The Citizens United Supreme Court decision opens the door to unlimited anonymous corporate donations to political causes and candidates. The result has been a flood of cash, with which they're hoping to buy themselves the government of their choice. now being spent to buy corporations the government of their choice for our country. By far the majority of this is going to the GOP. Do you think it's fair ? Well, fair or not, it's the reality of the moment, and the Democratic party is being seriously outspent in this campaign. Individual donors have been very generous in this uphill fight, but Campaign 2012 is building to a climax. It's crunch time ! With just days to the November 6 election, this is the moment to reach deep for President Obama's campaign ; for a majority in Congress for him to work with ; and for Democratic governors all around the country. Contribute today to President Obama's campaign - and share this request with your friends. Then let's roll back Citizens United in his second term ! Donate to the reelection of President Barack Obama : http://www.facebook.com/barackobama?ref=ts&fref=ts Donate for a clear Democratic majority in Congress : http://dccc.org/ Donate for the election of Democratic governors nationwide : http://www.facebook.com/supportdemocrats?ref=ts&fref=ts
0 Comments
This article was posted on the website of the International Council on Vaccination, a site I highly recommend you explore ! Jeff The Deadly Impossibility of Herd Immunity By Dr Russell Blaylock Posted in : Articles Print PDF Those who are observant have noticed a dangerous trend in the United States, as well as worldwide, and that is the resorting of various governments at different levels to mandating forced vaccination upon the public at large. My State of Mississippi has one of the most-restrictive vaccine-exemption laws in the United States, where exemptions are allowed only upon medical recommendation. Ironically, this is only on paper, as many have had as many as three physicians, some experts in neurological damage caused by vaccines, provide written calls for exemption, only to be turned down by the State’s public-health officer. Worse are the States, such as Massachusetts, New Jersey and Maryland, where forced vaccinations have either been mandated by the courts, the state legislature, or have such legislation pending. All of such policies strongly resemble those policies found in National Socialist empires, Stalinist countries, or Communist China. When public-health officers are asked for the legal justification for such draconian measures as forcing people to accept vaccines that they deem either a clear and present danger to themselves and their loved ones or have had personal experience with serious adverse reactions to such vaccines, they usually resort to the need to protect the public. One quickly concludes that if the vaccines are as effective as being touted by the public-health officials, then why should one fear the unvaccinated? Obviously the vaccinated would have at least 95% protection. This question puts them in a very difficult position. Their usual response is that a “small” percentage of the vaccinated will not have sufficient protection and would still be at risk. Now, if they admit what the literature shows, that vaccine failure rates are much higher than the 5% they claim, they must face the next obvious question – then why should anyone take the vaccine if there is a significant chance it will not protect? When pressed further, they then resort to their favorite justification, the Holy Grail of the vaccine proponents – herd immunity. This concept is based upon the idea that 95% (and some now say 100%) of the population must be vaccinated to prevent an epidemic. The percentages needing vaccination grows progressively. I pondered this question for some time before the answer hit me. Herd immunity is mostly a myth and applies only to natural immunity – that is, contracting the infection itself. Is Herd Immunity Real? In the original description of herd immunity, the protection to the population at large occurred only if people contracted the infections naturally. The reason for this is that naturally-acquired immunity lasts for a lifetime. The vaccine proponents quickly latched onto this concept and applied it to vaccine-induced immunity. But, there was one major problem – vaccine-induced immunity lasted for only a relatively short period, from 2 to 10 years at most, and then this applies only to humoral immunity. This is why they began, silently, to suggest boosters for most vaccines, even the common childhood infections such as chickenpox, measles, mumps, and rubella. Then they discovered an even greater problem, the boosters were lasting for only 2 years or less. This is why we are now seeing mandates that youth entering colleges have multiple vaccines, even those which they insisted gave lifelong immunity, such as the MMR. The same is being suggested for full-grown adults. Ironically, no one in the media or medical field is asking what is going on. They just accept that it must be done. That vaccine-induced herd immunity is mostly myth can be proven quite simply. When I was in medical school, we were taught that all of the childhood vaccines lasted a lifetime. This thinking existed for over 70 years. It was not until relatively recently that it was discovered that most of these vaccines lost their effectiveness 2 to 10 years after being given. What this means is that at least half the population, that is the baby boomers, have had no vaccine-induced immunity against any of these diseases for which they had been vaccinated very early in life. In essence, at least 50% or more of the population was unprotected for decades. If we listen to present-day wisdom, we are all at risk of resurgent massive epidemics should the vaccination rate fall below 95%. Yet, we have all lived for at least 30 to 40 years with 50% or less of the population having vaccine protection. That is, herd immunity has not existed in this country for many decades and no resurgent epidemics have occurred. Vaccine-induced herd immunity is a lie used to frighten doctors, public-health officials, other medical personnel, and the public into accepting vaccinations. When we examine the scientific literature, we find that for many of the vaccines protective immunity was 30 to 40%, meaning that 70% to 60% of the public has been without vaccine protection. Again, this would mean that with a 30% to 40% vaccine-effectiveness rate combined with the fact that most people lost their immune protection within 2 to 10 year of being vaccinated, most of us were without the magical 95% number needed for herd immunity. This is why vaccine defenders insist the vaccines have 95% effectiveness rates. Without the mantra of herd immunity, these public-health officials would not be able to justify forced mass vaccinations. I usually give the physicians who question my statement that herd immunity is a myth a simple example. When I was a medical student almost 40 years ago, it was taught that the tetanus vaccine would last a lifetime. Then 30 years after it had been mandated, we discovered that its protection lasted no more than 10 years. Then, I ask my doubting physician if he or she has ever seen a case of tetanus? Most have not. I then tell them to look at the yearly data on tetanus infections – one sees no rise in tetanus cases. The same can be said for measles, mumps, and other childhood infections. It was, and still is, all a myth. The entire case for forced mass vaccination rest upon this myth and it is important that we demonstrate the falsity of this idea. Neil Z. Miller, in his latest book The Vaccine Information Manual, provides compelling evidence that herd immunity is a myth. The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions Those pushing mandatory vaccination for an ever-growing list of diseases are a mixed bag. Some are quite sincere and truly want to improve the health of the United States. They believe the vaccine-induced herd immunity myth and likewise believe that vaccines are basically effective and safe. These are not the evil people. A growing number are made of those with a collectivist worldview and see themselves as a core of elite wise men and women who should tell the rest of us what we should do in all aspects of our lives. They see us as ignorant cattle, who are unable to understand the virtues of their plan for America and the World. Like children, we must be made to take our medicine – since, in their view, we have no concept of the true benefit of the bad-tasting medicine we are to be fed. I have also found that a small number of people in the regulatory agencies and public health departments would like to speak out but are so intimidated and threatened with dismissal or destruction of their careers, that they remain silent. As for the media, they are absolutely clueless. I have found that “reporters” (we have few real journalists these days) rarely understand what they are reporting on and always trust and rely upon people in positions of official power, even if those people are unqualified to speak on the subject. Most of the time they run to the Centers for Disease Control or medical university to seek answers. I cannot count the number of times I have seen university department heads interviewed when it was obvious they had no clue as to the subject being discussed. Few such professors will pass up an opportunity to appear on camera or be quoted in a newspaper. One must also appreciate that such reporters and editors are under an enormous economic strain, as vaccine manufacturers are major advertisers in all media outlets and for an obvious reason – it controls content. A number of excellent stories on such medical subjects are spiked every day. That means we will always be relegated to the “fringe media” as our media outlets are called. Despite the high quality of the journalism in many of the “fringe” outlets, they have a much smaller audience. And despite this we are having an enormous effect on the debate. As the Public Awakens, the Collectivist Becomes Desperate John Jewkes, in his book Ordeal by Planning, observed that as the British collectivists began to see opposition rise to their grandiose plans, they became more desperate and aggressive in their reaction. They then initiated a campaign of smearing their opponents and blaming every failure on the unwillingness of the people to accept the planner’s dictates without question. We certainly have seen this in this debate –opponents to forced vaccinations are referred to as fringe scientists, kooks, uneducated, confused, and enemies of public safety – reminiscent of Stalin’s favorite phrase, “enemy of the people.” This desperation is based upon their fear that the public might soon catch on to the fact that the entire vaccine program is based upon nonsense, fear, and concocted fairy tales. One special fear of theirs is that the public might discover the fact that most vaccines are contaminated with a number of known and yet-to-be discovered viruses, bacteria, viral fragments, and DNA/RNA fragments. And, further, that our science demonstrates that these contaminants could lead to a number of slowly-developing degenerative diseases, including degenerative diseases of the brain. This is rarely discussed but is of major importance in this debate. To read more on Dr Blaylock’s site go to : Vaccines and Herd Immunity on Dr Blaylock's site. 11 Things That Make Workers Happy
