MARCH 1 AND 2, 2019

NEWS AND VIEWS

SANDERS PLANS TO BRING A LIE DETECTOR ALONG WITH HIM ONSTAGE, SO THAT EVERY TIME TRUMP LIES, IT WILL BEEP!”

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/bernie-sanders-well-bring-a-lie-detector-to-debates-with-trump
Sanders: 'We'll bring a lie detector' to debates with Trump
by Naomi Lim
| February 25, 2019 09:01 PM

Sen. Bernie Sanders joked Monday that he has a plan to highlight President Trump's difficulty telling the truth if he faces the president on the debate stage in 2020.

"Well, we'll bring a lie detector along," Sanders said on CNN to laughs from a studio audience. "And every time he lies, it goes beep. That would be the first thing."

Sanders, who last week launched another bid for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, said his criticism of Trump wasn't based on their differing political ideologies. Instead, the independent senator from Vermont said his opposition to the president was predicated on his character as a "fraud" and "pathological liar."

The GOP's fight against socialism is about to get a lot harder

"So we are going to hold him accountable for what he said and for what he did," the self-described democratic socialist said on Monday. "He said he was going to provide healthcare to everybody. And then he proposes to throw 32 million people off their healthcare that they have."

"He said, you all remember, he said, 'I'm a different type of Republican. I'm not going to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid,' and he brings forward a budget that does just that," Sanders said of Trump. "So I think holding him accountable would be a good start in that debate."

[Related: DNC slaps Trump: 8,000 'lies, his SOTU is no different']


THIS ARTICLE IS INTERESTING, BUT I DON’T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THESE TERMS WOULD MEAN, ONE FROM ANOTHER. IT SOUNDS SIMILAR, BUT GIVES NO NUMBERS OR LEGAL SPECIFICS. I THINK THE COMPARISON THIS YEAR THAT MATTERS IS BETWEEN THE TWO OF THEM. IT TAKES PUBLIC ISSUES ONE BY ONE AND COMPARES SANDERS AND WARREN IN THEIR STANCES. I MAY BE WRONG, BUT FROM THE ARTICLES COMPARING THE 6 OR 7 CANDIDATES SO FAR, I BELIEVE BIDEN IS LOSING HIS TOP PLACE AND SANDERS IS PULLING UP FROM THE REAR. I CERTAINLY DO HOPE THAT HAPPENS.

https://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/a26572722/who-to-vote-for-bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren/
Who to Vote For: Bernie Sanders vs. Elizabeth Warren Edition
BY NATALIE SHURE
FEB 28, 2019

With so many contenders for the Democratic Party presidential nomination nearly two years out, it might be tempting to lump them into smaller categories to keep them all straight. Running in the furthest left lanes are Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT,) two figures both so closely associated with insurgent progressivism that observers often refer to the “Warren/Sanders wing of the Party.”

But if the two stand out among other Dem hopefuls for their shared eagerness to take on Wall Street, they somewhat splinter from there: Warren has taken especial care in recent months to emphasize that she’s a “capitalist to [her] bones”; Sanders is the nation’s most prominent self-avowed democratic socialist politician in decades. While they both place blame for the nation’s ills on the billionaire class, Warren’s political vision draws upon her background as a bankruptcy wonk and law professor to prioritize effective regulation to curb bad business behavior and write fairer rules for capitalism. Sanders’ perspective is shaped more by the mass movements of the 1960s on which he cut his teeth—he regards social problems as inherent to capitalism itself, striving to reallocate its spoils from one-percenters’ pockets into an expansive welfare state by building power from below.

RELATED STORY
CBS News Democratic Presidential Debate
Where Bernie Sanders Stands on Important Issues

Of course, there’s plenty of crossover there! And given the institutional constraints they’d be operating in, it’s tough to imagine any president—let alone a donor-irking lefty presiding over legislative and judicial branches still dominated by the Right - getting everything they want. Still, overarching ideology can dictate what a president prioritizes, how they use their bully pulpit, who winds up in their cabinet and what kind of down-ballot candidates gain traction.

Here’s a guide to thinking through the differences between Sanders and Warren, and what they might mean for their campaigns.

What’s the problem with Wall Street, anyway? Depends which candidate you ask.
Sanders and Warren are widely seen as the most credible Wall Street antagonists in the race—one Politico piece even reported that bankers would be satisfied with any president but those two. It’s quite the compliment, and the fact that Sanders and Warren are more interested in railing against the corporate class than in courting their donations puts them at odds with Democratic opponents like Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand and Kamala Harris, as well as third party hopeful and Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, who finds anti-billionaire rhetoric so distasteful he’d prefer people call them “people of means.”

RELATED STORY
Bernie Sanders, Activists Rally Against SEC Chairman Nominee Jay Clayton
Where Elizabeth Warren Stands on Important Issues

Nonetheless, Warren and Sanders would likely stress different answers for why, exactly, Wall Street sucks. For Warren, it’s the cheating and the fraud, which allows the system to congeal into a form of “crony capitalism” that prevents it from working as intended. As a result, her regulatory solutions are usually aimed at making them work better: “so much of the work I’ve done,” she explained to The Atlantic, “are about making markets work for people, not making markets work for a handful of companies that scrape all the value off themselves. I believe in competition.” The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, which she formulated in the wake of the financial crisis, serves as a watchdog sniffing out the banking industry’s worst behavior and holding it accountable for breaking rules.

