New Blog

The Quote of the Day has been moved to:

http://brain-quotes.blogspot.com/

Go there every day!

Election Extra!

In a stunning turn of events, "the first Black President", Bill Clinton, just called DocBrain's house to campaign against the first would-be Black governor of Pennsylvania. In a recorded message, William Jefferson Clinton just asked me to support Ed Rendell against Lynn Swann. Could it be that Bill C is a sell out to "the man"?

Quote of the Day

Starting today, DocBrain will add a pithy quote a day.

"The purpose of government is to collect money and to spend it on government employees."
Jerry Pournelle 2006

Who's your daddy?

Before you buy into the concept of a one world government, better check the fine print. Remember that constitutions and laws are social contracts which obligate you and the government. Unfortunately, the government usually has more resources and power than you do, so the contract often has a degree of unequality to it, which is compensated for in the US by a system of courts and a set of limitations that we impose on the way the government gets its information about us.

Any one world government would place a new layer of laws over you. If the laws are to your liking, then OK, but how will you prevent laws that are not in your best interest from being enacted? In the current world environment, you could just go to a country that has laws most in keeping with your personal philosophy, but in a one world government that would be impossible. Science fiction writers have had a field day with the oppressive one world government for at least 100 years.

Always remember that an entity that can give you rights can also take them away. Under the US social contract, we have unalienable rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) and we give power to the government, not the other way around. All Americans should be highly vigilant for any attempt to reverse this arrow of legitimate power, even if it seems to be for a good cause. Good causes can be supported by good people exercising their freedoms. We also have a social contract with each other, which, although not as well spelled out, pretty much is the same thing: no individual has the right to take from another his or her life, liberty, property, or pursuit of happiness. You have the right to defend your rights.

When we give power to the government, we are saying "We voluntarily reduce our rights to create more uniformity or order in society". We must be very careful about what we ask our government to do and never confuse the fact that we are doing this to ourselves.

Sue-whee

When unexpectly good things happen, should you sue? When someone has done you really wrong and another person has done you a little wrong, is it appropriate to focus your lawsuit on the one who only slightly wronged you because they have deeper pockets? Is a bad result always the sign of bad intentions or lack of competence?

It is the poor attorney who cannot find a way to place the blame squarely on the shoulders of the one who his client wants to sue. Lawsuits against health care providers stopping to help at an accident scene have pretty much eliminated this humanitarian act. The lack of a person either using restraint or having the appropriate genetic makeup to self-restrain has led to suits against tobacco companies and gun manufacturers. The justifications are that "everyone has the right to sue" and "they have insurance".

Recently, a young girl, pronounced dead at an accident, was subsequently found to have survived in a case of mistaken identity. So, the family is suing the coroner who misidentified the dead girl. This same family probably pays to go to sporting events where their favorite team doesn't win and they neither demand their money back nor do they sue the team. Where did the infallibility of goods and services become the law of the land?

Misrepresentation, making the same mistake repeatedly, and actual malice should be the main sticking points in a law suit. And there should be proportional harm.

It is a crazy world when an attorney says, "The drunk driver crushed your daughter's car with his truck, disfiguring her for life and nearly killing her, but don't sue him because he has no money. Sue the coroner because he has money. He made an honest mistake looking at charred and dismembered remains, but he is the one to blame for your suffering, I can prove it, and we both will make a killing on this one!"

Too much suing is piggish. And tangling with an attorney can be like fighting with a pig. You both will get dirty but the pig will like it.

The 17th amendment

http://www.nhinet.org/hoebeke.htm

Have you ever wondered why we elect both congresspeople and senators? The 17th amendment is why. This way, we get to pick each and every politician who goes to Washington to represent our interests. So, it truly is the will of the majority. What about the minority? Who represents them? In the past, it was the senators, who represented their state and their state's issues. Of those currently in office, only Robert Byrd has it right.

If the 17th amendment is so good and brings so many competent people to Washington, how come no president in recent memory has come from the senate, and almost all recent presidents have come from state government? Bush, Clinton, Reagan, and Carter, to name 4 of the last 5 presidents.

It is time to rethink the 17th amendment. Power to the states!

Mine, all mine!

Monopolies

How do you feel about monopolies? Most people feel monopolies are somehow unnatural, producing a lack of choice. The one justification for a monopoly is that in certain circumstances a monopoly can produce a better product/service for less cost to individuals/government/environment than open competition. That type of monopoly is called a natural monopoly. Patents, trademarks and copyrights are also forms of monopolies.

