LOFF56 COMMENTS ON PL's "NO ONE GOES TO THE MOON ANYMORE!" - PL RESPONDS WITH "SPACE IS OUR DESTINY!"

Here's LOFF56:

"I remember thinking the same thing ten years ago, around the time of the 30th anniversary. It still boggles my mind to think of them going to the moon with the technology of that era. The computer was just barely invented. To match the computing power of the laptop I'm writing this on in 1969 you'd probably need something the size of a house. They went to the moon without even the power of a laptop computer!!

Imagine what we could do if we had the same will power to do what they did in 1969 with the technology we have today. The ingenuity to invent new propulsion systems, advanced navigation, life support systems, imaging capabilities. etc. We'd probably be able to stay there for a year if we wanted to.

I always wonder what it is that keeps us on the ground these days. Maybe it's simply the fact that we found out that there's nothing really there. As if we spent a hell of a lot of effort and money to visit the Sahara. Maybe it's the fear of the high human cost that has plagued space exploration from the beginning. Is the risk worth the reward? The conspiracy theory could be that big business doesn't like the idea that space exploration out of necessity demands the invention of new technologies. Technologies that could threaten the existence of some of the worlds biggest corporations. Perhaps we just don't have an immediate need to go to the moon right now. Yes, we most certainly have a long term, for-the-good-of-humanity kind of need, but those needs are always pushed aside for immediate needs. In 1969 we had an immediate need to beet the Russians. I bet if Al Qaeda or North Korea were making a run for the moon, we'd be there faster than you can sing 'Fly me to the Moon!'

Bit of good news on the Space front. The two rovers that we sent to Mars at the beginning of 2004 (which they expected to be operational for only 3 or 4 months), are still operating!! 5 and a half years later!!!"

PL:

Hey, L56. Nice comment. I'm just thinking about how walking on the moon in the '60's became less important than "moonwalking" in the '80's! But anyway...

I have always felt that traveling into space was necessary because exploration and expansion of our horizons is a crucial part of human evolution, both individually and collectively. It's not just about the technology or the economics. As sentient beings of a higher order (at least on this planet!), moving beyond our borders and limitations is what prevents atrophy and stagnation in our psyches.

On this 40th anniversary of the moon landing, I remembered that in 1986, when the space shuttle Challenger disaster occurred on January 28th of that year, I wrote an open letter to President Reagan and the NY Times not only saying why I thought the human exploration of space must continue, in spite of that tragedy, but I also offering to go myself on a future mission! (Ha! My wife at the time cried for a number of days fearing that Reagan might actually take me up on it. She knew I would go!)

Here's my letter that the Times published on February 9, 1986:

"SPACE IS OUR DESTINY!"

"To the Editor:

The shattering tragedy of the Challenger on Jan. 28 will no doubt stir up such sentiments as 'If man were meant to fly, he'd have wings.'' Some will say that we should send only unmanned probes into space.

I disagree. Human beings do have wings. Our wings are our minds, and our minds have always compelled us to reach out and look beyond the boundaries of the observable. We honor the spirit of Christopher Columbus for daring to explore 'the edge' of a flat Earth, as we reveled in the spirit of Christa McAuliffe, who dared to teach from beyond the classroom.

The logic of statistical probability tells us that we are only one of perhaps millions of civilizations in this universe, that we most surely have brothers and sisters out there. We are compelled to meet them and know them because we are all part of the same whole. Perhaps we can be helped in our development someday by a more advanced civilization. Perhaps we can make a contribution. But we cannot stay at home, retreating into ourselves. People must be prepared to travel in space. It is our destiny.

I envied Mrs. McAuliffe. She was living out my greatest fantasy: to view the Earth as a whole planet from space. I am a psychiatric social worker, waiting for the day when a President or NASA asks for someone from the human-services field to volunteer for a similar mission. I am ready to go!"

PETER V. LOFFREDO

For more of my letters to the NY Times over the years, GO HERE.

"NO ONE GOES TO THE MOON ANYMORE!"

That's the title of a song, believe it or not, that I wrote 20 years ago on the 20th anniversary of the very first Apollo moon landing. It was a lament about life in America at the end of the decade of the 1980's, a stretch in which our country seemed to have been on a ten year lost weekend, a time during which social consciousness died en masse, or at least went underground, a time during which greed and militarism were extolled as high values, a time during which the the rampant psychopathy in our ruling classes that may be finally coming to an end now began.

