Touchy Subjects

The Consequences of Zombification // Our Health Suffers

It should be surprising that the way we understand reality itself can be disputed. I happen to think that there is a universally accepted account of reality, one articulated and promoted by Socrates and adopted by intellectual and practical leaders since.  My argument is with this generally accepted account. I think it has overwhelming problems both theoretically and for practical purposes. There are, of course, reasons why deep thinkers have adopted the view pushed by Socrates. Those reasons have to do with the advantages to the powerful that Socrates account of our ends and means, as well as his Mission Statement’s enabling clause, the account of reason as a matter of logical argument.

There are several attacks on the Socratic position. One of them is the argument that if we follow Socrates we will be taking the side of the Antichrist against God. I find this argument the most surprising and interesting argument made by the Teacher, who we should understand as the great antagonist to Socratic philosophy. Another argument made by the Teacher has to do with the consequences of any general adoption of the Socratic view. According to the Teacher, adoption of the Socratic view would inevitably lead to the self destruction of anyone so committed and the destruction of everyone and everything loved by them. The Teacher used the word “apocalypse” and the “apocalyptic” to make this argument.

My argument has been that another way to understand the Socratic view is to see that it makes us understand ourselves as zombies. I call the adoption of Socratic principles “zombification.”  That is, adopting Socratic principles makes us zombies, will-less creatures driven by our insatiable hungers or the commands of our voodoo masters. The problem with zombies and people who think of themselves as zombies is that they cannot take care of their health. They cannot understand how to protect themselves because of the confusions created by our perverted understanding of our lives and what, on Socrates’ view, is important in our lives.

Whereas Socrates claims our goal must be to survive, he promotes a strategy involving the use of force and its cognates which makes looking after our health impossible.

One example of this has to do with the problems people have with diabetes mellitus. There is the question whether a diabetic’s diet causes their problems and if so, whether a change in diet might cure it. In the following article the writers claim that a vegetarian diet can cure many diabetics problem. There are others who dispute this claim saying that meat and dairy products need not be avoided in a diabetic diet.

The question I have is about why there has not been definitive research done on this question which would answer this question.  The influence of the meat and dairy producers may have put pressure on  the government to not fund research which could help us understand this issue.One can remember that the tobacco industry put pressure on government to never fund research on the health concerns of  smoking tobacco.

So, what is the argument here about diabetics and their diets? Can the dispute about what to do about this disease be resolved by some simple scientific study?  Or,  will people continue to suffer from this disease, even if there is a n adequate understanding of what causes and cures it, because powerful interests make money doing things that, unfortunately, lead to the endangerment and sickening of millions of people?

So, what do they say?

There Is a Way to Help Avoid Heart Disease and Diabetes: You Are What You Eat!

By Kathy Freston, AlterNet. Posted October 31, 2009.

A plant-based diet is both preventative and healing, whereas a diet high in animal protein is destructive to our health.

 

"If the truth be known coronary artery disease is a toothless paper tiger that need never, ever exist and if it does exist it need never, ever progress."

So says Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn, who was a researcher and clinician at the Cleveland Clinic for over 35 years. In 1991, Dr. Esselstyn served as the president of the American Association of Endocrine Surgeons, and organized the 1st National Conference on the Elimination and Prevention of Heart Disease. In 2005, he became the 1st recipient of the Benjamin Spock Award for Compassion in Medicine. Dr. Esselstyn is also an Olympic gold medalist in rowing, and he was awarded the Bronze Star as an army surgeon in Vietnam.

In this series of interviews I've conducted with extraordinary nutritional researchers and medical doctors, I've sought to understand the link between diet and the most common and dreaded diseases that are prevalent in our culture. What I'm hearing over and over is that a plant-based diet is both preventative and healing, whereas a diet high in animal protein is destructive to our health - this is the case with cancer, type 2 diabetes, and heart disease.

The great news is that there is very real hope in shifting the course of our health. What is becoming very apparent through various peer reviewed studies is that by changing our diet - eliminating that which causes havoc in the body (animal protein) and adding in plant based proteins and eating lots of vegetables, legumes, beans, and whole grains, we can not only prevent disease, but also heal from it once it is already in motion. Following is a fascinating conversation I had on diet and heart health.