By David Mielach, BusinessNewsDaily Staff Writer | LiveScience.com Forget raises and big bonuses, there are much simpler and cheaper ways to keep your employees happy. From offering benefits to giving them flexibility, companies can find a number of creative ways to keep their employees happy and productive. Here are a few to get you started. Offer room for growth Employees are unlikely to be happy if they continue to come to a job that offers no room for growth and advancement. A recent study proved this, showing that employees who felt they had no opportunity for advancement were not as happy in their jobs. As a result, those employees were more likely to begin searching for a new job. "We found that providing developmental support, such as training opportunities and career mentoring, to employees who do not believe there are attractive career opportunities for them within the company, led to such employees leaving the organization," said Maria Kraimer, co-author of the study. The research found that having the ability to advance at work made employees more inclined to stay at a company to strive for those opportunities. Offer a good training program Employers shouldn't underestimate the impact training has on new employees and their future happiness. A recent study found company-sponsored mentorship or orientation training sessions were more likely to lead to engagement among employees. "Simply throwing newcomers into a job and letting them fend for themselves results in their being socialized by default rather than design," said Jamie Gruman, a professor at the University of Guelph, in Guelph, Ontario, who conducted the research. "Companies benefit from boosting their employees well-being. Helping new hires adjust at the start empowers them to achieve their potential later on." Offer small bonuses Offering a bonus is another way for companies to keep their employees happy. Sixty percent of workers in a recent survey said they would be happy with an end of year bonus of just $25. Respondents said that receiving a bonus showed them they were valued, increased their loyalty to an organization and made them want to work harder. "This is positive news for employers still struggling in the tough economy, because it reveals simple ways that they can keep employees loyal and thereby maintain a productive and competitive business," said Juli Spottiswood, president and CEO of Parago, an incentive consulting firm that conducted the research. Offer autonomy to workers Workers also crave autonomy in their jobs, research has found. "People are more likely to be happy at work if motivation comes from within," said Maynard Brusman, a psychologist and an executive coach at San Francisco-based Working Resource, who conducted the research. "They will perform better, engage more, and be more committed if what they do comes from the core of who they are." Allowing workers to perform tasks related to their jobs in their own way will not only make workers happier. It will also make them more productive since they will not have to waste time waiting for approval from superiors, the research found. [7 Ways to Improve Your Work-Life Balance] Create a favorable office environment Employees are happier if they like where they work. Simple things such as reducing the length of meetings or playing music in the office improved the morale of employees. Companies can also take simple steps such as providing food to employees in the office and recognizing employees after a job well done to make employees happier. Communication with employees also helps to alleviate many concerns they may have about their job since it helps workers feel happier and more secure at work. Communication either in person, in an email or with a handwritten note all helped to make workers feel better at work. Offer the ability to work from home Although creating a comfortable work environment is one way to keep employees happy and productive, many workers would also be happy if they were able to work from home. In fact, a recent survey found that workers would give up shopping, chocolate and their smartphone if they were able to work from home. Workers also said they would be willing to give up their spouses and showers if they were able to work from home. "While the results of this survey may seem amusing, these findings show that telecommuting will be a force to be reckoned with in the future," said Holger Felgner, general manager at TeamViewer, which conducted the research. Allow workers to focus on their jobs Allowing workers to keep focused on their jobs without constant interruption is another way to keep employees happy and productive. One way to accomplish this is to eliminate useless emails. A recent study found that workers estimate they spend 100 hours a year dealing with pointless emails. "We've seen companies around the world experimenting with email blackouts or timeouts," said David Grossman, founder and chief executive of the Grossman Group, the communication consultants that conducted the research. "However, our research reveals that's not the most effective approach. We know employees are overloaded by their inboxes and it's causing them stress, yet our research shows it's email misbehaviors that need to be addressed." With pointless emails eliminated, workers can focus only on relevant items related to work. That can lead to employees who are happier since they will not need to deal with pointless and time-consuming issues. Give workers balance in their lives While balancing work life with home life may present a challenge for most workers, it presents an opportunity for companies trying to keep their employees happy. In fact, companies that offer employees a balance between their work and personal lives are more likely to keep employees happy in their current jobs. "To engage the work force and remain competitive, it's no longer sufficient to focus solely on benefits," said David Ballard, head of the American Psychological Association's Psychologically Healthy Workplace Program, who conducted the research. "Today, top employers create an environment where employees feel connected to the organization and have a positive work experience that's part of a rich, fulfilling life."' The research also revealed that 67 percent of workers said they would stay at a company because of the balance it offers them in their life. [7 Unexpected Ways Facebook Is Good for You] Offer a unique benefits package Companies can help workers improve their work life balance with the perks that they offer. One company in particular, Care.com, offers solutions that can go a long way to keeping workers happy and productive at work. Some of the services provided by the 6-year-old company include child care, adult and senior care, as well as pet care. The service also offers tutors, housekeepers and personal convenience providers. Companies that offer these services as a part of their benefits package have seen a variety of improvements in the workplace. "Across the board, the feedback we get from our clients is that Care.com really helps them manage their personal and professional obligations," said Chris Duchesne, vice president of workplace solutions at Care.com. "The net benefit there to the employee and the organization is increased productivity, work hours and decreased absenteeism. Workers were also more loyal and engaged at work." Help workers live healthier lifestyles Companies may also want to look into offering health programs to their employees in their quest to keep them happy. A recent study found that employees were happier working at companies that offered programs such as biometric screenings, health risk assessments, on-site clinics and pharmacies and employee assistance programs. "We are seeing employers increasingly realize the importance that health and productivity programs can play in their efforts to control health care costs and maintain a productive work force," said Wendy Poirier, health and group benefits leader for Towers Watson, in Canada which conducted the research. "While the outcomes of any one tactic can't be guaranteed, high-effectiveness companies with thoughtful, multifaceted programs are reaping clear returns on their investments in work force health." In particular, the research found that workers who participated in such programs were less stressed and therefore happier and healthier at work. Though many of these programs are in their infancy, workers are beginning to look to them as an attractive option to keep healthy. "The evidence overwhelmingly shows that effective health and productivity programs can make a real difference to an organization’s bottom line," Poirier said. "There are unrelenting pressures on employers and employees today, but improving employee health is an opportunity for a true win-win." Give a break for Facebook and other activities Allowing workers a specific time to check social media has shown to improve not only the mood of employees, but their productivity as well. The surprising research found that a short break allowed workers the ability to refocus themselves after hours of working. "Short and unobtrusive breaks, such as a quick surf on the Internet, enables the mind to rest itself, leading to a higher net total concentration for a day's work, and as a result, increased productivity," said Brent Coker, of the department of management and marketing at the University of Melbourne in Australia, which conducted the research. Workers, however, should not get overly excited about long breaks from work to use social networking platforms like Facebook and Twitter. The research suggests that breaks of just 10 minutes are enough to elicit positive benefits. This story was provided by BusinessNewsDaily, a sister site to LiveScience. Follow David Mielach on Twitter @D_M89 or BusinessNewsDaily @bndarticles. We're also on Facebook & Google+.