The song I wrote was not so much a personal lament, because for me, in 1989, I was not only making music, but I was at the beginning of a wondrous exploration of my own spiritual nature and the spiritual nature of all things. That changed me more than any cultural event ever could, of course.

But still, 1989 wasn't 1969.

'69 was a year of all years for me. I turned fifteen that summer and the yearning for independence, for a great transition, for a connection to the sensuality of life as a human being made everything seem connected - to me! The moon landing, the Woodstock concert (which my parents wouldn't let me attend), the Miracle Mets, Hair on broadway (which had opened a year earlier), my hair (which I fought constantly with my father about), the last Beatle album (Elton John's first album was still a year away)... it all seemed so perfectly relevant to my life, somehow.

Beginnings, endings, adventure, exploration... and the endless stream of music! The universe was listening to me!

Tomorrow is the 40th anniversary of the moon landing. No one goes to the moon anymore, but my two young step-kids listen to the Beatles with the same avid joy I once did. Our eleven year old's school put up Hair as the school play this year (and it's back on Broadway!). I regularly vacation in Woodstock now, maybe in defiance of my parents' prohibition 4 decades ago, and the Mets suck, but that's okay because I'm a Yankee fan!

But most importantly, what I now know better than I could have in 1969... is that it's me who must listen to the universe.

"AND THAT'S THE WAY IT IS..."

TODAY'S QUOTE

"The Sotomayor hearings were still rich in historical significance. Someday we may regard it as we do those final, frozen tableaus of Pompeii. It offered a vivid snapshot of what Washington looked like when clueless ancien-régime conservatives were feebly clinging to their last levers of power, blissfully oblivious to the new America that was crashing down on their heads and reducing their antics to a sideshow as ridiculous as it was obsolescent. It’s the American way that we judge people as individuals, not as groups. And by that standard we can say unequivocally that this particular wise Latina, with the richness of her experiences, would far more often than not reach a better conclusion than the individual white males she faced in that Senate hearing room. Even those viewers who watched the Sotomayor show for only a few minutes could see that her America is our future and theirs is the rapidly receding past."
Frank Rich (in today's NY Times)

TODAY'S LYRICS!

"AND IN THE END, THE LOVE YOU TAKE IS EQUAL TO THE LOVE YOU MAKE."
Paul McCartney (ending the first of three concerts at CitiField, replacement for Shea Stadium where the Beatles played... a long, long time ago that still seems like Yesterday.)

LOFF56 DISAGREES WITH PL'S "THERE AREN'T ALWAYS TWO SIDES..." PL RESPONDS!/L56 COMES BACK!

Here's LOFF56:

"Generally I agree with your assessments in these matters. Your conclusion about Pat Buchanan is spot on. The analogy of watching a car wreck is funny and appropriate. Although...

I have to say that your premise isn't logical. 'There aren't always two sides to an argument.' There HAS to be at least two sides to every argument. Otherwise it wouldn't be an argument! Insanity, hate, and ignorance, whether we like it or not, does exist as an opposition to logic, love and enlightenment.

Writing off the opposition in this manner makes our position just as ignorant as theirs. If we're so sure that our position is correct, then we shouldn't have any trouble proving that with logic and a respectful discourse. If in the end we provide a respectful discourse and they don't then it's simply up to the public to decide for themselves. (That's the Buddhist way.) :-)

If you believe in the premise that every soul on the planet has the potential for enlightenment, you have to look at the prospect that the souls that spew insanity, hate and ignorance (or more appropriately the readers of your blog who potentially buy into that) are simply not well enough educated in logic, love and enlightenment. We would do better to stop labeling people as insane, hateful and ignorant and start finding a way to better educate the world directly in logic, love and enlightenment. Let them decide for themselves. The best we can do is consistently and perpetually provide the best truth possible. Wasting time on labels and tearing down our opposition doesn't add anything to our argument. It's like saying: 'I'm right and you're wrong.' Ok. So what?

In the end I believe people are more interested in why you think you're right than they do about why you think they're wrong."

PL:

Here's the thing, L56, and it's something that many people searching for the "middle way" of Buddhism - or even true Christianity - misunderstand: there is Truth and there is Right, and Buddha and Jesus say it often. But that truth and right isn't dogmatic or part of an institutionalized philosophy or creed, it is what every person truly conducting the search for one's own soul eventually finds out to simply be so.