Sanders, meanwhile, would almost certainly agree that rampant fraud is a menace, but has a bit less love for capitalism “at its best” than Warren professes to. His recent town hall “CEOs vs. Workers” hints at his beef with the 1%—they got that rich by screwing over workers, forcing them to struggle to fulfill basic needs. No wonder his signature policy is taking megarich people’s money and funneling it into social democratic programs.

[IT IS AN INTERESTING THING THAT BOTH THESE TWO STATEMENTS SEEM TO BE SAYING PRETTY MUCH THE SAME THINGS, EXCEPT THAT IN STANDARD ENGLISH RATHER THAN ECONOMESE – ASSUMING THAT’S WHAT THIS ACTUALLY IS – NEITHER IS REALLY SAYING ANYTHING WHOSE WORDS INDICATE ANY REALCLEARINFORMATION, AT LEAST TO MY EYES. OH, WELL. I’M DUE FOR A NEW PAIR OF GLASSES SOON. MAYBE THAT WILL HELP. LNMW, 3/3, 12:28 AM]

IF YOU'RE A FAN OF SAVVY REGULATIONS GEARED TOWARD HELPING RESOURCES BE SPREAD AROUND MORE FAIRLY, VOTE WARREN.

IF YOU PREFER REDISTRIBUTING THOSE RESOURCES WITH AN EYE TOWARD MORE EQUITABLE OUTCOMES, VOTE SANDERS.

Which candidate is a stronger supporter of women?

In light of 2016’s shocking defeat of the first female major party candidate—and the forty-four male presidencies that preceded it—nominating a woman would be powerful, exciting and long overdue. And Warren has already made a case that the significance would be more than just symbolic—she’s already outlined a policy for universal affordable childcare, whose average monthly price rivals that of housing rents and which disproportionately burdens women. (It’s also worth noting that childcare and other family-centered policies, while central demands in most social democracies, aren’t always as prominently featured in Sanders’ sound bites as they should be.) Nonetheless, it’s also worth considering the feminist significance of the movement-oriented demands Sanders makes—single-payer healthcare liberates women from dependence on spouses and bosses, and relieves women from out of pocket healthcare costs exceeding those that men pay. Furthermore, Sanders’ support for the Fight for $15 campaign centers on minimum wage workers, who are disproportionately women of color.

Is it even possible to make either Sanders’ or Warren’s agendas come to life? ?

Let’s face it - from where we stand today, the agendas of Warren or Sanders feel rather far off. So of course it makes sense to wonder how, exactly, they’re planning on ramming it through the political system. At the moment, Democrats have a slim majority in the House but are outnumbered in the Senate. If the latter chamber flips control in 2020, the Democratic Party’s edge will be meager enough to be subject to the filibuster—a tactic of prolonging debate so as to intentionally spike a given bill, used increasingly frequently in recent years as a way to gum up the gears of government and neuter opposition. But in interviews, Warren has been more open to killing the norm than has Sanders, suggesting perhaps that a politician whose ideology hinges on well-designed rules knows that some are meant to be broken.

Sen. Bernie Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren
BILL CLARKGETTY IMAGES
So what’s the take away?

It’s refreshing to have two major contenders on the Democratic side that are already making the uber rich shake in their ill-gotten boots. After all, when monied interests have too much power, they’re apt to push for things like tax cuts, shrunken safety nets, a hands-off approach to business regulation and a weakened labor force resigned to scraps. Of course, fully dismantling capitalism during the next presidential administration is an awfully tall order, and it’s unclear whether Sanders would even want to go that far if given the chance. Ultimately, if you’re a fan of “pre-distribution”—savvy regulations geared toward helping resources be spread around more fairly in the first place, vote Warren. If you prefer redistributing those resources with an eye toward more equitable outcomes, vote Sanders. For Warren, capitalism is a force for good as long as it’s working properly. For Sanders, it’s already working properly - and that’s the problem.



ABOUT THOSE "ANTI-VAXERS," SEE THIS FROM NPR.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/02/28/698606894/states-move-to-restrict-parents-refusal-to-vaccinate-their-kids
POLICY-ISH
States Move To Restrict Parents' Refusal To Vaccinate Their Kids
February 28, 2019 3:06 PM ET
Heard on All Things Considered
Patricia Neighmond
PATTI NEIGHMOND

VIDEO ON HOW SOME PARENTS JUSTIFY FAILING TO VACCINATE KIDS 3:33

A combination vaccine against measles, mumps and rubella protects kids against all three illnesses with one shot.
Courtney Perry/The Washington Post/Getty Images

All U.S. states require most parents to vaccinate their children against some preventable diseases, including measles, mumps, rubella and whooping cough, to be able to attend school. Such laws often apply to children in private schools and day care facilities as well as public schools.

At the same time, beyond medical exemptions, most states also allow parents to opt out of this vaccination requirement for religious reasons. And 17 states permit other exemptions — allowing families to opt out of school vaccination requirements for personal or philosophical reasons.

Michelle Mello, a professor of law and health research and policy at Stanford University, says the bar for claiming an exemption from vaccine requirements has been very low in many states. "You can believe that vaccines don't work or that they are unsafe or they simply fly in the face of your parenting philosophy," she says.

HEALTH
RELATED -- In A Measles Outbreak, Demand For Vaccine Spikes

But this winter's outbreaks of measles across the nation are resulting in challenges to many exemptions: At least eight states, including some that have experienced measles outbreaks this year, want to remove personal exemptions for the measles vaccine. And some states would remove the exemption for all vaccines.