Op-ed in today's San Bernardino Sun http://www.sbsun.com/pointofview/ci_21537485/edison-opposes-solar-low-income-communities Edison opposes solar for low-income communities Deborah Blake posted : 09/13/2012 03:50:56 PM PDT Many residents of the Inland Empire, including myself, have recently had a visit from a representative from Southern California Edison or a contracted company hired by them. These folks go door-to-door promoting energy efficiency, and offer low-cost solutions for improving efficiency in your home, such as distributing compact fluorescent lamps and replacing weather-stripping in doorways. They also provide information about rebates for completing energy efficient home upgrades, as well as savings programs for "income qualified" customers. In a time where we have seen record-setting heat and scheduled blackouts, Edison should be doing everything possible to address our energy needs and provide energy efficiency solutions for all of its customers. Unfortunately, they are not. While Edison was busy using dollars from California utility ratepayers in sending these contractors to our homes, they were also hiring lobbyists in Sacramento to kill a very important solar bill, Assembly Bill 1990. The bill would have had a tremendously positive impact in lower-income communities of the Inland Empire. A.B.1990, the "Solar for All Bill," would have created small-scale rooftop solar projects throughout California, targeting lower-income communities with the highest asthma rates, affected by pollution and some of the highest unemployment rates. It would have brought 190 megawatts of clean energy into our already polluted neighborhoods, and would have created much needed local green jobs, ultimately benefiting consumers and the local economy. According to Edison's website, it "committed to helping customers use less electricity and save money." If this is its commitment, then why would it oppose AB 1990, which would have helped its customers to do just that ? AB 1990 would've benefited families like mine. Workers like my brother or my nephew who are both unemployed could very easily have benefited from the newly created green jobs that would have come as a result of the legislation. Frankly, air conditioning is a luxury in our home because we can't afford high electricity costs. The use of solar energy in my home could have given us some relief in our energy bills. Solar energy shouldn't be a luxury. It should be accessible to everyone. Edison tells its customers, "You have the power to save energy, money and the environment." Yet Edison had the power and an excellent opportunity to help its Inland Empire customers save energy, money and the environment in a big way by supporting the "Solar for All" bill. Instead, in an effort to protect its bottom line and keep us tied to dirty sources of energy, Edison joined forces with other major California utility companies and successfully killed A.B.1990. Why would the utility do this when it claims to be concerned about its customers, clean energy and the environment ? Residents of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties should know that Southern California Edison addresses these "customer concerns" on their own terms for their own benefit. What Southern California Edison did in fighting against creating solar projects and the green jobs that would have resulted in our community from implementation of the bill was just plain wrong. * * * * * * * Deborah Blake lives in Moreno Valley and is a lifelong resident of the Inland Empire. She is a volunteer with the Sierra Club -- In recent days and weeks the question of abortion has been raging in the news again. Playing itself out in terms of rights, laws and court cases, it's deeply divisive. Intent on winning - or not losing - both sides are inclined to double down in yet another cycle of vehemence and distrust.
If we scratch our mutual self righteousness, we may find emotions which are human enough, but perhaps not as lofty as our stated intentions ; things like fear and pride ; even a certain angry lust for combat. When we act on these emotions willfully, we do things of which we'll later be ashamed. And together one and all, we find ourselves in a hell of our own making. The saying is that the truth will make us free. If we really want to resolve this issue for the best, we'll need to learn to live with open questions, and pursue the truth wherever it should lead. It can be a huge relief to let go and just explore that path. We may find that by enlarging our view, we can find ways to adjust our positions ; and that we discover the goodwill which makes a way forward possible. The following is an effort in that direction : Rain from Heaven I picked this up from Paul F Arthur on Facebook today, and felt more people should know about it : "The Institute of Medicine (IOM) Committee on the Assessment of Studies of Health Outcomes Related to the Childhood Immunization Schedule is requesting your participation and opinion in a on-line survey. This is critical to move the research/study funds to conduct the necessary VAX/UNVAX Study we have requested for so many years. It's QUICK and will only take about 2-3 minutes of your time. In addition to the other vaccine safety areas of study you select, in the "Other" section # 6, please request a research study on health outcomes for a Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated population. It isn't often this input is requested from the public by the governmen't ! ! In the wake of serious adverse events and deaths after vaccines, & the exponential rise in chronic autoimmune illnesses, allergy disorders, learning disabilities, autism, etc..... a comparative review of these groups is essential. There needs to be an OVERWHELMING message of legitimate vaccine safety concerns sent to those who research and decide vaccine policies for our children ! Here's the Survey : http://www.facebook.com/l/UAQGBOaWEAQGJEulV6I6EUtBrYdQ_FJYyRIvNJo5BbG_wjg/www.surveygizmo.com/s3/927011/BPH-Committee-on-the-Assessment-of-Studies-of-Health-Outcomes-Related-to-the-Childhood-Immunization-Schedule See Barbara Loe Fisher's presentation to the IOM committee Feb 2012 : http://www.facebook.com/l/2AQFo_noTAQGUfVgHB4Gmif6aCXD7XrgGYzfuepQK4sfhpw/www.nvic.org/PDFs/IOM/NVIC-BLF-IOM-Stmt-2-2012.aspx Living Waters Wellness comments : As Paul suggests, Survey item # 6 is important to making sure the right questions get asked. Concerning vaccinated vs unvaccinated kids, I feel it's important to research : 1) Incidence of illnesses for which vaccines are given, in each group 2) Incidence of chronic illnesses (e.g. neurological, immune, endocrine) 3)Lab value indicators of immune system health (or not) in each group It is also extremely important that animal studies be done replicating the full current vaccine schedule our children receive, to determine effects on all major body systems. These are the real world conditions to which we are subjecting our children, and to not test in this way would be irresponsible ! Lastly, I recommend you "Friend" Paul F Arthur and "Like" National Vaccine Information Center on Facebook to receive their news feeds, if you don't already. Truly we all need to follow each others organizations, and work together. Cross fertilization is powerful ! Concerned about vaccine safety ? Check out "The Greater Good" on Current TV this Saturday !3/20/2012 Are you concerned about vaccine safety ? Tune into "The Greater Good" , 1pm ET /10 am PT this Saturday, 3/24/12 on the Current TV Network Please Tweet and/or post this message to Facebook !