I mean, come on, L56, you're playing semantics a bit with me when you say things like "There HAS to be at least two sides to every argument. Otherwise it wouldn't be an argument!" I think (hope?) that you know that what I'm saying is that not all positions are valid and that not all positions are even positions. Some "positions" are simply primal expressions of raw, unexamined, untamed impulses.

Furthermore, in true Buddhist practice, yes, all are invited to the path of enlightenment, as they are in any spiritual practice, but the first step towards the truth is always identifying what is false. To give credibility to distortions, lies, fear-based hate and deliberate ignorance posing as ideology doesn't serve to help the person in question to ever want to seek enlightenment. You are imagining something, idealizing at best, that is not based on how human beings actually grow. We need to experience the pain of ostracism and rejection at times to know that we are on a dead end turn in our path to enlightenment.

You can't "reach out" to the likes of a Pat Buchanan with the kind of guidance you talk about until he has fully felt the karmic pain of his own willfulness and bile.

Again - Come on, L56. I love that you are seeking that loving, open-minded place where we all must arrive to eventually, but part of true love, as I've said before to you and Rick, is kicking ass where there is ass that needs to be kicked!

Here's LOFF56's comeback:

"Well, I agree with your first paragraph.

However I don't believe that the point I'm making is semantic. I think it's deeply philosophical. If there truly is just one valid truth, which you say Christianity, Buddhism etc. suggests, than the concept of having a debate at all is logically flawed. For there truly is nothing to debate against, and any 'ass kicking' that we do can only be done in a hypocritical way for we'd be debating against a position that we can only justify by stepping around our belief in an absolute truth. If we concede that a debate must indeed happen in order to help people become enlightened than we must accept the fact that there has to be two sides to the debate. (Two valid sides). I don't think you can have your cake and eat it two in this regard. Either you accept 100% that there is only one truth and therefore any debating of the truth is hypocritical, or you pragmatically accept a second (valid, despite how despicable) position in order to achieve a debate.

I hope I'm not sounding semantic here again, but I believe you can give credibility to a person's position without giving credibility to their argument. The fact of the matter is that they believe what they believe. You can't say that that whole person has no credibility because they believe something that's false. You're throwing the baby out with the bath water. And again this is not about semantics this about finding the good in everyone and working WITH that, not AGAINST the bad.

Constantly highlighting the bad qualities as you have a tendency to do with many of the republicans that repulse us all doesn't help us find the overall humanity in the world. Instead it reminds us that there are a lot of unenlightened people out there that are ready to stab us in the back at any moment. I know this is not your intention at all, but the fact is, pointing it out can only have the potential of creating more fear in us than anything else. If you and your readers have achieved a level of enlightenment that can see through their BS, why not just ignore them then?

You are correct, you can't 'reach out' to people like Pat Buchanan. They don't want to be reached out to. At the same time 'kicking their ass' as you say, is equally ineffective if they're not willing to accept the benefit of an 'ass kicking.' This is equally true for any of your readers who still follow those guys. I understand the benefits of your 'ass kickings,' I just think it's being done in a bit of a vacuum. People need to be simply reminded of the good truth and reminded that they should simply ignore the ramblings of the lunatic fringe. After all, if we all learned to just ignore them, after a while they wouldn't be on TV. It's the constant acknowledgment of their stupidity that as you say, 'makes us want to watch the car accident' over and over again. And that I don't think puts us on the path to enlightenment."

TODAY'S "THERE AREN'T TWO SIDES TO AN ARGUMENT" QUOTE

"The serious question here is whether MSNBC will continue to finance his [Pat Buchanan's] clearly white supremacist views. If there's anyone in America who doesn't deserve more air time, it's people like Pat Buchanan. They had their time and they failed. Their reign was destructive and a blight on American history. They have no place in the discourse anymore."
Bob Cesca

Postscript from PL: As I've said before, there aren't always two sides to an argument. "Insane" isn't a political philosophy. "Hate" isn't a different opinion. "Ignorance" isn't a preference. (Well, okay, maybe it is.) And Pat Buchanan isn't a commentator on the news. He's a circus freak that MSNBC is exploiting because some people love to stare at car wrecks.

I TRY TO NEVER USE PROFANITY IN THE TITLE OF A POST, BUT... HOLY SHIT!!