Most of this year's measles cases have been among children who were not vaccinated against the virus.

Once considered eradicated in the U.S., measles has sickened at least 159 people since the start of 2019, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in outbreaks ranging from Washington and Oregon to Texas and New York. Last year, there were 372 reported cases of measles nationwide.

The move among state legislatures to tighten vaccine requirements is good news to Diane Peterson, the associate director for immunization projects with the pro-vaccine advocacy group Immunization Action Coalition.

"Measles is not like a common cold," Peterson says. "Children get very, very sick and can be hospitalized," she says, adding that measles can even lead to death.

The virus is highly contagious, airborne and easily spreads. It can survive in the air for a couple of hours.

Beyond Rash And Fever: How Measles Kills 100,000 Children A Year
GOATS AND SODA
Beyond Rash And Fever: How Measles Kills 100,000 Children A Year

"A patient with measles can go to the doctor, cough in the exam room and two hours later another patient coming into the same exam room can be infected," Peterson says.

The virus is spreading fast this winter, she says, because of the "pockets of children who have not been vaccinated, mostly due to parents who have decided not to vaccinate them."

This leaves not only those unvaccinated school children vulnerable to the virus but also many adults who have suppressed immune systems and infants who are not old enough to be vaccinated.

According to the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, bills to restrict exemptions are now pending in a growing number of states.

None of this sits well with activists who want their states to maintain personal and philosophical exemptions.

"Nobody should sit in judgment of another person's religious and spiritual beliefs," says Barbara Loe Fisher, a spokesperson for the National Vaccine Information Center, a group that lobbies against mandatory vaccination and thinks parents should have a choice. "No person should be allowed to force someone to violate their conscience when they're making a decision about the use of a pharmacological product that carries a risk of harm."

AUTHOR INTERVIEWS
Refusing Flu Shots? Maybe You're A 'Denialist'

The scientific consensus about any risk from vaccines is that serious side effects are extremely rare. A suggestion that immunization might be tied to severe consequences like autism was debunked years ago, after findings supporting that link were proved fraudulent.

Mello, the Stanford law professor who has been following the exemption debate, notes that the courts have repeatedly held that when a public health intervention is necessary to safeguard the public, individuals generally can be required to give up some personal liberty, particularly if that liberty is tied to a government benefit like school.

So far, only three states — Mississippi, West Virginia and California — prohibit nearly all vaccine exemptions, including the one exempting families who say their religious belief conflicts with vaccination. (All states allow medical exemptions when, for example, a child has a compromised immune system.)

The California state Legislature made that decision in 2015, less than a year after the state experienced a significant measles outbreak that got its first foothold among unvaccinated children visiting Disneyland.

immune suppression
vaccine refusal
parents
measles
vaccines


THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT DENIALISM OF SCIENCE AS BEING “TRUTH” AS LONG AS THE CITIZENS THEMSELVES DON’T UNDERSTAND IT. THAT’S PSYCHOLOGICALLY NORMAL, BUT UNFORTUNATE. THEY OFTEN VIEW TRUTH AS NECESSARILY MEANING UNCHANGING AND UNIVERSAL, ESPECIALLY IN THE EYES OF RELIGIOUS, POOR AND CULTURALLY CONSERVATIVE PEOPLE. UNFORTUNATELY, NEITHER IS TRUE OF PHYSICAL REALITY. TRUTH SHIFTS AS IT COMES THROUGH THE MINDS OF VARIOUS SPEAKERS, AS THE REAL SITUATION IN THE WORLD CHANGES, WHICH IS NOT SO MUCH ABOUT LYING, BUT CULTURAL AND INTERPERSONAL DIFFERENCES.

THE WILLINGNESS AND ABILITY TO LEARN AND COMPARE EVIDENCE IS ONE OF THE ESSENTIAL ABILITIES THE WE HUMANS HAVE, BEYOND MAKING TECHNOLOGY MORE MAGICAL THROUGH THE USE OF EVER BETTER TOOLS AND PHYSICAL KNOWLEDGE. THAT'S WHY GROUPS IF THEY ARE CONSERVATIVE MAY NOT ADVANCE VERY FAR BUT INDIVIDUALS CAN IF THEY WILL FOLLOW THEIR OWN REASONING. A BELIEF THAT SOMEONE ELSE’S RELIGION OR PHILOSOPHY IS “UNTRUE” IS A BASIC PART OF THAT BELIEF. A CONCEPTUALIZATION OF DIFFERENT KNOWLEDGE IS POSSIBLE, BUT IS MUCH GOVERNED BY EMOTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS, AND IS OFTEN FEARED. THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE WHO DON’T FEAR THE EXERCISE OF THEIR MIND IN FORMING AN IDEA OF THE WORLD AND “TRUTH, THOUGH, AND THEY VERY LIKELY WILL BE CAPABLE OF MAKING DISCOVERIES BY THE PROCESS OF EXPERIMENTATION AND THEN OF TEACHING OTHERS.”