Obama and his Critics // If No Justice, then No Peace

There is something about the visuals and the audios that make an impact that the written words sometimes cannot reproduce. So, in trying to make the point that justice is very important, the  videos here show us what people are concerned about. It shows the pictures of what is happening to the troops. It shows what we are doing to the Iraqis, to the Afghans, and as importantly, to ourselves.

Stop the War in Vietnam…because if you don’t, we said back then,  we will keep invading  other places, with equal violence and injustice.

Stop the wars in Asia because we are not building a better world there. We are just ruining things.

Obama and his Critics // Police Brutality

The following report from the Russians(!!!) pretty much summarizes the complaints made by Oregonians, and many others all across the country, that the police beat people up and sometimes kill them and are never made to be accountable.

The question is whether we should not only be investigating the police who commit crimes against the people they are supposed to be protecting and serving,  but make accountable the local political leaders who let them get away with these abuses.

 

 

The local politicians are working with limited budgets, true. They claim they can’t be paying adequate salaries and also funding education and training costs for those in the community who want to work in their police departments. This makes it impossible to hire and maintain adequately prepared officers.

What are our national leaders doing to make sure local police are doing their jobs? What advice are they giving them?

Does it make sense to hold the President accountable for local police departments when individual police officers are found torturing, abusing, or even killing innocent people?

Yes. In a way we should hold all of government accountable.  When individual soldiers on a battlefield run amok and kill innocent civilians, or violate accepted rules of war, we…the United States…hold the leaders of those soldier’s armies accountable. We prosecuted Japanese leaders for the behavior of their troops. We held Saddam Hussein accountable for the behavior of his soldiers, government officials, and scientists.

There is the argument that the killings of street people, the sick, the injured, and the generally innocent, were committed by rogue elements in our local police departments. One might argue there is no way that one could reasonably blame what they did, if they did anything wrong at all, on our national leaders, or our President. This would be to grant them more power than they should be allowed.

Yes, we should point fingers foremost at the officers themselves, but if our local and national leaders do not provide the support necessary to monitor, train, and improve our police, so that beatings and killings, and the abuse of the citizenry occurs, then these guys are also at fault.

There is also the question of why we should blame sick people for what the police do against them.  How could the police be justified in any case  to shoot a person on drugs, or a sick person acting out, or even a suspect of a crime? It is the courts where guilt or innocence is argued, and punishment decided. It isn’t for the police to harm or kill suspicious individuals.

I suspect the police are told that their fear justifies their use of lethal force. If they are afraid for their own safety, then they are justified in using their weapons against the people around them who make them afraid.

But, others say that it’s lax police culture that does it,

So, how do we prevent this kind of behavior in the future?

Please don't say through (1) more thorough screening of law enforcement candidates, or (2) better training. They're both important, of course. Critical, in fact. But law enforcement, for the most part, doesn't pick bad apples. It makes them, and not through academy training.

Forty-three years ago I was an idealistic, vaguely liberal 21-year-old when the San Diego Police Department hired me. The last thing on my mind was taking to the streets to punish people. And lest there be any doubt about the department's policy, the police academy, even then, drove it home: excessive force was grounds for termination.

So, why did I abuse the very people I'd been hired to serve?

Not to get too psychological, I did it because the power of my position went straight to my head; because other cops I'd come to admire did it; and because I thought I could get away with it. Which I did--until a principled prosecutor slapped me upside the head and demanded to know whether the U.S. Constitution meant anything to me.

It comes down to this: real cops, those with a conscience, those who honor the law, must step up and take control of the cop culture

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/norm-stamper/police-brutality-deal-wit_b_173427.html

The “Cop-in-charge” so to speak, has to tell his crew that no abuse and irresponsible behavior will be tolerated.  And then, he has to put effort and commitment into making his warnings stick.

Why has Oregon’s Democrat Senator Jeff Merkley introduced legislation weaker that Ron Paul’s House bill to Audit the Federal Reserve?

Why would Oregonians in the Democratic Party, Independents, and others on the left, or even on the right and in the Republican Party, want to support a ‘watered-down’ version of “End the Fed” legislation already introduced in the House?

Does Merkley see himself as wanting to put light on the workings of government but not the private corporations that ‘own’ government?