_
Christmas 2011 Dear Family, Friends and Coworkers, Here we are at the end of another year - still a construction site, but coming along - coming along ! Today as my own small Christmas gift to the world, I'd like to share my article "Rethinking Philanthropy : Steps Towards a more Human Future". Philanthropy is a theme very close to my heart. Although people around the world do give - and it may even amount to billions of dollars - I feel there's still a much bigger picture to see ; and that a renewed, more vigorous philanthropy may be a key link to a more healthy, more human world future. This is longer than most of my articles - actually it's more a pamphlet, about thirteen pages in 14 point font to be exact. It's inspired by 25 years plus of living with Rudolf Steiner's threefold social idea, an idea almost no one's heard of, but one I feel everyone should know of. I may add a few more links later, but I feel the moment's here to put it out. Be my talents ever so humble, I think it's one of the most important things I've ever written. While you're here at LWW, please have a look at other parts of the website too. Please comment if anything rings a bell for you, and also give constructive criticism, as it's still a work in progress. With warm holiday greetings, and all the best in the New Year, Jeff _
Whoever would have freedom must win it each day new - Johan Friedrich von Schiller I got this message this morning as a forward from a friend. It's from Garret Wood, President of Advanced Bionutritionals, and the danger to our access to nutritional supplements is very clearly described. Personally, I'm going to use most of his suggested message, individualize it, and use that to contact my elected officials, including President Obama. I'm really mad that we have to put up with this stuff. Think about it. With almost ZERO problems ever arising from supplements, how does such a drastic program even get started ? If the public is using supplements enthusiastically and no one's getting hurt, why is this happening ? It's happening because the pharmaceutical industry doesn't like the competition - and because it has huge clout with the FDA. Similar rules have already been slipped through in Europe. They're being resisted by Europeans, but it's so, so much easier to prevent these measures than undo them after the fact ! Here's the article : Some Very Bad News This is the most serious message I've ever had to write to you. Why ? Because the FDA has issued new rules that, if enacted, will enable them to ban many of the supplements you are now taking. Think I'm exaggerating ? Then please listen to the full story ......... Back in the early 1990s, the FDA tried to make many supplements illegal. Consumers were so alarmed by the FDA's bullying that they staged a massive revolt. The result was that Congress passed the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA). That law protected supplements from the FDA unless the FDA could prove a supplement wasn't safe. There was, however, a loophole in the 1994 law. The FDA was given the authority to regulate new ingredients introduced after October 15, 1994. So what happened ? Nothing at first. For 17 years, the FDA took no action, gave no guidance, and launched no enforcement of these "New Dietary Ingredients." And that's been a good thing. Because for 17 years, the dietary supplement industry has enjoyed tremendous innovation. These innovations have allowed us to extract and concentrate the most effective natural ingredients. As a result, millions of consumers have benefitted. They've protected their hearts and arteries ... found relief from their joint pain ... boosted their memory ... and more. And during this time, supplements have enjoyed a remarkable safety record. Statistics show that supplements are safer than prescription drugs, cosmetics, medical devices, and even food ! According to the Poison Control Centers, there were zero deaths due to supplements in 2008. In 2009, there was one. Meanwhile, pathogens like E. coli in food kill at least 2,000 people each year. Acetaminophen in drugs like Tylenol kills 450 people every year. And more powerful prescription drugs kill many more. Even the FDA now says Vioxx likely killed over 26,000 people before they finally took it off the market ! Supplements the FDA Wants to Ban But now the FDA wants to act like the last 17 years never happened. The agency has drafted a proposal to regulate what it calls New Dietary Ingredients. If this proposal is implemented, some of the most effective nutrients you take will be pulled from the market. Nutrients like resveratrol ... ubiquinol CoQ10 ... bacopa ... strontium ... and more. But that's not all. Under these guidelines, the FDA can define almost anything as a "new" dietary ingredient. For example : If a supplement includes more of an ingredient than was used 17 years ago — even something like vitamin C — it's "new." If an ingredient uses a different extraction process — like baking or fermentation — it's "new." If a supplement uses an ingredient at a different "life stage" — such as using ripe rather than non-ripe apples — it's "new." If a supplement duplicates an ingredient in a laboratory rather than extracting it from the food — even though it's chemically identical — it's "new." And if a probiotic formula includes a strain of bacteria that wasn't found in yogurt 17 years ago, it's "new." So what would happen to all these "new" ingredients? The manufacturers would have to take them off the market until they could prove the ingredients are safe — even if those ingredients have been safely used for 17 years ! Why It's Nearly Impossible to Comply What kind of proof is the FDA demanding ? According to the guidelines, many companies would have to conduct animal studies using a dosage that's 1,000 times the typical dose. I'm not kidding you. It's right there in black and white on the FDA's website. The FDA wants vitamin makers to do studies for a full year, at 1,000 times the typical dose. So a fish-oil manufacturer would have to conduct a one-year study where animals are force-fed the human equivalent of 240,000 milligrams of fish oil each and every day! This outlandish dose would injure the animals and give the FDA an excuse to outlaw the product. But wait, it gets even better. If one fish-oil manufacturer performs such a study and it passes, it doesn't mean the other fish-oil makers can use the same data. No sir. They are still required to go out and do their own studies before they're allowed to sell their product. And these studies are very expensive. A study like the one above typically costs about $100,000-$200,000 to perform. Multiply that by several ingredients in several products, and you get an idea of the cost. Say a company carries 6 products containing 6 ingredients each. It would cost between $3.6 and $7.2 million in studies before that company could even offer the products for sale. For a larger company offering 50 products or more, the costs would be astronomical. Few supplement makers will be able to afford these studies, and many will be put out of business. And the ones that remain would still be at the mercy of the FDA's whim. That's because there are no requirements for the FDA to approve anything. They can approve or reject anything they want. And in the past, they have rejected the majority of ingredients submitted to them. That means most of the nutrients you buy today will be pulled from the market and never return. Those that do return will be a lot more expensive — or may only be available as prescription drugs ! A Blatant Abuse of Power This is a blatant abuse of power. What the FDA is doing here is performing an end-run around the existing law. According to the law, the FDA has to prove a dietary supplement is unsafe for it to be taken off the market. These new guidelines turn that on its head. They are clearly not what Congress intended. Fortunately, these FDA guidelines have not yet been finalized. All federal agencies are required to give the public an opportunity to comment on a draft before it is made final. In this case, the FDA has given interested parties until December 1st to comment on the draft. That means there's a small window of opportunity for you to voice your disapproval. Frankly, I wouldn't bother commenting to the FDA. The process is cumbersome, and those unelected bureaucrats don't care what you think anyway. What You Can Do The best way to defeat these new rules is to talk to the people you do elect — your congressman and your two U.S. senators. They have the power to rein in the FDA — and they have done so in the past when enough voters complained. Back in the 1970s, the FDA tried to require "warning labels" on vitamins. Angry voters called and wrote letters, and Congress responded with the Proxmire Amendments which limited the FDA's power. Then in the 1990s, the FDA went on the warpath again. When voters complained, Congress passed the Dietary Health Supplement Education Act, which once again limited the FDA's power. But like a monster killed in a horror movie, the FDA keeps coming back. And so once again, it's time for us to step up and call the folks who rely on our votes. Here's what you need to do : Go to http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml and look up the phone numbers of your U.S. Senators and your Representative (congressman). Then give them a call. Don't be shy and don't worry. No one is going to bite you, no one is going to argue with you, and no one is going to quiz you to see how well you know the issues. The job of the staffers who answer is to listen politely and to relay what you say to their boss. So please do call. And please be polite and respectful of the staffers' time. Here are some talking points to use when you call:
After the phone call, send a letter to your senators and reps, making the same points. Make sure the letter is in your own words (form letters tend not to work as well). You can find the e-mail and physical addresses at the same website, http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml. Then send the same letter to President Obama. (His address and phone number are on the website, too.) Please, please, please don't make the mistake of thinking that the FDA won't take your supplements away. Similar regulations were passed in other countries, and the result was disastrous. Many supplements were taken off the market forever. In some instances, the entire supplement industry was decimated. Don't let that happen here. Take action now ! You only have a small window of opportunity to make your voice heard. Get started by going to http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml. Sincerely, Garret W. Wood President http://vimeo.com/24821365
This movie is about an extraordinary medical breakthrough. It's also about a brilliant, very brave scientist and physician. But the truly eye opening story here is the shameful behavior of the FDA, giant pharmaceutical companies and large non-profit foundations supposedly dedicated to healing. The movie shows how these powerful, wealthy groups have systematically suppressed Dr Burzynsky's work and defended their own narrow interests - even where these are directly at odds with the interests of the public. This is a full length movie, still available for free as a public service. In your own best interest - and in honor of those who've died and continue to die - we encourage you to watch it to the end. What ? There's a new punctuation ? Did something happen and I missed it ?