IF IT ISN’T FOR THAT INDIVIDUALISTIC TURN OF MIND, A LARGE MINORITY OF PEOPLE IN ANY GROUP WILL DISBELIEVE ANY OF THE INFORMATION SYSTEMS THAT ALLOW US TO BASICALLY SEE HOW VACCINATION IS FAR LESS DANGEROUS THAN IT IS PROFOUNDLY HELPFUL. IF YOU ASK THEM WHAT THEY THINK ABOUT THE FACT THAT DIFFERENT BOOKS AND VERSES OF THE BIBLE ON ONE SUBJECT OR ANOTHER, ON WHICH THEY MAY BE BASING THEIR REALITY SYSTEM TO A GREAT DEGREE, AND VOICING INDIVIDUAL THOUGHT CAN BE ABSOLUTELY DANGEROUS AMONG SUCH PEOPLE; THEY WILL LIKELY EXPLAIN THAT THE BIBLE REQUIRES COMPARATIVE READING AND INTERPRETATION, BUT “THE BIBLE” IS NOT “WRONG” IN ANY WAY OR EVEN “INCONSISTENT.” A DISLIKE OF GENUINE SCIENTIFIC STUDIES IN HIGH SCHOOL AND COLLEGE AS BEING HARD TO UNDERSTAND, GEEKISH, OR “BORING” -- THE BELIEF THAT SCIENCE DESTROYS RELIGIOUS FAITH OR THE IDEALIZED SUBMISSIVE CHARACTERISTICS THAT GO ALONG WITH A “FAITH-BASED KNOWLEDGE AND VIEW OF LIFE,” AND/OR THE POSSIBLE PRESENCE OF MENTAL ILLNESS ARE PROBABLY IMPORTANT CAUSES OF A BELIEF IN THE MANDATORY LITERAL TRUTH OF THE BIBLE FROM VERSE TO VERSE. BEING REASONABLE OR OPEN MINDED, IS OFTEN NOT ENCOURAGED. I WAS READING ABOUT A CHINESE WOMAN AS SHE GREW UP, AND SHE SAID THAT THERE WAS A SHARP LITTLE VERBAL POISON DART THERE GOES, "THE NAIL THAT STICKS UP WILL BE HAMMERED DOWN." THAT'S WHAT YOU GET FOR DARING TO DIFFER. NOW HOW'S, THAT FOR A LITERAL THREAT OVER QUESTIONING THE GROUP WISDOM? I’M ALWAYS CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. MANY OF THE MOST FANATICALLY “RELIGIOUS” PEOPLE ARE ALSO MENTALLY ILL AND MAY BE DANGEROUS TO OTHERS.

THE VIEW THAT SCIENTISTS THEMSELVES ARE NOT AS CAPABLE AS THEY THINK THEY ARE – (WHAT HUMANS ARE?) --AND ARE THEREFORE DANGEROUS (A BELIEF TAKEN FROM SCIENCE FICTION AND SATURDAY NIGHT HORROR FILMS, MAINLY, I THINK.) ALL OF THOSE THINGS DISPARAGING SCIENCE TO TEENS AND OTHER SOCIALLY ADVENTUROUS FOLKS, SUCH AS BOTH MEN AND WOMEN IN THEIR COMPETITION WITH EACH OTHER FOR SEXUAL SUCCESS, ARE DEEPLY HARMFUL TO OUR SOCIETIES. I WOULD INCLUDE ESPECIALLY THE FEAR OF GEEKS AND “EGGHEADS,” AS THEY TEND TO INTERACT TO MAKE AN UNDERCONFIDENT AND HIGHLY ACCULTURATED TEEN “EMBARRASSED” ABOUT “LOOKING INTELLECTUAL,” AND OTHER SOCIALLY FEARFUL ONES. SO, OUR TRADITIONAL, SURFACE LEVEL-FOCUSED MENTALITY, AND THE SPORTS-ABSORBED ARE SOMETIMES SLOW TO TAKE UP INFORMATION FOR ITS’ OWN SAKE INTO THEIR MEMORY BANKS, ESPECIALLY SCIENCE AND HISTORY.

THE RESULT IS AN INTELLECTUAL LEVEL, AND ESPECIALLY A TYPE, WHO ARE REFRACTORY TO A MUCH-NEEDED SOLUTION FOR ANY THEORETICAL OR TECHNICAL PROBLEMS, EVEN IF IT IS LIKELY TO SPELL A KIND OF DOOMSDAY FOR US ALL IF WE DON’T COME TO AN UNDERSTANDING AND SOME AVOIDANCE TECHNIQUES. I AM THINKING, AS YOU WOULD PROBABLY GUESS, OF GLOBAL WARMING, OVERPOPULATION, ASTEROID OR COMET BOMBARDMENT, SPECIES EXTINCTION; AND OUR INCREASING AMOUNTS OF MENTAL ILLNESS AS SOCIETAL STRESS MAKES THE SYMPTOMS MORE FREQUENT AND SEVERE. WHEN I WAS YOUNG PEOPLE USED TO ARGUE, MAINLY FOR THEIR IDLE, BUT NOT USELESS ENTERTAINMENT, THAT PEOPLE ARE BORN INSANE OR ON THE PATH TO THAT CONDITION, DUE TO THEIR GENETIC MAKEUP ONLY. THEREFORE, THEY REASON, PARENTAL ABUSE OR LACK OF ACTIVE, WARM AND USEFUL LOVE OR ATTENTION, DIDN’T CAUSE THE GRAVE MENTAL CONDITION OF THE SURVIVING BROTHER, AND LACK OF MENTAL HEALTH ATTENTION DIDN’T EITHER. DOESN'T ACTUALLY CAUSE JOHNNY TO TAKE A GUN AND START KILLING PEOPLE. FAMILY AND FRIENDS OF A RELIGIOUS PERSUASION WILL PROBABLY START CALLING HIS DEEP AND UNMOVABLE DEPRESSION WERE “GOD’S WILL.” THAT MEANS THAT WE ARE SADDENED, BUT CAN’T CHANGE THE SITUATION. TO ME, THAT ISN’T A SIGN OF “GOD’S WILL,” BUT OF A VERY PAINFUL THING THAT MUST BE ADJUSTED SO THEY WILL BE ABLE TO CONTINUE WITHOUT SO MUCH DEBILITATING GRIEF OVER THE IMAGINED “RESPONSIBILITY” THAT HE SHOULDERS FOR NOT SAVING HIS BROTHER, FOR INSTANCE. (SEE: “ORDINARY PEOPLE,” MOVIE FROM 1980.)

