New Angle on DARE program?

Let's call this one, I dare you to find life saving prescription drugs.

Erin Fox, is the manager of the Drug Information Service. Citing ongoing manufacturing problems at several U.S. plants, Fox said, “All of these companies have had quality issues, yet they make the majority of drugs used in our country.” The U.S. has logged record numbers of drug shortages in the past two years, fueled in part by sudden closures of drug plants because of problems with contamination, crumbling infrastructure and other issues. “Between the shortages and the quality issues, it is difficult to have any kind of confidence in our drug supply,” she said.

This is so acute in some areas that Physicians are unable to administer anti-cancer drugs. Also, first responders and emergency rooms are using drugs from expired lots. Luckily there is a safety margin built into these things, so they are probably safe enough. However, I'd guess that is rather cold comfort to the loved ones of those forced to rely upon such measures.


So, what is the lesson we have learned today, class?

1: America was once such an enviable place in so many ways. The only thing Americans need to do in order to maintain that vaulted status is to continue asserting, preferably with great vigor and patriotic background music, that all is well.
2: Continue to elect leaders with a scanty understanding of science and a vaguely anti-intellectual stance. If they are also willing to stand on ideology, all the better. No worries, there is no requirement to provide evidence bolstering ones position.

 Now, let's all stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance, after which we will raise our fists in the air and, with index fingers extended, shout, "America, Number 1". I know we'll all feel better.

Life can be so Taxing

Though it can be nauseating and mind-numbing, I make an attempt to keep up with what the far-right is (and,here, I use the term loosely) thinking. In looking over some of the drivel that passes for Tea Party punditry, I came across the attached graphic. For the record, I know that I am preaching largely to the choir. This probably won't make its way to those who most need to hear and understand this thought. Nonetheless, let me make this very simple and clear. The sentiment expressed in the graphic is true. The tragic bit is, the hordes of lazy selfish people, imagined by the right wing, are not found in some ghetto. If one wished to put a face on the offending group, it is my assertion that the one-percent of people in this country who own most everything and control most everything are the people for whom you are looking.

Shoot it. Shoot It.

I wanted to shoot it but he wanted to Shoot It!

This is another Nature Update, of sorts. For those who've been following on Facebook, you already know that we've had confirmed coyote sightings in our yard close to the forest line. (See recent posted photo.)
My first reaction to the sighting was amazement and wonder. I know these creatures always live here but it is relatively rare to see one because they are very stealthy and primarily nocturnal. So, of course, I shot it. Then I posted the photo for everyone to see.

The fellow next door, who does not usually pass more than a pleasant "howdy" with me, walked over to share his story regarding the coyote. Judging by that conversation, my liberal, hippie, nature-lover response is the less common of multiple options. What immediately occurs to my neighbors is to shoot them. Shoot them dead, that is. Relax animal lovers. To the best of my knowledge, no animals were hurt in the making of this story. Though, I can not guarantee how long that will hold true.

In any case, this large powerfully built young fellow, who I know to be a long-time hunter, had been startled by the coyote while walking in his yard. Clearly he was down wind of the animal and moving quietly in the grass and had gone briefly unnoticed by the coyote. This highly unlikely scenario had put the two in relatively close proximity. Rather than enjoying the wonder of the moment and realizing that he was sharing space with an amazing member of the animal kingdom who meant him no harm, he became fixated on destroying the creature. He'd come by to "warn" me that there were "coyotes in the woods". He advised me that I should be concerned for the safety of my dog. It was all I could do to refrain from laughing out loud at that suggestion. Perhaps if I owned a shih tzu, this would be a concern. The only rational statement he made was that it was unusual to see a coyote during daylight. I will concede that if you see a normally nocturnal animal in daylight and it acts strangely or seems unafraid of humans, there is a possibility it could be rabid (though this is quite rare with coyotes here). In this case, the coyote immediately ran to the shelter of the forest upon noticing the man.

What strikes me about the whole thing is that it all comes down to this fear response that seems to persist in some. And, look, I get it. When frightened I do not act as my best self. However, the customary flow (for me and many folks) is: the further I get in space and time from the negative stimulus, the more rational thought begins to supplant fight-or-flight. Though, clearly, my emotional flow chart is not a model that works for everyone.

All that said, jesushbloodychrist! Why is it that so many Pennsylvanians purchase homes in or adjacent to the forest and then act as though they are under siege by every creature who resides there? And, oh by the way, does anyone else suspect a correlation between that sort of relationship to nature and a more generalized militancy?