The argument against even a natural monopoly is that it can, over time, lose the advantage that it once had and just become a bad habit.

DocBrain believes that persistent governmental control by a single political party, often stemming initially from a natural monopoly, can, over time, become an unnatural monopoly, perpetrated by tradition and habit. One such example is the persistence of Democratic control of the city of Pittsburgh. A city with enormous physical resources, beauty, and location, Pittsburgh has been fading into the backwaters of the national scene for decades. Lately, there has been a slight resurgence, fueled mainly by developments of businesses and communities at the edges of Allegheny County, and by national economic growth (even a pig can fly in a hurricane). Telecommuting has also opened Pittsburgh to the outside world. These are factors that are not due to the entrenched local Democratic Party, but in spite of it. Pittsburgh's main asset (old people) live off the public dole (medicare, social security) and continue to vote Democratic. An 80 year monopoly on political power in Pittsburgh has taken its toll.

I did it my way...

http://www.usatoday.com/money/biztravel/2006-09-17-airport-check-in-usat_x.htm

Private citizens have the right, perhaps the obligation, to make some sort of statement about what they feel is right and wrong. But employees of a company, particularly ones that serve the public under a public license, must abide by and obey company policy and the applicable laws of the land. One could never imagine a physician, appalled by a patient possibly being a smoker, refusing to treat his patient's acute pneumonia. The duty of a person in a service industry is to the customer, not to oneself.

If you happen to support the actions of the cab drivers in this story, please respond to this post, as I would be very interested in reading the ethical justification for their position. Please do not give a religious justification unless you can explain why a religious justification in this circumstance would be ethically relevant.

Conservativism 1.0

Yesterday, DocBrain blasted the liberal stereotype. Today, the conservative stereotype comes into the crosshairs.

Conservativism is defense of the status quo: so called traditional values and the current state of legality. Unlike liberalism, which pushes for change, conservativism believes that the changes that have been made are far enough, or perhaps even too far.

Here are some hits at conservatives.

1. What a conservative opposes today is likely something a conservative will strongly defend in 50 years. The center of thought moves to the left in a free society.
2. Punishing a criminal may feel good, but doesn't really solve a problem.
3. While many of the founding fathers were Christian, the United States was established on the grounds of religious freedom and no national religion.
4. The United States was not founded by conservatives. Many were liberal, free thinker types.
5. Conservatives are linked in many people's minds to racism, segregation, ethnic and religious biases, anti-woman, anti-poor, anti-working class, and anti-gay. When a liberal sees a conservative, they think "Well, just a few years ago, you were OK with x."
6. When a conservative acts like a bureaucrat, saying "no" because "that is just the way it is", the conservative should not be surprised when he is a target of an ad hominem attack. Conservatives are often as short on logic and data to support their positions as are liberals. Their only defense is that "this is the way it has always been done."
7. Conservatives confuse morality with ethics. Where liberals often see moral relativism, something DocBrain strongly disagrees with, conservatives often see Judeo-Christian morality as the gold standard, also something DocBrain disagrees with.
8. DocBrain is as amazed at the defense of personal wealth and the attack on personal lifestyle freedom by the conservatives as he is at the attack on personal wealth and the defense of personal freedom by the liberals.
9. Conservatives often don't think outside the box.
10. Conservatives often do not walk the walk. When you deny reality, you find conflict and suffering.
11. Some solutions to problems are liberal, even by today's standards.

As the center of thought moves to the left, more people will be satisfied with the status quo. This will marginalize liberals, but should not lead conservatives to think they have the high moral ground. Just because some unfairness has not been previously addressed doesn't make it absurd.

Liberalism 1.0

As you age, you (should) acquire more knowledge of how the world really works. Living is where you take the socio-political theories you have and see how they apply in the real world. Hopefully, you modify your theories to fit reality.

To paraphrase Albert Einstein, mathematical theoretical thought that depends upon observations of the real world for its justification is capable of being wrong. And conversely, a theory that describes human existence that is not backed by valid observation is capable of being wrong.

Liberalism is just such a description of what human existence is supposed to be, but is not backed by valid observation of outcome. When this thought is totally naive, DocBrain calls is Liberalism 1.0

Here are some examples of Liberalism 1.0

1. War is not the answer.
2. From each according to his ability to each according to his need.
3. If a poor person or a minority is accosted by the police, it is police brutality and bias.
4. Women should have the right to an abortion in all circumstances.
5. A gay couple is exactly the same as a heterosexual couple.
6. Trust government as the best way to redistribute wealth and property.
7. Religion is bad; atheism is good.
8. A perpetrator of a crime is a victim.
9. There are no universal truths of right and wrong.
10. All street drugs should be legalized.
11. There is an equality among those who are not perfect.
12. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
13. Ad hominem attacks are influential in changing people's minds.
14. If something is logically correct but feels wrong, it is wrong.