THAT IS THE OFTEN REFERENCED “NATURE VERSUS NURTURE” ARGUMENT, AND IT IS CLEAR TO ME THAT THE MENTAL OR PHYSICAL STATE OF A PERSON IS A COMBINATION OF BOTH BORN-IN WEAKNESSES OF A PSYCHOLOGICAL NATURE, PLUS DISTRESSING EVENTS AS HE MATURES. IT IS ALSO CLEAR TO ME THAT OUR INNER CHARACTERISTICS ARE VERY COMPLEX AND INTERTWINED, NOT TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR CONDITION, NOR COMPLETELY ABLE TO UNDERSTAND AND CHANGE IT, EITHER. MOST IMPORTANTLY, THEIR “CURES” ARE A COMBINATION OF INNER AND OUTER EXPERIENCES AND THE COMPANIONS OF OUR STRUGGLE ARE OUR RESCUERS, AS WE ARE THEIRS. HUMAN BEINGS NEVER BECOME 100% “CURED,” BUT WE DO BECOME MUCH BETTER IN THE SKILLS OF WALKING THROUGH LIFE AND LEARNING, “ONE DAY AT A TIME.”

I BELIEVE IN GROUP THERAPY AND A GOOD TALKING PSYCHIATRIC THERAPIST – NOT THE SILENT TYPE WHO WANT TO DISGUISE THEMSELVES AS A TAPE RECORDER TO AVOID INTERFERING WITH THEIR CLIENT’S FREE ASSOCIATION PATH TO THE ROOT OF THEIR PAIN AND DEPRESSION. MY THREE BEST THERAPISTS HAVE NOT BEEN “PSYCHIATRISTS,” BUT PSYCHOLOGISTS SPECIALIZING IN THERAPY. THEY ARE MORE INTO HUMAN INTERACTION THAN SOME SORT OF MUMBO JUMBO. THEY ARE MORE INVOLVED WITH THE PERSON THAN WITH A THEORY ABOUT HELPING HIM. I BELIEVE TO A VERY GREAT DEGREE IN SELF-REFLECTION, WALKING IN THE WOODS OR ON THE BEACH, READING AND WRITING POETRY AND OTHER GOOD LITERATURE, LISTENING TO MUSIC, DANCING IF I CAN AND WANT TO (I CAN’T ANYMORE, BUT I LISTEN TO MUSIC, AND REMEMBER DANCING; MAINLY POP FROM THE 1960S AND ‘70S, OR CERTAIN CLASSICAL RECORDINGS THAT I ONCE HAD. I REALLY BELIEVE IN TALKING ABOUT LIFE WITH FRIENDS, ATTENDING A SPIRITUAL GROUP, AND ACCEPTING REALITY AS IT IS, NO MATTER HOW HORRIBLE.

WE TALK A LOT NOW ABOUT THE HORRORS OF THE HOLOCAUST. THAT’S BECAUSE THE NEO-NAZIS HAVE EMERGED AMONG US AGAIN “PLAYING AT BEING NAZIS.” HOW DO PEOPLE SURVIVE PSYCHOLOGICALLY AFTER HAVING DEALT WITH THAT? WE ALSO NEED TO LEARN LESSONS FROM WHAT HAPPENED AND WHAT WE DID OR EXPERIENCED THRUST UPON US; THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE SHOULDN’T WORK LIKE HECK TO CHANGE THE BAD PARTS, BUT WE MUSTN’T DENY THEIR EXISTENCE JUST BECAUSE IT GIVES US PAIN. WE SHOULD NOT TRY TO AVOID EXPERIENCING WHAT THE NATURE OF TRUTH IS BY ALCOHOL OR DRUG USE, BECAUSE THOSE THINGS JUST COMPOUND THE PROBLEMS EVEN MORE AND LIMIT THE PERSON’S ABILITY TO THINK CLEARLY. I BELIEVE PERSONALLY, THAT SANITY AND TRUTH ARE BOUND TOGETHER AROUND THE SAME CORE OF REALITY, AND THAT THE CURE OF THE ILLNESS IS IN THE EXAMINATION AND ACCEPTANCE OF IT. GET A COPY OF “THE BIG BOOK”, “ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS,” AND READ ALL OF THE STEPS. THEY AREN’T WRITTEN IN MYSTIFYING WAYS THAT ARE HARD TO READ, AND THEY ARE APPLICABLE TO ALL TYPES OF MENTAL ISSUES, AT LEAST TO SOME DEGREE.