Shooting from the hip

Shooting from the hip

One of the big news stories of the day focuses on the decision by multiple hospitals in Colorado to waive the cost of treatment for victims of our most recent mass shooting. I found my self wondering how bizarre this must appear to members of other civilized societies. On the one hand, Americans regularly (and, often, loudly and vociferously) proclaim their adherence to the precepts of the Church of Capitalism. They are comfortable meshing the access to health care with the same principles regularly applied in the field of commerce. The idea that other thoughtful, educated, reasonable people around the globe have long since abandoned the practice of leaving their citizens to fend for themselves with regard to basic health care, leaves Americans unfazed, unconvinced and even perplexed. Except for the fact that– this is not exactly the case.

As we begin to drill down and deconstruct American health care policy and practice, it becomes evident that we are really of two minds in this. Or, three. Or more. Upon reflection the whole thing is reminiscent of our policies and practices with regard to race and other social issues. Perhaps these connections will become apparent to the reader as we proceed. Or, perhaps, not. (Some of my other blog posts may help to clarify.)

One of the first things Americans decided, while perched high upon their throne of Capitalism, was to circumvent one of the basic tenets of their religion– market forces. But, oddly enough, that is not the interesting part. What draws in the curious mind, is the fact that they decided (legislated) who would be exempt from market forces. In an effort as warm-and-fuzzy as it gets, they decided that health care for elderly citizens, who were after all frail and no longer employed, would be wholly or partly subsidized. Even the strictest disciples of Capitalism found their heart-strings plucked by this 'exception'. The basic underpinnings of the Church were deemed sound and life went on. A hearty, "well played" all round.

The next set of troubles followed swiftly and predictably on the heels of the first. In a word, veterans. Goodness, gracious me. We couldn't have brave Amerians soldiers who have fought for our freedoms to be subject to the law-of-the-jungle when they require health care. Such a thing would be darn near anti-American. Legislators and citizens alike got all weepy and, in due course, disaster was averted. Slaps on the back all round. Again, well played.

For those with above average predictive abilities, you will have seen the next set of challenges on the horizon. Of course, it would be poor folks and children. And, after some grinch-like grumbling, these vulnerable citizens are also exempted from the forces that Americans 'believe in'.

Again, for those precocious predictors, this will come as no shock. From relatively humble beginnings, our little exemptions have grown and multiplied like, well, rabbits. We start out with a few "old folks" ( and they were few mainly because most did not live to become old folks at that time) and, the next thing you know, we no longer have exceptions. We could safely state, the exceptions have become the rule. One would be forgiven for running a silent tally in ones head to determine who we missed in our exemption free-for-all.

At the risk of appearing to take a sledge hammer to a flea, allow me to finish this way. After long observation and association with Americans, I can unequivocally call them a generous people. I can also say, without reservation, that they could hardly be more quirky or capricious in their generosity. There is something about the attempt to weave together disparate parts of the American psyche that leaves an observer gobsmacked. The determination and can-do spirit often leaves one in awe. The yankee-ingenuity regularly inspires. And, frankly, the ability to inexplicably exclude members of their own society from the benefits of that society leave this observer near despair.

**Note to the persnickety. My casual history is not meant to be taken as a literal chain of events. Programs for veterans and the poor can be traced to early America.

Judgment or Prejudice?

After hearing/seeing two different but somewhat related stories recently, I found myself as troubled by what was not said as by the troubling issues raised. One was an NPR story about the writer and human rights activist Ms. Eltahawy in Egypt. The other was a TED talk given by Mrs. Melinda Gates (yes, that Mrs. Gates). Links provided below.

My first thought was, both were brave and thoughtful women. However, I would add that the two women shared another thing in common. They both tried, in my view, to argue both sides of an issue. Mrs. Gates was simultaneously arguing for condoms and other aids prevention in Africa while admitting that she considered herself a practicing Catholic. What is the largest most powerful organization suppressing condoms and other thoughtful aids prevention in Africa? If your answer was the Catholic Church, give yourself one point. Thus the poor woman (yes, I considered the irony of that word) was reduced to arguing for something good and noble in this world (the reduction of pain and suffering) and at the same time being an apologist for the organization working hardest to counter those efforts.

Ms. Eltahawy, was laboring under the same difficulty in my opinion. She argues that there is a culture that treats women in these horrible ways and at the same time can't bring herself to lay the blame squarely at the feet of Muslim culture as it is practiced currently in the Middle East. Her dodge is the use of the terms misogynists and patriarchs. It's true that the people who employ these suppressive behaviors are displaying the attributes of misogynists and patriarchs (the latter in its worst form). But to say these are the root causes is to appear disingenuous.

These stories make my point for me. We have been frightened into submission. We no longer feel confident to make the distinction between prejudice and judgement. Prejudice is to judge first in the absence of facts. Of the two, this is the bad one. Judgement is another animal altogether. It presumes that we have amassed evidence and thought through to a conclusion. This is not only the 'good one', it is the one upon which we depend to sift though the information and make sense of the world.