If you are in your teens or twenties and believe anything on the list above, DocBrain is down with that, dog.

However, if you are over 29 and you still are believing any of the above, DocBrain advises you to do a little research into reality, 'cause you ain't no Einstein.

Universal health care

Would it not be great to have free health care? What's not to like! Free? Health? Care? So, what is the problem?

Here are some of the problems

1. FREE: Health care providers will not work for free, so it really won't be free, just redistributed costs. So, again, from those who have to those who need will be the way the money will flow. If you are in the middle class, it will be just about the same cost as it is now; if you are in a higher class, it will be more expensive than it is now.
2. HEALTH: Health is like anything else in this world...you must work for it. If you are blessed with a normal anatomy and a normal psyche, you start with an edge. If you are lucky enough not to acquire a chronic progressive disorder or be involved in a freak, debilitating accident, even more to your advantage. Yet, even if you are doubly cursed, with congenital abnormalities and acquired diseases or injuries, your health still is mainly in your own hands. You must take care of yourself. See a prior post for more information. Not even the USA government can guarantee your health.
3. CARE: Here's a quarter... Health care will be run by a national bureaucracy. Bureaucrats are in the business of keeping their jobs, not in caring. That is the problem with managed care, and they are run by companies competing for your business!

You want the truth? Can you handle it? OK, here it is from the inside.

1. Autonomy and informed consent are BS. There is no way a lay person can learn all that needs to be known to know the right thing to do. The best a lay person can do is to choose from a few options or choose to opt out. Medical science is very evolved. Think about it. After 4 years of medical school, a physician is still incompetent to treat you without supervision and on the job training. And you are going to figure out what to do with a few hours or days of thought while being emotionally distraught by the knowledge that you have something bad? This is one of the craziest ideas I have ever heard of! The answer is trust. You must have a provider that you trust. People who don't go to doctors don't go out of fear and lack of trust.
2. Get the lawyers out of health care. Except for profound misconduct, such as intentional harming of a patient, adverse outcomes generally are due to either bad luck or bad communication of information. Bad communication is a system problem that has been entrenched by tradition and sustained by legal action that makes people defend rather than correct. In the name of privacy, we limit some information distribution. Bad luck occurs when you have something that the doctor did not expect or a reaction to treatment that was unanticipated. Unless profound misconduct, this is due to the fact that health care is an evolving industry. You want to save some money? Then, let doctors decide what needs to be done. Here is an example. A patient thinks she has a brain tumor. The doctor examines the patient and is quite sure that there is no brain tumor. If the doctor does not do a MRI scan, and if there is a brain tumor, the doctor will lose in court. If the doctor does the MRI scan and it is normal, money has been wasted. Now, imagine that patient comes back one month later with the same concerns. Same thing again. This is a tiny example of how patient-legal driven health care costs drive up health care. Here is another example. An inexpensive medication has a 1% risk of a seriously bad outcome and an expensive medication has a 0.5% risk of a seriously bad outcome. What one would you want? What should the doctor do? Should whatever you choose be "free" to you?
3. Smarter systems. We have regulations concerning the use of microwaves in hospitals to make popcorn, but no regulations on the speed of delivery of antibiotics to a patient. Regulations don't help. Smart systems do. Let's get more IT into health care. Even today, it is the rare situation where a doctor can pull up the latest medical information about your problem at your bedside or at the nurses station. When asked why there was no documentation of the results of a test on a patient's chart last week, DocBrain was told that he could log on to the hospital computer system and look it up. But, if I want the patient's vital signs or the nurses impression of what is going on, I cannot find that out by logging on, only by looking at the chart. This fragmentation of information is unacceptable in the information age.

Universal health care is not the answer. It is a rope-a-dope for the outsiders, those not in the know about health care delivery and decision making. It sounds good. It diverts from the true problems: demands for unnecessary care; legal bludgeoning of health care providers; bureaucracy; lack of adequate information systems; and lack of trust in the health care system.

Money

DocBrain worked hard today. DocBrain will eventually get paid for working today. How much of what DocBrain earned today should he have to surrender to other people?

If ability to earn is taxed and need is rewarded, then need becomes an asset and ability a liability (Milton Friedman). This is the paradox of income and wealth distribution.