A FEW EVEN THINK THAT INSANITY IS “AN ACT OF GOD,” AND LINKED BY A CERTAIN LOGIC, IT IS ALSO “GOD’S WILL.” I FIND THAT VERY HARD TO BELIEVE, AND THAT SUCH A VIEWPOINT IS VERY, VERY HARMFUL TO US ALL AS A SOCIETY. IT KEEPS US FROM REPENTING THE ACTS THEMSELVES. IT GIVES PARENTS AN EXCUSE TO IGNORE THEIR PARENTAL DUTIES, BECAUSE THEY CHOOSE TO BELIEVE THAT “WHAT A PARENT DOES CANNOT ‘DAMAGE’ THE CHILD OR THAT CHILDREN WILL “GROW OUT OF" THE TRAUMA AND DAMAGE. THAT IS SO HARMFUL AND SO UNCARING THAT, TO ME, IT IS “EVIL” IN AND OF ITSELF [THAT IS OFTEN THE WAY I DEFINE “EVIL.”] IN OTHER WORDS, PEOPLE CAN BE UNABLE TO CONTROL THEIR ACTIONS, BUT THEIR DEEDS ARE STILL VERY HARMFUL AND TOTALLY “AGAINST NATURE,” AND THEREFORE “EVIL.” SOME OF THE THINGS I READ IN THE NEWS ARE REALLY BRUTAL. IF CALLOUSNESS OR CRUELTY IS THERE, THEN I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE PERSON IMPRISONED OR OTHERWISE NOTICEABLY PUNISHED.

IN THE GREAT NON-FICTION BOOK CALLED “THE BLOODING,” BY JOSEPH WAMBAUGH, THERE IS AN EXCELLENT LOOK AT ONE OF THE FIRST USES OF DNA EVIDENCE TO DETECT THE NEAR CERTAIN IDENTIFICATION OF THE CRIMINAL. THE STATE OF MIND BEHIND HORRIBLE CRIMES. I MENTIONED IT BECAUSE THE PERPETRATOR WAS NOT MERELY PUT INTO A PRISON, BUT IN A “HOSPITAL FOR THE CRIMINALLY INSANE.” IT’S A FAIRLY MODERN BRITISH CASE, AND A MODEL IN MY VIEW, OF HOW WE SHOULD BE TREATING THE CRIMINALLY INSANE HERE IN THE USA. THIS IS A LONG, DETAILED, ANALYTICAL BOOK THAT DID NOT BECOME “BORING” AT ALL, BUT RATHER MORE AND MORE EXCITING.

SEE: https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-688-08617-6 FOR A SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF IT.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120139776
AUTHOR INTERVIEWS
Refusing Flu Shots? Maybe You're A 'Denialist'
7:50 DOWNLOAD

TRANSCRIPT
November 7, 2009 4:18 PM ET
Heard on Weekend Edition Saturday

Nearly 20 percent of the families in Vashon Island, Wash., aren't getting their children vaccinated against childhood diseases. At the Ocean Charter School near Marina del Rey, Calif., 40 percent of the 2008 kindergarten class received vaccination exemptions. Author Michael Specter says the parents in these upscale enclaves are prime examples of what he calls "denialism."

That's also the title of his new book, "We can all believe irrational things," the author of Denialism tells NPR's Scott Simon. "The problem is that I think an increasing number of Americans are acting on those beliefs instead of acting on facts that are readily present."

The Motives And Consequences of 'Denialism'

But the Vashon Island and Marina del Rey communities aren't places where religious or cultural traditions argue against vaccinations --- like the Amish or Jehovah's Witnesses.

Instead, they believe vaccinations are harmful to their children, citing stories they've heard about mistakes by doctors or pharmaceutical fraud.

But, Specter says, when parents make that decision, they focus on the one-in-10-million chance that a vaccine could kill a child and ignore the one-in-1,000 chance that a disease will do so. "These people retreat into denialism," he says. "It's like denial, but writ large, [because] this has consequences."

Those consequences don't just affect the children who go unvaccinated, but everyone they interact with as well, Specter adds. He points out that diseases like measles, which had almost been eradicated in North America, are now coming back.

The Fetish Of Organic Food

"Denialism," the author says, is evident in far more than vaccination rates. Take organic food. Specter considers himself a fan, but he draws the line at demonizing genetically engineered food.

"In other parts of the world," he says, "a billion people go to bed hungry every night. Those people need science to help them. It isn't about whether people want to go to Whole Foods or not ... The thing that killed the most people in the history of the world — except maybe for insects --- was pure water and natural, untreated food."

He argues that some people look at "natural" products, such as vitamins, and think that they're automatically good. But, he argues, "it's no different than anything else you swallow."

"Someone told me they didn't want to take a flu shot because they didn't want to put a foreign substance into their body," says Specter. "What do they think they do at dinner every night?"

Excerpt: 'Denialism'
MICHAEL SPECTER

'Denialism'
DENIALISM
BY MICHAEL SPECTER
HARDCOVER, 304 PAGES
PENGUIN PRESS
LIST PRICE: $27.95

The most blatant forms of denialism are rarely malevolent; they combine decency, a fear of change, and the misguided desire to do good — for our health, our families, and the world. That is why so many physicians dismiss the idea that a patient's race can, and often should, be used as a tool for better diagnoses and treatment. Similar motivations — in other words, wishful thinking — have helped drive the growing national obsession with organic food. We want our food to taste good, but also to be safe and healthy. That's natural. Food is more than a meal, it's about history, culture, and a common set of rituals. We put food in the mouths of our children; it is the glue that unites families and communities. And because we don't see our food until we eat it, any fear attached to it takes on greater resonance.