"White men were 100% of the people that wrote the Constitution, 100% of the people that signed the Declaration of Independence, 100% of the people who died at Gettysburg and Vicksburg, probably close to 100% of the people who died at Normandy. This has been a country built basically by white folks." PAT BUCHANAN - Yep, he said this! I repeat: HOLY SHIT!!

TODAY'S QUOTE

"Try to remember that working's no crime; just don't let 'em take or waste your time."
James Taylor

(For further reference see PL's "THE END OF THE JOB" and "THE JOY OF QUITTING")

REPOST: FEAR OF THE OTHER IS ALL THAT MOTIVATES THE EXTREMISTS!

Let's just be brutally honest and direct, okay?

The primary motivation of what remains of the Republican Party and the right wing fringe in this country is no different than what drives all fundamentalist groups throughout the world - FEAR. Specifically, fear of the Other.

The driving mania behind a ludicrous economic philosophy that presumes that welfare and socialism for the wealthy is good for the country, while the same for working class citizens is destructive is rooted in a primal terror - of all races other than one's own, of femininity in general, and sensuality overall, of the young and elderly, of artists, of truly spiritual people and of any whose overt sexual orientation is other than heterosexual.

Who does that leave, obviously? Pseudo religious, pseudo-straight fanatics between the ages of 35 and 65, lacking in any real depths of sensuality, artistic sensibilities or true spirituality, latently riddled with castration anxiety and misogyny, who are full of paranoid rage and the hormonal balance of a pubescent boy.

Oh... and Ann Coulter.

Anonymous comments on PL's post: "SAY IT: RACISM IS A PSYCHIATRIC DISORDER!

"I am a recovering drug addict/alchoholic and in order for me to find recovery, (serenity) I had to work the 12-steps to the best of my ability. After somewhat achieving this herculanean task, it is my opinion that everyone over the age of 35 years should have to work the same 12-steps, whether he/she/it is an alchoholic or not! We are all sick to a degree."

Amen to that!
See my original post HERE.

TONIGHT'S NEW REPUBLICAN QUOTE!

"Joe the Plumber - you can quote me - is a dumbass. He should stick to plumbing."
Meghan McCain (who also said she'd "be flattered to be considered the anti-Ann Coulter, the anti-Rush Limbaugh," and that she "loves gay men!")

Of course, Meghan, I don't think I would want a dumbass as my plumber either.

TONIGHT'S OLD REPUBLICAN QUOTE!

"You'll have a lot of 'splainin' to do."
(Republican Senator Tom Coburn invoking Ricky Ricardo in a quip responding to Sonia Sotomayor during today's Supreme Court confirmation hearing scenario)WHAT ARE YOU THINNIN', SENATOR?!

TODAY'S AIN'T THAT AMERICA? QUOTE

"Your idea is that after investigating Bill Clinton for a blow job for like five years, we shouldn't investigate the huge, grossly illegal things that were done under the Bush-Cheney administration?"
Marcy Wheeler (of FireDogLake, appeared on MSNBC Monday to argue for an investigation of secret C.I.A. operations under President Bush)

INTEGRITY AT LAST?!

THIS IS FROM NEWSWEEK MAGAZINE:

"Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States, may be on the verge of asserting his independence in a profound way. Four knowledgeable sources tell NEWSWEEK that he is now leaning toward appointing a prosecutor to investigate the Bush administration's brutal interrogation practices, something the president has been reluctant to do. While no final decision has been made, an announcement could come in a matter of weeks, say these sources, who decline to be identified discussing a sensitive law-enforcement matter. Such a decision would roil the country, would likely plunge Washington into a new round of partisan warfare, and could even imperil Obama's domestic priorities, including health care and energy reform. Holder knows all this, and he has been wrestling with the question for months. 'I hope that whatever decision I make would not have a negative impact on the president's agenda,' he says. 'But that can't be a part of my decision."

YES! This is not about politics, punishment or revenge, people. This is about the integrity of our government and the very Constitution of laws that our government was formed upon.

Check out the 16th and 17th words of our Constitution in the first paragraph of the preamble:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Clearly, the reasons for establishing this Constitution are not in alphabetical order, but rather in order of priority. Establishing justice comes before providing for the "common defence." Why? Because our founders understood that there first and foremost had to be a country worth defending, and that without justice, there wouldn't be. We were under the unjust rule of the British crown until 1776, a rule by an empire that was deemed not worthy of defending.