The argument is that wealth must be redistributed because it naturally distributes according to factors independent of need. While need is a driving force leading to seeking of wealth, some in need do not have the ability or opportunity to produce goods or services that create wealth.

The second point is that wealth is a fixed entity. You can only have guns or butter, so the old philosophy goes. If wealth were unfixed, then in theory everyone could have wealth.

The third point is that, if you have wealth and wish to give it to those who have none, can you attach strings to it? Can you purchase something from others or does the gift have to come without any strings?

DocBrain believes that all redistribution must come with some strings. Altruism is not sustainable in the real world, as it creates too much benefit for the recipient and no benefit for the donor. Enlightened self interest is the only sustainable system for societies, as it places a burden upon recipients (increasing their desire to be totally unburdened) and gives the donors something in exchange for their sacrifice. Total self interest does not allow for the ebb and flow of luck (fortune), unequal opportunity, and unequal talent. It is too ruthless and without mercy.

DocBrain believes that wealth is not fixed. Here is some evidence. The graph below is the growth in the value of the money in circulation in the USA from 1910 to 2000. This value in indexed to 1910 and represents the true value of the money in circulation in terms of 1910 dollars. It plainly shows the growth of true wealth, with 10 times the wealth in 2000 as in 1910. You can do the math yourself. The source websites are:

http://www.frbatlanta.org/invoke_brochure.cfm?objectid=83FD41E6-9AF0-11D5-898400508BB89A83&method=

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/




So, wealth can be created and must be distributed in a way that satisfies the need of civilization to encourage ability and industriousness, and yet includes provisions for limited redistribution to satisfy needs of the disabled and inopportune but only with strings attached to ensure that civilization is purchasing something of value from the recipients.

Natural Cures

DocBrain just watched the Kevin Trudeau infomercial. Using the style of modern news reporting, he skewers Pharma and the FDA. The elements of that style, for those who don't know, are to have a villain, victim and hero, allowing you, the sheeple, to identify with the victim so that you can be cured by the hero, in this case Kevin Trudeau and his "cures".

DocBrain is a big believer in alternative and complementary medicine, and a big believer in the value of prevention.

Remember that everything that happens to you is a matter of chance and that your lifestyle changes the odds of both good and bad. So, it is possible to live to be 100 years old and to do this while smoking 3 packs of cigarettes/day. What makes it chance? Intangibles and human variability. Exposure to stealth viruses, specific genetic coding of an individual, bad luck of a gamma ray hitting a specific chromosome in a specific cell at a specific time during mitosis, something distracting your attention at a specific time, or even a thought that imbeds itself into your mind. And many more things. Believe me, God is not out to get you, nor will God always protect you. You do need to take care of yourself, but also need not to obscess about it. Just do it.


So, exercise, sleep and eat properly, say your prayers and take your vitamins, avoid obvious risky things (such as tobacco, heavy alcohol use, street drugs, and obesity), have a positive attitude and a good sense of humor, and, if you do all of the above and still have problems, get additional advice from your doctor for prevention and treatment of disease, but do not stop all the other good things you are doing unless specifically told to do so by your doctor.

What about alternative medicines? Here is what you need to know.

1. The scientific standard is randomized, double blind, placebo controlled studies. This will create a result that gives the probability that a treatment will help you. There are few products which produce 100% cure rates where a placebo produces a 0% cure rate. So, it always comes down to statistics and probability of a treatment leading to benefit, harm, or doing absolutely nothing.
2. Few natural, complementary, and alternative treatments have been tested with this scientific standard. This is in part due to the large cost of doing such a study with the degree of rigor required to get a valid result. This is a perfect place for government funding. Opposing these studies are the manufacturers and purveyors of complementary products, who fear that their treatment will be exposed as an expensive placebo. They often couch their objections in terms of anecdotal medicine, the fuel of infomercials. For example, they will admit that their treatment doesn't cure everyone, but that some people have had marvelous and remarkable success. That this can also happen with placebo, spontaneously, or coincidentally and not causally, is the variable that you are not told.
3. Some treatments are innocuous; others are dangerous; others are only dangerous when combined with something else. If you plan to use complementary or alternative treatments, make sure you know the potential dangers and let your doctor know what you are taking.
4. Even a grass roots type of organization is better than nothing. www.remedyfind.com is one such web site that gives the devil its due. On that site, you will find the good, bad and ugly anecdotes for all kinds of treatments. This is truly a non-biased site that adds to the knowledge base of health care.