Finally, let me say that I have no wish to be sharply critical and, in fact, have great empathy for these women as they attempt to find justice for women in this world. The difficulties are enormous and I'm certain they (and many others whose names we do not know) are trying their best to 'say what must be said' while giving consideration to 'what safely may be said'.

Here is the often cited criticism: This is a different culture and a different religion and you are just trying to impose your outside or western values on this region. I think any of us would have difficulty answering this more in a more eloquent or concise manner than Ms. Eltahawy, "I don't think that rights or living a dignified human life are Western. We are no different from anyone else. We want to be free and we want to live dignified lives."

https://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/04/24/151239696/mona-eltahawy-explains-why-women-are-hated-in-the-middle-east


https://www.ted.com/talks/melinda_gates_let_s_put_birth_control_back_on_the_agenda.html

The tool is democracy

in response to this article: 

http://www.livescience.com/18706-people-smart-democracy.html

1- As we advance in our ability to ask better questions and expect, through technology, to receive reliable answers in the neurosciences our assumptions about ourselves are going to evermore butt up against new found realities. Much of what we find will be anti-intuitive and/or unflattering. I don't find this surprising. It would seem to me that a hopeful rosy assessment of ones self (despite obvious or subtle evidence to the contrary) is likely built-in to our psyche. This would make sense from an evolutionary standpoint as self confidence would be a component of generalized success.

2- The answers that we are beginning to find will cause us re-evaluate our historical choices and responses to various situations including those in the political arena. Barring an apocalyptic collapse, we will face an increasingly complex and globally interrelated society in which we can expect heightened pressure to make advantageous, rational, evidence based decisions. This will be difficult enough under the best conditions and we can presume that we will not be operating under the best conditions. One of those conditions is that even the most intelligent and rational humans (upon whom we depend for answers) themselves depend upon a brain design evolved over millions of years to live in a simpler and more brutal environment.

3- It is clear to those who work in the neurosciences or read about this work, that humans are not what we imagined ourselves to be. This is problematic in that we have, in large measure, arranged our societies and institutions based on our "hopeful rosy assessments" of ourselves.

4- I would suggest that even the best and brightest among us do not possess enough evidence to fully advise us. However, I can say with some confidence that direct Democracy was not favored by the framers of the Constitution. Illustrative of the foresight displayed in that document is the fact that centuries later our current scientific evidence is largely coinciding with their thoughtful intuitions.

Open letter to David Gregory (of NBC's Meet the Press)

Mr. Gregory,

Regarding your recent Meet the Press entitled Faith in America.

To broadcast a program with a journalistic ethos that was so blatantly lacked an opposing or balancing voice was disappointing. Running so closely on the heals of the recent Congressional debacle in Washington in which important and deeply personal issues for women were discussed without a single woman on the panel was especially egregious. As an American citizen, U.S. military veteran, and proud Atheist/Rationalist/Humanist I am personally offended.

How is it that you can feel justified to speak about us with none of us in the room to speak for ourselves?

John Forest

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

To which, I add the following.

I understand that Meet the press is touted as a broadcast journalistic benchmark. I suggest that, if the recent edition on Faith in America is any indicator, they've fallen short of the mark and, perhaps, missed the bench. There is a place in the world for a set of backslapping religious apologists making unsubstantiated assertions. I submit that this place is not in the newsroom.

Allow me to be clear, if these same folks were saying the same things on, let's say, the Christian Broadcast Network, I would be among the first to stand for their right to engage in such activity. But, I draw the line at selectively infecting the slender thread of our national conversation still available to us through journalism.

Is it not sufficient that religious people are the vast majority? Is it not sufficient that believers own most everything, control most everything? Is it not sufficient that, despite these obvious facts, they subject us all to unending paranoid whining. None of us is allowed to pass a day without hearing how the clear and obvious majority of the population are treated as though they were a powerless minority. If we are to assume their view, they and/or their "values" are always under nefarious attack or in retreat. Apparently it is not sufficient that believers daily lay claim to a moral high ground where they "own" basic human values of decency and compassion.

I could scarcely do better than offer the words of the Pastor and Congressman from Missouri Emmanuel Cleaver, who stated on the show:

"Religion at it's very essence requires theological arrogance. Because we have to declare 'This is what I believe in. I believe this is the way'."

Pastor Cleaver went on to opine that religious arrogance could and should meet with diversity and tolerance. To which I respond, if this worked as well in real world practice as it does in high-minded oratory, the Pastor and I would be seeing much more eye-to-eye.