Whatever we may have to endure today in order to expose the crimes of our leaders to the light of our system of justice, is nothing compared to what those citizens endured 233 years ago in the face of an extremely powerful and corrupt government.

History shows us that the price of integrity is always worth the cost. Without it, there can be nothing but fleeting, illusory gains, at best, and inevitably, debasement and destruction at worst. Our founders understood this, as did the revolutionaries in France and elsewhere in the 18th Century, as did Gandhi, Nelson Mandella and Martin Luther King in the 20th Century.

If our Constitution is treated as if it was up for grabs during the Bush-Cheney years, and therefore, so too was our country and system of government, then the damage will remain permanent.

Make no mistake - the rabid, far right-wingers loathe a great deal of what it says in our Constitution, because it is a great challenge to live by those principles of justice for all when you are riddled with hate and fear of growth and change and difference, when you are insecure and ignorant, intellectually lazy, morally bankrupt, and numb to the callings of your soul. These are people not interested in defending our country or our Constitution, but rather, they seek to protect and defend their own dark, dank hiding places filled with the black mold of paranoia.

Come on, people! Let the prosecutions roll!

LET THE PROSECUTIONS ROLL, PART 2 - BREAKING: Cheney Is Linked to Concealment of C.I.A. Project!!

Efforts to reach Mr. Cheney through relatives and associates were unsuccessful.

WHAT'S UP WITH NETWORK TV, PART 2! Or "WHO WANTS TO MARRY A MULTI-MILLIONAIRE?!"

A few months ago, I wrote a piece asking "What's up with network TV?"

In that entry, I wrote this:

"So much of what is shown in prime time, presumably for adults, is unwatchable, unless you're heavily medicated, which is why I guess there's so much advertising on network for pharmaceuticals. Even worse, the glimmers of hope that occasionally appear end up getting canceled prematurely because of mediocre ratings early on, which has everything to do with how much control advertisers have over network television. Quality shows that may need a little time to catch on frequently get a quick axe."

At that time, in April, I was bemoaning the premature cancellation of NBC's "KINGS," an imaginative, high quality, cable-style drama that should have revolutionized the failing network. Now, we are on a kind of death watch around here, religiously watching the remaining episodes, which just get better and better as the various characters evolve or devolve according to their arc.

Simultaneously, we've been watching on dvd, the entire series of "NORTHERN EXPOSURE," a show from the early 1990's. I'd never even seen one episode at the time, even though people who knew me then were always telling me that I would love it because of its off-beat spiritual and psychological underpinnings. But I was too busy in the early Nineties actually pursuing my own off-beat spiritual and psychological underpinnings to follow the evolution of "Dr. Joel Fleishman," the shows main character.

But here's the thing. The show didn't really hit its stride until the third season. (The episode from the third season we watched last night, in fact, won an Emmy for its excellent writing.) The show started as an eight-episode summer replacement series on CBS in 1990. It returned for seven more episodes in spring 1991. Then, by its third round in 1992, Northern Exposure became a regular Emmy and Golden Globe contender.

CBS, in other words, gave the show a chance!

By 1992, the ensemble cast had really gelled, and the characters' growth and changes over time had become compelling, and the writing stood the test of time. This kind of investment in quality doesn't seem to happen anymore on network television. No different than the manipulations of the stock markets by day traders and hedge funds that appeared in force in the 90's, networks became penny-wise and pound foolish, going for the instant bucks of reality shows that perfectly fed into the immediate gratification needs of a depressed populace being fleeced and lied to by the denizens of Wall Street and Washington on a regular basis. But programming that could actual uplift viewers to a higher place and be entertaining at the same time - in other words, shows that people actually had to watch to be enriched by, rather than stare at in a Xanax-induced haze - was deemed "not profitable enough."

Needless to say, this kind of addiction to short-term profit - this infection, to call it what it is - also caused, as we all know, the demise of any real news programming on network that was based on actual news.

Anyway, I highly recommend Northern Exposure and Kings, folks, if you have any time or energy left after working two jobs and trying to get your kids into private schools thanks to the demise of our economy and collapse of our public infrastructure caused by the malfeasance of the types who brought you "Who Wants To Marry A Multi-Millionaire?"

NATURE DOESN'T SCREW US WHEN IT COMES TO SEX! CHECK THIS OUT!!