Got your attention ! Well, this is actually very humble, but I really felt it needed to be done. I've been using The New Punctuation for awhile now, and at this point it would be hard to go back. The problem I noticed was that certain parts of our punctuation were getting squashed - so crowded and compressed they were getting hidden in the surrounding verbal landscape, and could even be missed. They were being deprived of their natural beauty and dignity - even prevented from doing their job. It felt like intimidation to me. It felt like discrimination and harassment. I had to do something, and I did. Here are the problems I noticed - and the changes I've made : - An exclamation point crushed into the word it follows. I saw this! - and I've changed it to this ! - A question mark pressed into the last word of the question it follows. I saw this? - and I've turned it into this ? - A semicolon pressed tightly against the last word of the phrase it follows. Such a lovely and important part of our punctuation - but you could miss it entirely. Instead of this; - I do this ; - A colon oppressed in the same way as the semicolon and the rest. It's always been this: - but I'm doing this : Just a single space between the word and the punctuation - but do you see the difference ? It's just a little more gracious. It lets the punctuation breathe. There it is, my small flag I'm planting in the ground of our language. What do you think ? Will you be an early adapter ? If you want to join the movement, help me out by passing this further - Tweet it, Facebook it, email it to a friend. Free the Punctuation 4 ! Viva The New Punctuation ! Viva la Revolucion ! Hey Folks,
Over the years I've found a couple of very cool ways to save money, and I'd like to share them with you. The first is a great free service to help you locate supplemental medical insurance coverage for seniors - also sometimes called "Medigap" coverage. Simply put, supplemental insurances for seniors pay the difference between what Medicare pays for medical care, and what better quality care actually costs. This may save seniors on their out of pocket costs, and give them access to providers and services they otherwise couldn't afford. The service is called Senior Educators, and I learned about it in the course of helping my elderly aunt with her finances and medical needs. Senior Educators maintains an overview of supplemental insurance plans all around the country. You provide them your zip code, and they help you find plans in your state that meet your needs. You make the eventual choice, but they provide the information you need to make good comparisons of the available plans. I was able to find my aunt incredibly cheap plans with great service for both her medical and dental needs. We're very pleased. When making your own comparisons, you'll of course consider the price of the monthly premium ; but you also may want to compare options, copays and coverage limits for : - Doctor visits - Prescription drugs - Eyeglasses and eye exams - Dental exams and procedures - A hospital stay - A skilled nursing facility stay - Skilled nursing care at home - Care at home by a home health aide - Living in a nursing home The Senior Educators website is http://www.senioreducators.com , and their toll free number is 1 (800) 505 8575. It's a great way to prepare to make an informed choice, whether you're investigating for your parents or some other senior - or for yourself. Another different, but also great way to save money in the realm of health care, is by using a Flexible Savings Account, if your employer offers one. You fund your FSA with your own pre-tax dollars, deducted from your paycheck each pay period. You save money because you don't pay pay federal, social security or state taxes on what you put aside. Your FSA can be used to pay for : - Your medical, prescription drug, dental or vision insurance copays - Your out of pocket costs for any of these kinds of care, beyond what the insurance pays - In some cases, holistic care and treatments. The FSA program can provide detailed information on this - Dependent care expenses, including copays and other out of pocket costs for your spouse and children - even such things as licensed daycare. Again, consult your FSA program for rules and details. To fund your FSA, you first estimate your out of pocket expenses for medical, prescription drug, dental and vision care, daycare etc, for the coming year. This total will be deducted from your paycheck in equal increments during the year. Caveat : it's important to estimate your out of pocket costs for the year accurately - because FSA's have a "use it or lose it " feature. If you don't spend everything you put aside, you don't get it back ! Beyond this important caution, FSA's are excellent, and we've saved thousands of dollars this way over the years. One particularly beautiful feature : once you've started your payroll deductions for the year, you can use your FSA at any time. For instance, if you have a have a big medical or dental expense at the very beginning of the year, you have access to the whole yearly FSA amount immediately. Another great feature is that in some cases, employers match a portion of your contribution. This is an overview, based on my own experience with FSA's - it's meant only to introduce the concept. For the actual rules and allowances of your employer's FSA, you'll need to consult that program. But an FSA can be a great thing, and very much worth your while ! - For Once, a Chance to Be Proactive http://www.anh-usa.org/free-speech-about-natural-health-science/ Giant pharmaceutical and agribusiness companies have powerful and very well financed lobbies. They spend a lot of money to suppress the rights of citizens to criticize them, and to use products they fear might compete with their own. The Alliance for Natural Health spotlights this often outrageous interference with our freedom to learn about and be protected from foods and products that may be bad for us, and to learn about and use ones that might be better. ANH follows news of both positive and negative developments, and sends out action alerts, letting people participate quickly and effectively in events that could seriously effect their health. The link above leads to an ANH alert on some exciting pending legislation. It's a heads up on something that's going to happen - but it also presents an opportunity to be proactive, and build the momentum the law will need. Here's one way to participate : Explore the link above, and learn about the pending legislation - it's a pretty quick read. Then subscribe to the ANH Pulse of Natural Health newsletter, to be on their mailing list. When the bill comes up for consideration, you'll hear about it immediately, and be able to use ANH's straightforward procedure to add your voice in support. To amplify your efforts, also send a link to this blog post (cut and paste : http://livingwaterswellness.weebly.com/lww-blog.html ) to your friends, and ask them to support the legislation too. Given the massive power and money big corporations bring to bear these days, this kind of timely, creative public response to an issue may be the best remedy we have ! In the meantime, I encourage you to also look at the ANH homepage, and see what they do. Write them a letter, join the organization, send them a donation if you can. They do a great public service, and I feel they truly deserve your support. This article by Robert F Kennedy Jr. appeared recently in the The Huffington Post. Always good to see someone push back against the onslaught of smallmindedness, smallheartedness and corporate disinformation we get fed these days.