I am disappointed to hear that Merkley has become involved in this effort, apparently, on the wrong side.  Shouldn’t the Democrat from Oregon be more aggressive about uncovering the hidden workings of the Fed considering how much the Fed’s actions have effected Oregon’s economy and the lives of people living in the Pacific Northwest?

I have not seen internet coverage of this issue involving critics from the left. The right and the Libertarians are all over it.

So, here is Rep. Ron Paul on Merkley’s ‘watered-down’ Senate Bill,

Obama and his Critics // Obama as Lipstick

"You can clean up a pig, put a ribbon on it's [sic] tail, spray it with perfume, but it is still a pig."

So…if the country is, as many believe, a ‘Failed State,’ then you could elect a black President, hire a bunch of nice looking Media personalities to handle  spin, throw some money at  problems, all to make it seem like something it’s  not, but, …in the end, …it is still a ‘Failed State.’

Let’s hear from a few of the geezers-in-opposition about ‘Failed States’ and the problems of America,

October 22, 2009

The Super Rich are Laughing

The US as Failed State

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

The US has every characteristic of a failed state.

The US government’s current operating budget is dependent on foreign financing and money creation.

Too politically weak to be able to advance its interests through diplomacy, the US relies on terrorism and military aggression.

Costs are out of control, and priorities are skewed in the interest of rich organized interest groups at the expense of the vast majority of citizens. For example, war at all cost, which enriches the armaments industry, the officer corps and the financial firms that handle the war’s financing, takes precedence over the needs of American citizens. There is no money to provide the uninsured with health care, but Pentagon officials have told the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee in the House that every gallon of gasoline delivered to US troops in Afghanistan costs American taxpayers $400.

“It is a number that we were not aware of and it is worrisome,” said Rep. John Murtha, chairman of the subcommittee.

According to reports, the US Marines in Afghanistan use 800,000 gallons of gasoline per day. At $400 per gallon, that comes to a $320,000,000 daily fuel bill for the Marines alone. Only a country totally out of control would squander resources in this way.

While the US government squanders $400 per gallon of gasoline in order to kill women and children in Afghanistan, many millions of Americans have lost their jobs and their homes and are experiencing the kind of misery that is the daily life of poor third world peoples. Americans are living in their cars and in public parks. America’s cities, towns, and states are suffering from the costs of economic dislocations and the reduction in tax revenues from the economy’s decline. Yet, Obama has sent more troops to Afghanistan, a country half way around the world that is not a threat to America.

…

Why is our government wanting to justify torture?

I imagine one of the reasons my Dad enlisted in the Navy after Pearl Harbor was that the other side was evil.  The upcoming war between the United States and its allies against the Japanese, Germans, and their allies was not just a dispute between competitors. If you have a football rivalry, you can talk about going all out to beat the other side. But, you don’t go out and actually start killing people. You don’t go to the homes of members of the “hated rivals” and set it ablaze and shoot anyone who should try to escape. No, at the end of the season, the Beavers and the Ducks get jobs in the same companies, have beers at the same sports bars, and if they have kids, they are born in the same hospital rooms.

In order to go to war, you have to imagine that the other side is something far different than just your football rival. You have to think that they are evil. You have to have evidence that they should be locked away in prison. You have to think that if you don’t go kill them, then eventually, if they get the chance, they will come to kill you.

But, it isn’t just that the enemy would kill you and your loved one’s if they had the chance, but,  they would steal from you, or enslave you and your kids, or torture you for no good reason, or to just find out where your family jewels might be hidden. There are many things which you might be afraid of that your enemies might do to you, if they have the chance. These desires and weaknesses are what makes your enemies evil. In addition, their insatiable desire for your valuables that cannot be reasoned with, that cannot be turned by a good argument,  is what makes war with their evilness  justified.

The laws against torture are not just legal formalities which we have no good reason for having or enforcing. The business of torture makes torturers evil and what justifies our using deadly force against them. We are justified in going to war with people who see no problem with torture.

This is why it is important to root out the torturers amongst us. We cannot allow torture within the community of our friends and acquaintances because their torture makes us evil. It  makes us evil if we have not done whatever we can do to eliminate it, to stamp it out, and to keep the thought that we should torture from becoming the deed.