WOW! This is literally a hot news story from the UK!
(Story by Jack Grimston)

Here's the scoop:

"A National Health Service leaflet is advising school pupils that they have a right to an enjoyable sex life and that regular intercourse can be good for their cardiovascular health. The advice appears in guidance circulated to parents, teachers and youth workers, and is intended to update sex education by telling pupils about the benefits of sexual pleasure. For too long, say its authors, experts have concentrated on the need for 'safe sex' and loving relationships while ignoring the main reason that many people have sex, that is, for enjoyment. The document, called 'Pleasure,' has been drawn up by NHS Sheffield, although it is also being circulated outside the city. Alongside the slogan 'an orgasm a day keeps the doctor away,' it says: 'Health promotion experts advocate five portions of fruit and veg a day and 30 minutes of physical activity three times a week. What about sex or masturbation twice a week?' Steve Slack, director of the Centre for HIV and Sexual Health at NHS Sheffield, who is one of the authors, argues that, far from promoting teenage sex, it could encourage young people to delay losing their virginity until they are sure they will enjoy the experience. Slack believes that as long as teenagers are fully informed about sex and are making their decisions free of peer pressure and as part of a caring relationship, they have as much right as an adult to a good sex life."

This is a slam dunk, people!

It does my heart so much good - as a parent and as a psychotherapist - to hear a professional in the field of sexual health saying that young people are naturally sexual and that a healthy sex life for them would be... HEALTHY!

I know that so many repressed, over-protective (i.e. - controlling) parents will be appalled at this report, but who are they kidding?

Hey - Weren't you sexually charged-up after puberty? Didn't you masturbate? Didn't you experiment with sexual play as a teenager? The vast majority of you did, of course.

But... did you feel guilty? At odds with the outer voices of authority telling you not to act on any of those feelings, or maybe worse, that those feelings were bad, sinful, inappropriate, dangerous even? Were the resultant inner prohibitions then so harsh and punitive that you dared not even really enjoy sex fully as an adult? Right. And are you still paying the price now for those negative messages about your own human nature... with sexual dysfunctions, intimacy problems and much worse? Right again.

This is wonderful news, everyone, and like the man says, this kind of honesty and openness doesn't lead to acting out and wanton, irresponsible promiscuity. It leads to loving one's body the way nature created it, and it leads to an increased capacity for pleasure and intimacy. In many countries where sexual prohibitions are rare, there are less incidents of rape and teen pregnancy and sexual dysfunction.

Get it? NATURE DOESN'T FUCK UP! Only human egos do!

Come on, fellow Americans, let's catch up. Let's be part of the new millennium in this most fundamental of areas.

REALITY HAS A "LIBERAL BIAS," AND SO DOES SCIENCE!!

A new study by the non-partisan Pew Research Center finds that only six percent of America's scientists identify themselves as Republicans; fifty-five percent call themselves Democrats. The ideological discrepancies were similar: nine percent of scientists said they were "conservative" while 66 percent described themselves as either "liberal" or "very liberal."

Hmm, why is that?!
BARNEY: "Gee, Fred, aren't we all in search of the Truth?"
FRED: "Maybe not the GOP, Barney."

"ANONYMOUS" RESPONDS TO BARNEY'S QUESTION ON REALITY & SCIENCE HAVING A LIBERAL BIAS! PL RESPONDS!!

HERE'S "ANONYMOUS":

"Hmm, why is that?!' Because they work in the land of Academia and the government, rather than in the real world. The reality they live in is outside the real world."

PL:

Ah, yes, Anon, thank you for reminding me. I always forget that only uneducated people live in the "real world," where the thoughtful examination of events, attitudes and things doesn't take place, where only dogmatic thinking and reflex-based, primal and ritualized behavior can be trusted.

Right.

WHO KILLED MICHAEL? AN UPDATE ON PL'S "THE PUBLIC'S OPTION!"

"Above all, do no harm"

This is from the Hippocratic Oath, traditionally taken by physicians pertaining to the ethical practice of medicine.

Meanwhile, a picture is emerging of Michael Jackson's copious consumption of prescription pills that is astounding. CNN obtained a confidential document that portrays the pop singer as heavily addicted to the powerful anti-anxiety drug Xanax. Jackson was routinely taking more than 10 Xanax pills a night, down from 30 to 40 Xanax pills a night. Additionally, TMZ reports that they've confirmed via law enforcement sources that Jackson had "dozens of injection sites and punctures all over his body the day he died."

ABOVE ALL, DO NO HARM.

THE PUBLIC'S OPTION?