Subject : Way to go, Canada ! ! ! Canada regulators announced last week they would reject efforts by Canada's right wing Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, to repeal a law that forbids lying on broadcast news. Canada's Radio Act requires that "a licenser may not broadcast....any false or misleading news." The provision has kept Fox News and right wing talk radio out of Canada and helped make Canada a model for liberal democracy and freedom. As a result of that law, Canadians enjoy high quality news coverage including the kind of foreign affairs and investigative journalism that flourished in this country before Ronald Reagan abolished the "Fairness Doctrine" in 1987. Political dialogue in Canada is marked by civility, modesty, honesty, collegiality, and idealism that have pretty much disappeared on the U.S. airwaves. When Stephen Harper moved to abolish anti-lying provision of the Radio Act, Canadians rose up to oppose him fearing that their tradition of honest non partisan news would be replaced by the toxic, overtly partisan, biased and dishonest news coverage familiar to American citizens who listen to Fox News and talk radio. Harper's proposal was timed to facilitate the launch of a new right wing network, "Sun TV News" which Canadians call "Fox News North." Harper, often referred to as "George W. Bush's Mini Me," is known for having mounted a Bush like war on government scientists, data collectors, transparency, and enlightenment in general. He is a wizard of all the familiar tools of demagoguery; false patriotism, bigotry, fear, selfishness and belligerent religiosity. Harper's attempts to make lying legal on Canadian television is a stark admission that right wing political ideology can only dominate national debate through dishonest propaganda. Since corporate profit-taking is not an attractive vessel for populism, a political party or broadcast network that makes itself the tool of corporate and financial elites must lie to make its agenda popular with the public. In the Unites States, Fox News and talk radio, the sock puppets of billionaires and corporate robber barons have become the masters of propaganda and distortion on the public airwaves. Fox News's notoriously biased and dishonest coverage of the Wisconsin's protests is a prime example of the brand of news coverage Canada has smartly avoided. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/fox-news-will-not-be-moving-into-canada-after-all_b_829473.html I've gotten a lot of emails for Viagra websites in the past, from friends who's email addresses got taken over by spammers. This always seemed kind of funny - except now it just happened to me !
It went on for several days, and I received a bunch of teasing emails from friends - and a couple of "Please take me off your mailing list ......." I tried a couple of things before I finally got this explanation and advice from Norton, my virus and spyware guys : The spammers usually don't get into your computer (check - I did every scan known to God and man and found nothing ). Rather, they actually hack the internet service provider that manages your email account. The simple yet elegant solution is to change the password on your email account immediately if this problem arises. My Norton guy suggested changing your email password monthly, for safety's sake. So there's your internet safety tip of the day - pass it on, so no one you know will ever have to become a Viagra salesperson ! Hi Folks, http://www.responsibletechnology.org/blog/664 Here's another update from the Institute for Responsible Technology, an organization I've come to respect and trust. I have to give the disclaimer again - the Jeffrey Smith who wrote the article is a different Jeff Smith. I'd really like to say "Always trust a man named Jeff Smith ! " at a moment like this - but unfortunately I can't. The Jeff Smith who used to be "The Frugal Gourmet" made a good start, but then he messed up. When I was growing up in Connecticut, there was also a guy named Jeff Smith who lived just on the other side of the Connecticut River, who kept getting his name in the paper for things like breaking and entry and stealing cars. On the other hand, if you hear of someone named Jeff Smith doing something bad, please don't assume it's me ! Good reading, and in the meantime, check your labels and don't buy any Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) foods. With warm greetings, Jeff My friend Publius is a pretty thorough and clear thinker concerning public policy issues. His work has also made him pretty familiar how politics and government in California work.
I recently asked my friend to share his thoughts concerning this year's California ballot initiatives. I''m passing this on for your interest - also in case, like me, you're finding finding the attack artillery in this year's elections annoying or confusing. Concerning Prop 19 - neither Publius nor I endorse marijuana smoking. But please note that the measure does not permit driving or working while intoxicated, as some opponents wrongly assert. That much said, here are my friend's comments. With best greetings, Jeff Recommendations on Some California Ballot Propositions By Publius (if you don’t know the reference, look it up) Please forward if you like this ! Prop 19 : Legalize Marijuana—recommend vote “Yes”. Marijuana is by far the most widely used “illegal” drug, with over 100 million people saying they have used it at least once in their lifetime—41% of the population. While not completely harmless, marijuana is relatively benign and much less addictive compared to most other illegal drugs, and even compared to legal substances such as alcohol and many prescription drugs. Marijuana should be regulated and taxed, and should not waste the time and limited resources of law enforcement. The state voter information guide estimates possible revenues of “hundreds of millions of dollars annually” for local governments from taxing marijuana, and savings of “several tens of millions of dollars annually” from reduced enforcement costs. Legalization would also take away billions of dollars per year from organized crime. I’m sure lots of people are sincere in their moral convictions that they want to impose on everyone else. But “following the money” also sometimes has made me wonder if all the opposition to legalization from people in high places is really all about protecting we the people. It seems there must be a few wolves in sheep’s clothing somewhere in the crowd. This policy change has support across the political spectrum, from liberal billionaire George Soros to conservative Reagan administration adviser George Schultz. San Jose's former police chief Joe McNamara says "Like an increasing number of law enforcers, I have learned that most bad things about marijuana - especially the violence made inevitable by an obscenely profitable black market - are caused by the prohibition, not by the plant." http://yeson19.com/ http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/NSDUH/2K8NSDUH/tabs/Sect1peTabs1to46.htm#Tab1.1A Prop 21: Establish $18 annual vehicle license fee surcharge to fund state parks and wildlife programs—recommend “Yes” What’s not to like? $18 a year gives you an annual free pass for day use to any of the hundreds of state parks. It’s fair—everyone pays, so everyone gets in, even if you forgot your wallet. It’s cheap—you would have to be a certified tax and fee Scrooge to begrudge the state $18 a year for running parks that you get to enjoy for free, that are visited by millions of people every year, and for wildlife protection services. While day use is required under Prop 21 to be free to all vehicles that pay the $18 annual surcharge, parks can still charge fees for camping and tours. Prop 21 will increase total money available for parks by up to $250 million; at the same time it will free up to $200 million dollars a year of general funds that currently go to parks, providing a modest and ongoing help to alleviate the state’s multi-billion dollar chronic budget crisis. Opponents, in their official “Argument Against Proposition 21,” say this will “shift money towards other wasteful spending,” implying that even operating parks makes their list of “wasteful spending.” This is just after they purringly refer to these parks as “California’s true jewels.” Of course, even tax opponents don’t want to look like they hate parks. They just hate paying for them. Talk about “fraud !” On the other hand, if these “taxpayer protection” rackets think that paying for our crown jewels is “wasteful”, it is not difficult to imagine what they think of spending money on more mundane things like schools, libraries, roads and law enforcement—or rescuing the state from financial oblivion. Prop 23 : Suspend state air pollution law protecting climate—recommend vote “No”. Prop 23 is backed by a list of large, mostly out-of-state oil, coal and chemical polluters with combined revenues of over $200 billion per year—including Valero, Tesoro, Occidental and Koch Industries. California has some of the most innovative laws and policies to protect the environment, and AB 32 the Global Warming Solutions Act is a perfect example. Prop 23 would suspend the state’s climate protection law until unemployment drops below 5.5% for a full year. This has only happened 3 times in the past 40 years, so in effect this puts environmental protections and new green jobs on indefinite hold. Most climate scientists say that if we don’t act soon, like within the next 5 years, that major, irreversible and very long term change to the earth’s climate is likely. Carbon dioxide and other global warming gases accumulate year by year, and stay in the atmosphere for centuries to thousands of years. California’s climate