The Bush administration said that it wasn’t torturing anybody. It was only doing “enhanced interrogation” of people who wanted to harm us. The business about the people “who wanted to harm us” justified to them the “enhanced” techniques. It is alright, they said, to do whatever we can to stop people from harming us, even if in some people’s eyes it looks like torture.

Some others said, “Fuck it, it’s torture, but we should torture those who are doing evil against us.”

The Obama administration wants to protect all the people who tortured others during the Bush administration. They would also want to protect those who torture during the Obama administration. The defense of the  justification for torture and all the torturers, according to Obama, is that we can’t go after each other when we face an out side enemy.

But, I’m sure this was what the Germans, the Japanese, and their allies all said when they tortured.

Here is a current discussion of Bush and his torturers,

 

It is not a new or particularly innovative move to want to do something, and then, if that desire is itself evil, construct legal arguments to cover it’s evil up so that people have no good reason to resist. The manufactured cover-story  that whatever Bush and Obama have been doing is not torture and so not immoral is supposed to blunt the drive and will to resist.

America on Race, Class, and Gender // How is racism a consequence of the fact we live on a playground run by a bully?

My claim is that the central conflict in our civilization has to do with our acceptance of a destructive account of our mission in life and the ways we enable that understanding of our ends and means by adopting a certain  account of  reason,  ourselves, and  the world around us. That is, bad philosophy begets bad civilization.

The issues of race, class, and gender come up as issues in this conflict which for us can be no less important than knowledge, morality, justice, and the question of life’s worth.

Obama and his Critics // An American Civil War in the 21st Century

I doubt that many people foresaw the American Civil War in the 19th century. People who were close to the political issues of the day may have thought that there were antagonisms brewing that, if left unresolved, could have lead to violence of some kind and to some degree. But, I doubt that the war between the states would have been anticipated on the scale that eventually erupted.

The reason I bring this up is that there are some on the right who, after Obama’s election, are now anticipating a second civil war, something that might break out soon. The basis for this speculation is not, apparently, because people think there is some animosity about race that people are ignoring. Granted, there do exist  great issues about race in the United States that are unacknowledged and left to fester. But, that is not why these people are speculating about warfare breaking out within our borders pitting Americans against each other.

From listening to them, the problem is represented by President Obama, but, it is not his race that is the problem.  For the right-wingers who worry about this, the President represents a vast and powerful left-wing effort to ruin the country for it’s own nefarious purposes.  Given the power that Obama and his leftish allies now wield, for these right-wingers, the only way to save the country is open violent revolt.

One might point out that the population at large is in no position to come to the aid of the country. The population itself is divided. The population would be no match, according to the right-wingers, for the military might that the left-wing could throw in against it.

The only saviors that stand ready to wrest the levers of power away from these left-wing  usurpers is the American military. The scenario, I suspect, would proceed much as recently occurred in Honduras where the elected President and his administration was escorted out of the country in order, so the coup leaders said, that the Honduran democracy would be preserved. Apparently, there were many powerful but frightened individuals in Honduras who thought that their freedoms were being endangered by their own left-wing conspiracy.

Obama and his Critics // Another Spineless Democrat protecting guilty Corporations while throwing Community Organizers under the Bus

I share Maddow’s anger about this story involving ACORN and the Too-Fat-to-Fail Corporations guilty of theft, murder, child sex slavery, fraud, and on and on…

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x377967

Where were the Oregon House delegates on this vote? According to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, here’s the vote:

OREGON

Democrats — Blumenauer, Y; DeFazio, Y; Schrader, Y; Wu, Y.

Republicans — Walden, Y.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/congress/59665537.html?page=3&c=y

Drat, all of them voted for it…. What’s their story?

Obama and Iran // Mr. President, Please stop playing, “We are Going to Bomb You!”

Recent events have made it seem we are closer to attacking Iran. First, the Iranian President spoke at the United Nations. The Iranians revealed a new facility under construction designed to process uranium for their nuclear power facility. Then, they tested some of their missile firing mechanisms. 

All three developments have been used by American and Israeli officials to support their thesis that Iran is a world threat. But, is Iran doing anything outside the law?

I submit these videos as evidence against any such provocative claims,