I'm guessing that many of you aren't paying too much attention to the health care debate raging in certain sectors of our society right now. Why would you? If you're a regular reader of FPL, chances are you are more focused on preventative and alternative approaches to your health than to the slash, burn and drug approach to sickness promulgated by the medical-pharmaceutical-insurance cartel.

Chances are you may not even have health insurance, or if you do, you've collected very little of what you or your employer have paid into your plan for any kind of actual treatment.

Think about it.

Private insurance companies are in the business, like all private enterprise in a capitalist economy, of making profits. [Dictionary definition of Capitalism: "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit."] For an insurance company to make a profit, it has to pay you less for any medical services you desire or actually receive than you pay to it in premiums. Otherwise, no profit.

Why do you think the health care industry right now is spending a million dollars a day to lobby against the "Public Option" proposed by President Obama. The public option would allow you to choose free or very inexpensive publicly financed health insurance if you wanted to. Get it? You could still choose private insurance coverage, but unless you're wealthy and like throwing money away, why would you?

This is from a piece on the internet this morning about the multimillion-dollar ad campaign designed to derail health care reform—especially the public option, which would set up a government-run plan to compete with private insurers:

"The man behind this ad blitz is the person who might be Public Option Enemy No. 1, a long-time perpetrator against health care sanity, one-time hospital executive and longtime Republican donor Richard Scott. Scott certainly is an odd spokesman for the right's health care agenda. The giant hospital company Scott led in the 1980s and 1990s, Columbia/HCA, was the subject of a seven-year federal investigation. The probe concluded with the company pleading guilty to 14 felony counts of criminal misconduct and paying $1.7 billion to settle civil charges relating to overbilling of state and federal governments—the largest settlement of its kind in American history. Scott, claiming ignorance of what was going on, was booted by his own board in 1997 and received a $10 million golden parachute with $300 million in stock options for his troubles.

That we live in a society where the health of its citizens is secondary to the profits of corporate psychopaths is, as I have said for years, the scandal of the millennium, and responsible for untold atrocities committed every day in hospitals and doctors offices.

I haven't had any kind of health insurance for over a decade, now, folks. When I tell some people that, they are shocked, because I obviously work and could pay for it. Even more shocking to some is that I haven't been to a medical doctor for a "check-up" or for any kind of "illness" in over fifteen years.

Why?

Well, regarding insurance, besides the fact that the companies in question are aligned against supporting my health, so-called "health insurance" is a "negative meditation." In order for you, the insured, to benefit from having insurance, you have to get sick! Otherwise, you're throwing your money away. So, the incentive for you in having insurance is to get sick, so you can collect on what you've paid in.

Regarding doctors, again, the motivation of the profession as a whole is profit, not healing or prevention, and the methodologies employed, disguised by elaborate technology, are medieval at best, evil at worst. Doctors take a "snapshot" of your body in any given moment, and then from that static picture diagnose you with a "disease" or "condition" that is inevitably only said to be treatable with toxic drugs or invasive surgery - oh - or occasionally, deadly radiation! The establishment medical profession infiltrates our psyches with a view of nature and the human body as inherently flawed and dangerous to our well-being, a sadistic, insidious message that so many of us are hypnotized by early on in life. We are taught not to believe in our body's ability to heal itself through nature, so we turn to jaded, arrogant, greedy, and often, incompetent doctors to help us fight against nature.

I am a man in my fifties. I lived many of those years confined in a damaging character structure, like all of us, and also, like all of us, I lived and still live in a world full of human-made pollutants and poisons that are often unavoidably ingested into our bodies. I have done something about the character structure problem (through some long, hard years of self-work), and as much as possible, I do something about the toxicity problem (eating as much fresh, organic, good food as possible, and regularly cleansing my body with nutritional/herbal programs), but still, I bear some of the ravages of life on Earth in the 20th Century.

But I am in touch with my body, which means I am in touch with my feelings and my intuitive "sixth sense," and I am open in my mind, no longer under the spell of the beliefs and dogma I was fed by institutional scoundrels for most of my young life. So, therefore, I trust that I can diagnose any symptom in myself, and intuit what the best natural treatment is for myself, and on the occasions that the puzzle seems complex, I can do the research and figure it out without a multi-thousand-dollar C.A.T. scan or battery of assaultive, exorbitantly expensive tests.

Hey! Even better than the Public Option, folks, is the self-empowered, self-actualized option.

Think about it.