 12, 2010, 6:03 PM
By DWIGHT C. HOLTON Earlier this month. Multnomah County District Attorney Michael Schrunk and I announced the arrest of two alleged drug dealers in conjunction with the deaths of Joshua Reeves and Patrick McGinnis -- young Oregonians who died from heroin overdoses. The defendants are alleged to have supplied the heroin that led to the deaths of these men, and they would not have been caught without the tireless efforts of local police and federal agents. We pursued these defendants in part to send a message to criminals who deal drugs: You will be held accountable -- law enforcement is coming for you.
But it is imperative to recognize that prosecution and incarceration alone cannot fix our community's drug problem. Patrick McGinnis' father told The Oregonian that the drug "war" cannot be won through the criminal justice system alone. He's right. We in law enforcement stand shoulder to shoulder with those who believe that we must focus greater efforts on drug-abuse prevention, treatment and recovery, support for families and support for schools. Drugs are wiping out people in this state at an alarming rate. There were more than 100 drug overdose deaths in Multnomah County last year. The problem hits rural communities hard as well. Just last week, there were four heroin overdoses -- one fatal -- in Lincoln County. All in all, there were 229 drug-related deaths in Oregon in 2008. To put this in perspective, there were 82 murders in Oregon that year, so the death rate from overdose was nearly three times the death rate from murder.
Let us imagine we are bound up in some such machine. The suffering and destruction caused by that machine is so odious, that we want to get off, to get away, to no more enable that suffering and destruction by even our passive participation.
So says Mario,
And the words,
“There comes a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart that you can’t take part, you can’t even passively take part. You have to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the levers, upon all the apparatus and you’ve got to make it stop. And you’ve got to indicate to the people who own it, to the people who run it, that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all.”
In reading the fourteenth amendment to the constitution just now, I wonder whether therein lies some help for our economic woes.
So, in section 4,
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Is not the legal basis for this section that insurrection or rebellion against the United States is all about incurring a cost or obligation to the country that would be an inappropriate burden on the people to bear. The people didn’t authorize the Confederacy to spend money, rack up debts, etc, etc. So, according to this section, the United States need not assume those debts.
Since the people did not authorize the debts incurred by the banks, the investment houses, and most of the military expenditures they’ve tried to saddle on us, according to this piece of law, these debts are not our problem.