policy is good for many things beside the climate : it supports renewable solar and wind power, energy efficiency, cleaner fuels and vehicles, recycling and reduced trash, protection of forests, and soil conservation. Investors have already sunk billions of dollars into California counting on us to be the new green economy. This oil-drenched initiative would keep us hooked on dwindling fossil fuels, breathing dirty air, driving gas guzzling cars, and lock us out of the new clean energy market. Prop 23 is as bad a measure as money can buy. Prop 26 : Require 2/3 Vote for many government fees—recommend vote “No”. Currently California requires a 2/3rd vote for most tax increases; this measure redefines what a tax is and expands the 2/3 vote requirement to include fees. Many local fees would have get a 2/3 vote of the people to be approved. Prop 26 does not apply to all fees. Fees that directly benefit the person or business paying the fee are exempt. Prop 26 only applies its draconian 2/3 public vote requirement to local fees that benefit the general public—in other words you and I. These would include making businesses pay fees to cover local government costs for providing parking, business district improvements, recycling of used motor oil, bottles and electronic waste, and cleaning up toxic waste that pollutes everyone’s water. Local governments are forbidden by state law from campaigning for any measure on a ballot, so they would be sitting ducks for special interests opposed to the fee increases. Opponents can defeat the fee with a small minority of 1/3 of the people, overriding large majorities of the voters that want the fee. Prop 26 would require many state fees to get approval of 2/3rds of both houses of the legislature, and would repeal any state law that conflicts with it that was approved since January 2010. The voter information guide says that this will cost the state’s general fund about $1 billion annually for the next 20 years, deepening an already severe budget crisis. Prop 26 will be a disaster for local governments who fled to fees when Prop 13 slammed the door shut on tax increases in the 1970s. Faced with budget crises caused in part by Prop 13, local government turned to fees which have kept many services alive for decades. Prop 26 would slam that door shut as well. Local and state government provides many services that the vast majority of people want—education, public roads, police and fire protection, an economic safety net for the unemployed, the elderly and handicapped. Taxpayer advocates do a great public service when they chase down fraud, waste and abuse. But Prop 26 goes far beyond that—it also attacks the ability of our government to provide basic services and improve our quality of life. And if we don’t pay for those services, it is we the taxpayers who will lose. Prop 26 is truly spitting in the wind. Proposition 22—Recommend Vote “No” : Prop 22 is complex, and might protect some local services. It also contains a set of provisions that are unknowable in their effect, such as how much future state and local budgets will change, and the retroactive repeal of conflicting measures that the state has already approved. While I agree that we have a big problem with state government now going into local tills to cover its budget crises, I think Proposition 22 is too complex and contains too many constraints on the state’s authority. I'm wary of attempts to micromanage the legislature—budgeting at the ballot box. This is supposed, under our system of government, to be the authority of the legislature, and if too many strings are tied then one problem is alleviated while another is made worse. The current budgeting is already hugely complex and difficult because of a maze of constraints on funding from the federal, state and local levels. Prop 22 might provide a quick fix for some local services, and in that sense it is tempting to vote for it. However, I don’t really think Prop 22 is a correct long-term fix for the problem at hand, which are caused by structural problems in our state’s budgeting and tax authority (which Prop 22 would make even more complex and constrained), as well as the current difficult economic situation. Prop 25—Strongly Urge “Yes” : Prop 25 is exactly the type of structural change that we DO need to fix state and local budget woes. By itself it will not solve all the problems; but it is an excellent first step. The current requirement to get two thirds vote to pass a budget is dysfunctional beyond belief. It allows a small minority of the legislature—usually just a few legislators— to hold our state budgeting process hostage every single year. The result is legislative gridlock and financial chaos where the state cannot pay its bills and employees must take home IOUs instead of paychecks. So much effort now goes into fixing the budget, while the resulting budget gets so mangled that it causes other problems like the one Prop 22 is trying to address. Election day is November 2 - please vote early and often ! I get many e-mails from people portraying Barack Obama as a radical, a left wing extremist, a muslim - even as being foreign-born, and not really an American. It’s been a steady barrage since his election. And I’ve sometimes wondered : where does this all come from ?
The Brothers Koch : Rich, Political and Playing to Win This 28 minute National Public Radio interview sheds interesting light on such a question. It describes what amounts to an expensive, well organized advertising campaign against Obama. In advertising and marketing, there are basically two approaches. One describes products factually, and makes sure the message reaches everyone who needs them. The other uses seduction techniques, connecting a product to a wish, fantasy or emotion, and working that emotion to create a sense of need. Seduction based marketing is used in almost every industry, and unfortunately, most also use it to influence the government or politics. Such tactics were used to anger and frighten the American public in the 80’s and 90’s, to accomplish deregulation in the financial and banking industries. They worked – opening the door to practices that almost collapsed the world economy during the past three years. They were used intensely this year in California by PG&E in the utilities industry, in support of Proposition 16; and they're used constantly by the pharmaceutical industry to discredit and limit use of nutritional supplements. The Koch brothers have used seduction based marketing for years to channel the fears and anger of Americans to their own ends - particularly, to undermine environmental laws and regulations in this country. And they’ve been successful in a big way. Seduction based marketing tactics in politics are usually well concealed; but their affect on the process is to : - Block and frustrate the efforts of people working for real and long term solutions to the world’s real problems - Delay or prevent solutions to those problems - Speed and intensify the consequences of those problems Midterm elections are November 2. If you believe what you’ve been told about a man like Barack Obama, you need to ask yourself : is there really room in a democracy for this kind of adversarial, fear and anger based approach ? People with big money and very selfish interests are counting on you to vote your emotions and not your intelligence. If you don’t believe what you’re hearing about Obama, you also need to ask yourself something : can a democracy really work if I just stand by and wait for someone else to do it ? People with big money and very selfish interests are counting on your apathy on November 2. Corporations and the people who lead them are an incredibly potent force in American politics. But again and again, their self interest endangers the safety and well being of our society. We need to notice this very consciously. The world that gets spoiled will be the world we live in. This is no time to let ourselves be manipulated. And it's no time to abandon those who're working hard on our behalf. Think long and well this time - and get out and vote November 2 ! Interview Audio and Transcript Background and Related Stories One Minute Yesterday, toward the end of the shift, our supervisor came by and told us about a new company policy. Starting today, they’ll begin to tighten their tardiness policy. If someone comes in late, they’ll be verbally warned by a supervisor. There’ll be further steps, including a verbal warning from a manager, written warnings - all the way to being suspended, or even fired. The first step of this policy will be triggered by being even one minute late, one time. The supervisor made it clear that it’s a zero tolerance policy, and it’ll be enforced. This very brief talk stayed with me as a mood, a kind of shadow, the rest of the day until I went to sleep. As an employee I pretty much give 100% of myself every minute I work. But I also do belong to the one to two minute late club. My story to myself is that I’m a couple of minutes late because I’m giving 100% of my time to what I do before I get to work, too. That I’ve just got a lot on my plate, and I’m cutting it close. That I’m an altruistic guy, and spend my time on altruistic things. And do generally feel good about what I do. I went to sleep feeling somehow oppressed and sorry for myself. I woke in the morning with a beautiful - but also disturbing - dream. In the dream a pageant was being presented. It was a historical play, done in fine costumes, concerning kings and courtiers in Elizabethan times. It was graciously spoken, intelligent, performed at a dignified pace ; and had both dramatic and humorous elements. There were many players and a musical accompaniment; and the audience watched with rapt attention. What