The corrosive implications of this obsession barely register in America or Europe, where calories are cheap and food is plentiful. But in Africa, where arable land is scarce, science offers the only hope of providing a solution to the growing problem of hunger. To suggest that organic vegetables, which cost far more than conventional produce, can feed billions of people in parts of the world without roads or proper irrigation may be a fantasy based on the finest intentions. But it is a cruel fantasy nonetheless.

Denialist arguments are often bolstered by accurate information taken wildly out of context, wielded selectively, and supported by fake experts who often don't seem fake at all. If vast factory farms inject hormones and antibiotics into animals, which is often true and always deplorable, then all industrial farming destroys the earth and all organic food helps sustain it. If a pricey drug like Nexium, the blockbuster "purple pill" sold so successfully to treat acid reflux disease, offers few additional benefits to justify its staggering cost, then all pharmaceutical companies always gouge their customers and "natural" alternatives — largely unregulated and rarely tested with rigor — offer the only acceptable solution.

We no longer trust authorities, in part because we used to trust them too much. Fortunately, they are easily replaced with experts of our own. All it takes is an Internet connection. Anyone can seem impressive with a good Web site and some decent graphics. Type the word "vaccination" into Google and one of the first of the fifteen million or so listings that pops up, after the Centers for Disease Control, is the National Vaccine Information Center, an organization that, based on its name, certainly sounds like a federal agency. Actually, it's just the opposite: the NVIC is the most powerful anti-vaccine organization in America, and its relationship with the U.S. government consists almost entirely of opposing federal efforts aimed at vaccinating children.


THIS ISN’T JUST “A” CNN TOWN MEETING WITH BERNIE SANDERS, BUT “THE” EVENT THAT HAS BEEN IN THE NEWS DUE TO DETECTED REPUBLICAN LEVEL DIRTY TRICKS, THOUGH APPARENTLY PERPETRATED BY CENTRIST DEMOCRATS AGAINST BERNIE SANDERS. BERNIE ACQUITS HIMSELF WELL. HE’S CLEVER AND QUICK ON HIS FEET IN HAND TO HAND COMPETITION. CNN HAS PUT AT LEAST FOUR QUESTIONERS ON THE MIC WHO ARE NOT IDENTIFIED BEYOND THE CUSTARD PUDDING LEVEL, BUT WHO ARE ACTUALLY ACTIVE, HIGH-LEVEL DEMOCRATIC PARTY OFFICIALS AND “ACTIVISTS,” AND THEY DID ASK POINTED AND POTENTIALLY DAMAGING QUESTIONS OR OTHER CHALLENGES TO SANDERS.

I AM PROUD OF FOX NEWS FOR STRONGLY BROADCASTING A COMPLAINT BY A NEWS SOURCE THAT IS NOT VERY WELL-KNOWN FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN ITS’ “CONSERVATIVE” STANCES. AT ONE SPOT ON THE VIDEO, COMES ONE OF THE FUNNIER THINGS I’VE SEEN SANDERS SAY. WOLF HAS ASKED HIM ABOUT THE UPCOMING DEBATES AGAINST TRUMP AND HOW HE WILL HANDLE THEM. SANDERS QUIPS THAT HE PLANS TO BRING A LIE DETECTOR ALONG WITH HIM ONSTAGE, AND EVERY TIME HE LIES, IT WILL BEEP!

SEE: https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-688-08617-6 FOR A SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF IT.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120139776
AUTHOR INTERVIEWS
Refusing Flu Shots? Maybe You're A 'Denialist'
7:50 DOWNLOAD
TRANSCRIPT
November 7, 2009 4:18 PM ET
Heard on Weekend Edition Saturday

Nearly 20 percent of the families in Vashon Island, Wash., aren't getting their children vaccinated against childhood diseases. At the Ocean Charter School near Marina del Rey, Calif., 40 percent of the 2008 kindergarten class received vaccination exemptions. Author Michael Specter says the parents in these upscale enclaves are prime examples of what he calls "denialism."

That's also the title of his new book, "We can all believe irrational things," the author of Denialism tells NPR's Scott Simon. "The problem is that I think an increasing number of Americans are acting on those beliefs instead of acting on facts that are readily present."

The Motives And Consequences of 'Denialism'

But the Vashon Island and Marina del Rey communities aren't places where religious or cultural traditions argue against vaccinations --- like the Amish or Jehovah's Witnesses.

Instead, they believe vaccinations are harmful to their children, citing stories they've heard about mistakes by doctors or pharmaceutical fraud.

But, Specter says, when parents make that decision, they focus on the one-in-10-million chance that a vaccine could kill a child and ignore the one-in-1,000 chance that a disease will do so. "These people retreat into denialism," he says. "It's like denial, but writ large, [because] this has consequences."

Those consequences don't just affect the children who go unvaccinated, but everyone they interact with as well, Specter adds. He points out that diseases like measles, which had almost been eradicated in North America, are now coming back.

The Fetish Of Organic Food

"Denialism," the author says, is evident in far more than vaccination rates. Take organic food. Specter considers himself a fan, but he draws the line at demonizing genetically engineered food.

"In other parts of the world," he says, "a billion people go to bed hungry every night. Those people need science to help them. It isn't about whether people want to go to Whole Foods or not ... The thing that killed the most people in the history of the world — except maybe for insects --- was pure water and natural, untreated food."

He argues that some people look at "natural" products, such as vitamins, and think that they're automatically good. But, he argues, "it's no different than anything else you swallow."