was especially striking, was that it was a community presentation. No one was a professional actor, and each had prepared his or her part privately. Rehearsal had been in small groups if at all, and the company had never all met in one place before the performance. But it was planned well, somehow, and it was truly lovely. I watched and listened fascinated, along with everyone else; but with somewhere a feeling that something was wrong. It dawned on me that I too had a part on the performance, and a somewhat important one. I was due to give my part soon - but I realized that I had never, ever practiced. I realized that my not delivering my part would leave a hole in the performance - and that if I stood up to try to deliver it, this would make matters still worse. The dream was of the kind that goes on for a long time, with an accompanying mood of dread, and of casting about for an escape route. But I always returned to the fact of being trapped. I realized that the preparation for the play had gone on for quite a long time, and that I could have learned my part, had I practice just minutes a day. What does it mean to be mindful of a single minute ? To attend to small details? To be mindful of priorities, and to think ahead. Perhaps a lot. It’s said that if we spend just an hour a day learning about something, after five years we’ll be a national authority on it. Perhaps then, perhaps, to be chastised for a minute’s tardiness, and take heed, than let hours - or beauty, graciousness, a destiny - slip away from us ! Dear Friends,
The political season is shifting into high gear now. How can we prepare ourselves to make the most of this freedom, and get our part in it right ? I received this little piece from a friend today. It captures excellently the boom and bust we've experienced in real estate - especially the way the market was "supercharged" for extreme profits, and the consequences that's had for us all. As automobile drivers, we're subject to a lot of traffic laws. As a nurse, I'm subject to many regulations intended to keep patients safe. There are health and safety rules concerning food, cars, the construction of buildings and any number of other products and services. And those laws and regulations work - they keep people safe. Why shouldn't there be similar rules for the financial industry ? The financial industry - and corporations generally - are not bad as such. But the temptation to make big money fast always clouds the judgment of some people, and is simply too much to resist. When these people wield immense wealth and power, their actions are especially dangerous - even to the whole world. We need precise rules, developed by people who know the financial industry well; rules regularly enforced and updated, to which even the most wealthy and powerful are accountable. This has now been started for the financial industry, but it won't be accomplished easily, nor all at once. As citizens it's easy enough to become apathetic, given how many issues we face. It's also easy to get angry, and just be against something - liberals, conservatives, politicians or the government in general. But we may keep things simple for ourselves only in the short run - and at our own risk. It might help, perhaps, to think less about who and what we're against, and more about how we participate in the political process. Politics is actually about rights - about agreements we make with each other, concerning how we treat each other. But it's not something that's resolved once and is finished. Human social relationships change all the time. Really, it needs, and must be, something more like a conversation. This "rights life" requires our best attention; real listening and real commitment to respect each other. It needs from us a high standard : is what we believe and what we say actually true ? If we wreck our world for lack of clear thinking - or goodwill - we're the ones who must live in it ! I have a few more thoughts that I'll share soon - but in the meantime, best greetings, and take care. Jeff A LESSON ON HOW THE FINANCIAL SECTOR HAS BEEN WORKING IN OUR COUNTRY AND AFFECTING OUR ECONOMY ! ! ! Heidi’s Bar Heidi is the proprietor of a bar in Detroit. She realizes that virtually all of her customers are unemployed alcoholics and, as such, can no longer afford to patronize her bar. To solve this problem, she comes up with a new marketing plan that allows her customers to drink now, but pay later. Heidi keeps track of the drinks consumed on a ledger (thereby granting the customers “ loans”). Word gets around about Heidi's "drink now, pay later" marketing strategy and, as a result, increasing numbers of customers flood into Heidi's bar. Soon she has the largest sales volume for any bar in Detroit. By providing her customers freedom from immediate payment demands, Heidi gets no resistance when, at regular intervals, she substantially increases her prices for wine and beer, the most consumed beverages. Consequently, Heidi's gross sales volume increases massively. A young and dynamic vice-president at the local bank recognizes that these customer debts constitute valuable future assets and increases Heidi's borrowing limit. He sees no reason for any undue concern, since he has the debts of the unemployed alcoholics as collateral. At the bank's corporate headquarters, expert traders figure a way to make huge commissions, and transform these customer loans into DRINKBONDS. These securities then are bundled and traded on international securities markets. Naive investors don't really understand that the securities being sold to them as AAA secured bonds really are debts of unemployed alcoholics. Nevertheless, the bond prices continuously climb, and the securities soon become the hottest selling items for some of the nation's leading brokerage houses. One day, even though the bond prices still are climbing, a risk manager at the original local bank decides that the time has come to demand payment on the debts incurred by the drinkers at Heidi's bar. He so informs Heidi. Heidi then demands payment from her alcoholic patrons, but being unemployed alcoholics they cannot pay back their drinking debts. Since Heidi cannot fulfill her loan obligations she is forced into bankruptcy. The bar closes and Heidi's 11 employees lose their jobs. Overnight, DRINKBOND prices drop by 90%. The collapsed bond asset value destroys the bank's liquidity and prevents it from issuing new loans, thus freezing credit and economic activity in the community. The suppliers of Heidi's bar had granted her generous payment extensions and had invested their firms' pension funds in the BOND securities. They find they are now faced with having to write off her bad debt and with losing over 90% of the presumed valueof the bonds. Her wine supplier also claims bankruptcy, closing the doors on a family business that had endured for three generations, her beer supplier is taken over by a competitor, who immediately closes the local plant and lays off 150 workers. Fortunately though, the bank, the brokerage houses and their respective executives are saved and bailed out by a multibillion dollar no-strings attached cash infusion from their cronies in government. The funds required for this bailout are obtained by new taxes levied on employed, middle-class, non-drinkers who have never been in Heidi's bar. Now do you understand ? First Post
I've had Living Waters Wellness in my heart and in my mind now, for a long, long time. Today, it's just the tiniest trickle emerging in the light of day - something one might not even notice, and just walk by. But it's a beginning, and for me, this is a precious moment. Everyone has his or her own favorite image of water. Think for just a moment what yours is. I grew up with streams and running water, and so a cold stream running over stones makes a beautiful inner picture for me. But best of all is the source of such a stream - a spring, bubbling out of the earth. Something that seems to emerge from nowhere. Something perhaps quiet and gentle, but irrepressible. It just doesn't stop. Could something similar come forth from us, bubbling out of us, creating life in us, in our world and our relationships ? My answer - and experience - is yes. A question, a truly open question, kept and cultivated, can be a powerful force. For me a question that captured me and wouldn't let go, was this : " What is 'living water ' " ? What is it that will become in us " a well of living water, springing up to eternal life " ? This is where LIving Waters Wellness begins. How does living water flow into and through us as human beings ? How does it flow out of us ? Among us ? Into our world ? How can we best honor and value it, and enhance its flow ? Living Waters Wellness is intended as a way to find answers to these question. And to be a vessel, a channel, a witness to this life. http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showArticle/?objectID=4420 This article contains a good update on the Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) issue, including ways you can learn more, and ways you can help move this cause forward. If you see the importance of this issue for your health and the health of your children, please forward this article to your friends. Note : Jeffrey M Smith, who wrote this article, is a different Jeff Smith ! Jeff |
AuthorJeff Smith RN, born 1950. A registered nurse since 1984 - but holistic in my outlook to health since probably around 1968. Living Waters Wellness considers not just the health of the physical body, but our soul and spirit, our social forms, our environment - and as a matter of fact, our whole earth. It's a new website, and a work in progress - but by all means, have a look around ! Archives
April 2024
Categories |