"Someone told me they didn't want to take a flu shot because they didn't want to put a foreign substance into their body," says Specter. "What do they think they do at dinner every night?"

Excerpt: 'Denialism'
MICHAEL SPECTER

'Denialism'
DENIALISM
BY MICHAEL SPECTER
HARDCOVER, 304 PAGES
PENGUIN PRESS
LIST PRICE: $27.95

The most blatant forms of denialism are rarely malevolent; they combine decency, a fear of change, and the misguided desire to do good — for our health, our families, and the world. That is why so many physicians dismiss the idea that a patient's race can, and often should, be used as a tool for better diagnoses and treatment. Similar motivations — in other words, wishful thinking — have helped drive the growing national obsession with organic food. We want our food to taste good, but also to be safe and healthy. That's natural. Food is more than a meal, it's about history, culture, and a common set of rituals. We put food in the mouths of our children; it is the glue that unites families and communities. And because we don't see our food until we eat it, any fear attached to it takes on greater resonance.

The corrosive implications of this obsession barely register in America or Europe, where calories are cheap and food is plentiful. But in Africa, where arable land is scarce, science offers the only hope of providing a solution to the growing problem of hunger. To suggest that organic vegetables, which cost far more than conventional produce, can feed billions of people in parts of the world without roads or proper irrigation may be a fantasy based on the finest intentions. But it is a cruel fantasy nonetheless.

Denialist arguments are often bolstered by accurate information taken wildly out of context, wielded selectively, and supported by fake experts who often don't seem fake at all. If vast factory farms inject hormones and antibiotics into animals, which is often true and always deplorable, then all industrial farming destroys the earth and all organic food helps sustain it. If a pricey drug like Nexium, the blockbuster "purple pill" sold so successfully to treat acid reflux disease, offers few additional benefits to justify its staggering cost, then all pharmaceutical companies always gouge their customers and "natural" alternatives — largely unregulated and rarely tested with rigor — offer the only acceptable solution.

We no longer trust authorities, in part because we used to trust them too much. Fortunately, they are easily replaced with experts of our own. All it takes is an Internet connection. Anyone can seem impressive with a good Web site and some decent graphics. Type the word "vaccination" into Google and one of the first of the fifteen million or so listings that pops up, after the Centers for Disease Control, is the National Vaccine Information Center, an organization that, based on its name, certainly sounds like a federal agency. Actually, it's just the opposite: the NVIC is the most powerful anti-vaccine organization in America, and its relationship with the U.S. government consists almost entirely of opposing federal efforts aimed at vaccinating children.

***

Fifty years ago, we venerated technology. At least until we placed our feet on lunar soil, our culture was largely one of uncritical reverence for the glories that science would soon deliver. The dominant image of popular American culture was progress. TV shows like Star Trek and The Jetsons were based on a kind of utopian view of the scientific future. Even the Flintstones were described as a "modern" Stone Age family. We were entering an era without disease or hunger. If we ran out of water we would siphon salt from the seas and make more; if nature was broken we could fix it. If not, we could always move to another planet.

That vision no longer seems quite so enchanting. No doubt our expectations were unreasonable — for science and for ourselves. We also began to recognize the unintended consequences of our undeniable success. About a month before Neil Armstrong made his large step on the moon, the heavily polluted Cuyahoga River erupted in flames near Cleveland, creating an indelible image of industry at war with nature. A few years later, in 1976, Karen Ann Quinlan was removed from life support, igniting the first horrific battle of the modern era over how we live and die. The end of the decade was marked by the ghastly accident at Three Mile Island, which showed more clearly than ever that the effects of the Industrial Revolution were not all benign. The thalidomide disaster, mad cow disease, even the dramatic and sustained lies of Big Tobacco have all contributed to the sense that if the promise of science wasn't a lie, it wasn't exactly the truth either.

Today the image of a madman whipping up a batch of smallpox, or manufacturing an effective version of bird flu in his kitchen, while not exactly as easy as baking a cake, is no longer so far-fetched. Indeed, if there is anything more frightening than the threat of global nuclear war, it is the certainty that humans not only stand on the verge of producing new life forms but may soon be able to tinker with them as if they were vintage convertibles or bonsai trees.

Our technical and scientific capabilities have brought the world to a turning point, one in which accomplishments clash with expectations. The result often manifests itself as a kind of cultural schizophrenia. We expect miracles, but have little faith in those capable of producing them. Famine remains a serious blight on humanity, yet the leaders of more than one African nation, urged on by rich Europeans who have never missed a meal, have decided it would be better to let their citizens starve than to import genetically modified grains that could feed them.

Food is a compelling example of how fear has trumped science, but it is not the only evidence that we are waging a war against progress, rather than, as Peter Melchett would have it, against nature. The issues may be complex but the choices are not: we are either going to embrace new technologies, along with their limitations and threats, or slink into an era of magical thinking. Humanity has nearly suffocated the globe with carbon dioxide, yet nuclear power plants that produce no such emissions are so mired in objections and obstruction that, despite renewed interest on every continent, it is unlikely another will be built in the United States. Such is the opposition to any research involving experiments with animals that in scores of the best universities in the world, laboratories are anonymous, unmarked, and surrounded by platoons of security guards.

Excerpted from Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives, by Michael Specter. Reprinted by arrangement with The Penguin Press, a member of Penguin Group (USA), Inc. Copyright (c) November 2009.